Discussing Technique without any actual musical context

[lostinidlewonder]

Don't worry if you don't understand the gibberish about piano technique in words that is spewed over piano street, you do not need to understand it, it will make you a lot more stupid if you try.

A totally useless venture this general talk about technique in words, it is anti-knowledge, a black hole of useless time wastage. You want to discuss technique then give some actual musical examples or what you are saying is utterly worthless except for eating up time with uselessness.

Describing technique in words is a load of useless ranting. It is pretending to be intelligent observations with ZERO context and tries to look like they discuss piano technique in a complete manner.

I bet one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what is said is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

*See reply 55 for a comparison between a context and out of context example.

[nyiregyhazi]

Don't worry if you don't understand the gibberish about piano technique in words that is spewed over piano street, you do not need to understand it, it will make you a lot more stupid if you try.

A totally useless venture this general talk about technique in words, it is anti-knowledge, a black hole of useless time wastage. You want to discuss technique then give some actual musical examples or what you are saying is utterly worthless except for eating up time with uselessness.

Describing technique in words is a load of useless ranting. It is pretending to be intelligent observations with ZERO context and tries to look like they discuss piano technique in a complete manner.

I bet one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what is said is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

Quite. Every situation is literally unique. Isn't it silly to think that even two situations could ever have something extremely significant in common? I even heard some idiots suggest that you should always use a stool. Who's to say it's not to better to play while standing, unless a bar number has been specified?

I'd steer well clear of string teachers and vocal teachers if I were you.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quite. Every situation is literally unique. Isn't it silly to think that even two situations could ever have something extremely significant in common? I even heard some idiots suggest that you should always use a stool. Who's to say it's not to better to play while standing, unless a bar number has been specified?

I'd steer well clear of string teachers and vocal teachers if I were you.

You are the worst contributor of general talk about technique in the history of pianostreet. You even have blogs devoted to this general talk.

Discussing technique in words is utterly useless if there is no exact musical context to talk about. You do not look clever at all, just very silly.

[maitea]

...No suprise you are lost in idle wonder...

[maitea]

Most other instrumentalists, I'd even venture to say all of them, including singers, work thoroughly in the primary emission of sound and technique aside from it's context in the music. And rightly so. Violin teachers spend months teaching how to hold the violin, hold the bow, and the student might be playing air strings for weeks.. Singers work constantly in their vocalises and exercises, exploring their sound.. Also like wind instruments, they will talk about breathing for the rest of their lives, and practice long notes.. But no! Pianists know far better! We teach our children a song a week in their first playing years. Who cares about knowing which is the most efficient and ergonomic way to sit at the piano, use the hand, fingers, the body?? As long as they play the fingerings in the page, and play forte when the editor has write and f, and piano when he's written a p! If the student is playing forte with a stiff arm, locked up wrist and crammed fingers because none has explained how to use his body properly at the piano.. oh, but who cares? Let's continue being ignorant and stay safe in the cave!

My advice to anyone reading anything (about anything in general, but in this context piano technique) and not understanding what is being said, write it down and ASK to your teacher. ASK information, BE CURIOUS, WANT to KNOW. Never dismiss information, and specially not when it CHALLENGES what you "believe". Piano playing is not and act of faith. It's and art governed by physical principles, as anything in this world is. Music is in-material, but the means to produce it aren't. Never reject an argument you don't KNOW how to refute.

Lostinidlewonder, you should be embarrassed to promote ignorance.

[pts1]

I read Lost's assertions and was about to jump in with my comments, but N and Maitea have quite ably diced and sliced him.

Lost must be having a bad day and wants to argue and make outrageous statements just for the sake of making them.

But if that's not the case... Lost remains lost.

[p2u_]

You are the worst contributor [...] just very silly.

I knew by the title that you set this up as an abusive ad hominem attack against N., one of the "troublemakers" (c) on pianostreet you would like to see banned. Ad hominem as a last resort because you don't have anything to really refute his arguments.

En guard, LiiW. You've lost three battles already against me. The fourth may very well be your last one. No mercy. Get that finally into that ignorant head of yours!

You have been spoiling the atmosphere lately with nothing but accusatory posts and sheer negativity, and you lack the skills in critical reasoning to even try to defend the crap you've been throwing around recently. Merely repeating what you already said as a means of argumentation won't do this time. Enough is enough.

P.S.: If you can't make anything out of N's post, that's your personal problem. Many people benefit from them. Leave him alone and ignore his posts. Block his blog in your hosts file, whatever. Attack anyone personally here again and you're history. That's a promise...

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

...No suprise you are lost in idle wonder...

What do you mean?

Most other instrumentalists, I'd even venture to say all of them, including singers, work thoroughly in the primary emission of sound and technique aside from it's context in the music.

For example? As soon as you give me examples you will start discussing particular notes and sounds, not just something with ZERO musical context.

Violin teachers spend months teaching how to hold the violin, hold the bow, and the student might be playing air strings for weeks. Singers work constantly in their vocalises and exercises, exploring their sound.. Also like wind instruments, they will talk about breathing for the rest of their lives, and practice long notes.. But no! Pianists know far better! We teach our children a song a week in their first playing years. Who cares about knowing which is the most efficient and ergonomic way to sit at the piano, use the hand, fingers, the body?? As long as they play the fingerings in the page, and play forte when the editor has write and f, and piano when he's written a p! If the student is playing forte with a stiff arm, locked up wrist and crammed fingers because none has explained how to use his body properly at the piano.. oh, but who cares? Let's continue being ignorant and stay safe in the cave!

The technique required to play violin or singing is totally different to the piano. You absolutely CANNOT play the violin with bad technique and produce a good sound, but you can play the piano with bad technique and still produce a good sound. So trying to relate acquiring technique with the piano to other instruments is illogical since the needs are different.

Lostinidlewonder, you should be embarrassed to promote ignorance.

Embarassed? Why should I be embarrassed? I certainly have NOTHING to prove to any of you, none of you pay me a cent, none of you offer me jobs, I don't need anything from any of you, I don't even need your respect that is utterly useless to me. If that shocks you then maybe you need to go have a life outside of the internet.

I have vast experience in teaching piano and have been taught by the leading figures of the international piano scene. None of them talked about technique absent from musical context every time they speak it has context, it is not just generalized trash.

I read Lost's assertions and was about to jump in with my comments, but N and Maitea have quite ably diced and sliced him.

lol @ sliced and diced. Their words have not proven anything, more empty rambling.

Lost must be having a bad day and wants to argue and make outrageous statements just for the sake of making them.

But if that's not the case... Lost remains lost.

Outrageous hardly. If you think discussing technique with ZERO CONTEXT, WITH NO ACTUAL PIECE, WITH NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE BAR OF MUSIC TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, if you think that is intelligent and you can learn lots from it by all means keep doing it. This does not exist in the highest levels of piano education, EVERYTHING has context, EVERYTHING can be related to an actual piece. It seems on the internet people like to keep constantly jabbering on about generalistic talk and pollute the internet with their ramblings. Useless trash.

I knew by the title that you set this up as an abusive

Why don't you stop trying to make everything I write look like as an attack? Utterly boring and useless trash. My post is meant to help those who know no better and wonder why they cannot understand general technique ramblings. If those who spew forth general trash want to comment so be it, at least who they are will become easier for others to realize.

ad hominem attack against N.,

You can keep your ad hominem bs. Tagging what I say under what you think it can be classified with means absolutely nothing, it is just your opinion thinking I am attacking a person. I AM NOT. Oh but please continue with another 10 responses crying about how you think I am. Bah!

one of the "troublemakers" (c) on pianostreet you would like to see banned. Ad hominem as a last resort because you don't have anything to really refute his arguments.

You keep on going.. zzzzz

En guard, LiiW. You've lost three battles already against me. The fourth may very well be your last one. No mercy. Get that finally into that ignorant head of yours!

LOL! OMG you really need help. Battles? AHAHAHAHAHAHA x 11090340930430490340 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. This is the internet man, this is not a courtroom, wow so serious. Get a life.

You have been spoiling the atmosphere lately with nothing but accusatory posts and sheer negativity, and you lack the skills in critical reasoning to even try to defend the crap you've been throwing around recently. Merely repeating what you already said as a means of argumentation won't do this time. Enough is enough.

Q_Q some more. Why do you bother writing this in public? You are what we call a troll who thinks they are speaking for the good, but it is just a different type of troll who constantly tries to make what others say look bad and like an attack. lol. Grow up.

Attack anyone personally here again and you're history. That's a promise...

Your smear campaign is utterly false and useless. I am offering a different perspective on discussion of technique with ZERO EXACT MUSICAL EXAMPLES. If you think that is an attack on someone personally you need a doctor.

[p2u_]

@ lostinidlewonder

I haven't heard any arguments yet in support of your first post.

Here is a clip of one the greatest teachers ever: György Sebők. I used that as an example already in another thread but you didn't even bother to reply:

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 IN GENERAL, not only in this piece:

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

I expect a reply that addresses the topic.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I haven't heard any arguments yet in support of your first post.

Irrelevant.

I do not need anyone supporting me, I prefer to see those against my ideas at least we can see who they are, I can hold my own ground, no challenge.

You over value a small group of minorities banding together trying to support one another. Those against what I say of course will speak up, those who agree will often not because they do not want to be attacked by arguments from others. They have personally pmed me about this, but you wouldn't understand the value of pms.

My posts are not only for people who constantly post on here but the countless more who lurk and only read.

Here is a clip of one the greates teachers ever: György Sebők.

Under what user name is György Sebők posting under? I am interested in INTERNET discussions and the effectiveness of discussing technique SOLELY in words WITHOUT ANY MUSICAL CONTEXT AND BARS OF MUSIC TO SUPPORT IT.

I expect a reply that addresses the topic.

You will get none from me, thanks. I would like to hear from other people, you are boring to me.

[maitea]

I was replying to you, but there isn't a blinder man than the one who doesn't want to see. And this sentence is more than enough for your level or argumentation.

[p2u_]

@ lostinidlewonder

I haven't heard any arguments yet in support of your first post.

Irrelevant.

I do not need anyone supporting me, I prefer to see those against my ideas at least we can see who they are, I can hold my own ground, no challenge.

You over value a small group of minorities banding together trying to support one another. Those against what I say of course will speak up, those who agree will often not because they do not want to be attacked by arguments from others. They have personally pmed me about this, but you wouldn't understand the value of pms.

?

Is English your first language, LiiW? If it is, then what have you been smoking? Your reply does not address in any way what I wrote.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Is English your first language, LiiW? If it is, then what have you been smoking? Your reply does not address in any way what I wrote.

Paul

It addresses your complaint that you are not seeing anyone supporting my first post. I have clearly pointed out that it is an irrelevant requirement. I have pms of several people who support my ideas and not because of this thread by from many months back when I was arguing pages and pages being against trying to discuss technique in words. Many of them supported me but said they will not contribute because they do not want to engage in arguing. Not that difficult to understand. I speak 3 languages and was brought up speaking 3, so sometimes you might find how I write a little different to others but it should still be understandable.

[lostinidlewonder]

I was replying to you, but there isn't a blinder man than the one who doesn't want to see. And this sentence is more than enough for your level or argumentation.

So you where saying nothing, ok good.

[p2u_]

It addresses your complaint that you are not seeing anyone supporting my first post.

No, it doesn't. I didn't ask for people supporting you or your opinion. I was asking for proof in words (logically constructed sentences) that support your opinion. We are on an international forum where people come to actually learn something. Accusations, associations, opinions without backup, or empty statements have no value in an intelligent discussion.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

No, it doesn't. I didn't ask for people supporting you or your opinion. I was asking for proof in words (logically constructed sentences) that support your opinion. We are on an international forum where people come to actually learn something. Accusations, associations, opinions without backup, or empty statements have no value in an intelligent discussion.

Paul

I do not need to offer any proof. Open any famous book on piano teaching and what do you see? Oh my goodness they are discussing actual pieces and actual musical context. If it where full of Confucious saying, "Stroke the cat." "Fingers should hold a ball." etc etc, they would be useless books. In fact the best books all have exact examples to support their discussion on technique.

You want proof? You just need to use your own brain.

Discussion WITHOUT any Context is MUCH LESS THAN than Discussion WITH context

Logical, stands alone, needs no evidence or proof.

[p2u_]

You want proof? You just need to use your own brain.

OK. I'll try that for a change.

1) Any piece of music contains formulas, vocabulary that should be mastered before it can be applied in Works of Art. Repeated octaves, for example, are repeated octaves, whether you play them in Liszt's 6th Hungarian Rhapsody or in Beethoven's Andante Favori. The mechanics are exactly the same.
2) When you are an advanced pianist, there are not many options you have in terms of movement to be able to play the virtuoso repertoire. This requires separate work on solving mechanical problems with the instrument, otherwise you just won't be able to play the pieces up to the expected level.

Paul

[keypeg]

LiiW, I'm lost about your first post.  People are arguing, saying that piano needs technique from the beginning.  There is no way to tell whether you are against technique from the onset, or whether your OP is an oblique reference to certain types of posts and certain types of discussions.  If so, then say so, before this thread becomes total confusion.  I do believe that technique needs to be given from the very beginning and the violin and vocal tale IS apt.   But what "giving technique from the beginning" actually means is another story.

[keypeg]

I bet one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what is said is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

Depending on what you are actually talking about:

Sit at a good height.  And a good distance.  At the front half of your bench, feet on the floor.  At middle C or D.

That is the start of technique.  Does one need a passage with measure number for that?

And don't discount what I wrote as too basic, because if these things are not in place, they DO cause difficulty.

[lostinidlewonder]

OK. I'll try that for a change.

1) Any piece of music contains formulas, vocabulary that should be mastered before it can be applied in Works of Art. Repeated octaves, for example, are repeated octaves, whether you play them in Liszt's 6th Hungarian Rhapsody or in Beethoven's Andante Favori. The mechanics are exactly the same.

If you are discussing repeated octaves I will ask you, how many pieces have repeated octaves? The percentage of pieces you will come up with is very small compared to the entire world of music. If you are discussing repeated octaves it does matter what context you are talking about. Is it extremely rapid or slower? This is important to define. How often is it repeated? Also very important. All of these situations will define the technique clearly, just talking about repeated octaves and saying it is the same for everything is absolutely short sighted.

2) When you are an advanced pianist, there are not many options you have in terms of movement to be able to play the virtuoso repertoire. This requires separate work on solving mechanical problems with the instrument, otherwise you just won't be able to play the pieces up to the expected level.

But however you separate it must have context to music you have experienced, if you want to then discuss it you would naturally discuss the music you have experienced the technique. If you merely talk about the technique completely removed from musical context you are making your discussion worth a huge amount less.

LiiW, I'm lost about your first post.  People are arguing, saying that piano needs technique from the beginning.  There is no way to tell whether you are against technique from the onset, or whether your OP is an oblique reference to certain types of posts and certain types of discussions.  If so, then say so, before this thread becomes total confusion.  I do believe that technique needs to be given from the very beginning and the violin and vocal tale IS apt.   But what "giving technique from the beginning" actually means is another story.

It is very simple.
When discussing technique you need musical context, some bars of music, some piece to support your discussion. Leaving it in general terms is ineffective.

Piano is about playing with not the best technique but constantly forming your technique as time goes by. You constantly improve your technique as you learn more and more music. Simply thinking about it and discussing technique separate from musical context is quite useless, for beginners and those who are trying to learn it is totally obscure and ambiguous.

[lostinidlewonder]

Depending on what you are actually talking about:

Sit at a good height.  And a good distance.  At the front half of your bench, feet on the floor.  At middle C or D.

That is the start of technique.  Does one need a passage with measure number for that?

And don't discount what I wrote as too basic, because if these things are not in place, they DO cause difficulty.

Oh yes sure these basic ideas are fine, but they still will not help you play the piano better without application. We need context to what we are doing, if there is no context it is useless. Even all of these descriptions can be bent and changed, look at how some famous pianists sat at the piano for instance.

[p2u_]

If you merely talk about the technique completely removed from musical context you are making your discussion worth a huge amount less.

"A huge amount less" is quite a lot, I would like you to illustrate that with an example. How is moving a key in one piece different from moving that key in another piece in terms of mechanics? If you find "repeated octaves" too limited, please illustrate your point with other formulas like scales or chords.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

"A huge amount less" is quite a lot, I would like you to illustrate that with an example. How is moving a key in one piece different from moving that key in another piece in terms of mechanics? If you find "repeated octaves" too limited, please illustrate your point with other formulas like scales or chords.

Paul

Certainly. What about music which uses articulation on repeated octaves? Repeated staccato, repeated legato, repeated tenuto, repeated accents, repeated portato, etc etc etc... What context, each one requires a different approach. What is the tempo of these repeats, this also defines how you shall control the technique. Context is extremely important.

[p2u_]

Certainly. What about music which uses articulation on repeated octaves? Repeated staccato, repeated legato, repeated tenuto, repeated accents, repeated portato, etc etc etc... What context, each one requires a different approach. What is the tempo of these repeats, this also defines how you shall control the technique. Context is extremely important.

But doesn't piano pedagogy aim at freeing resources in the student so that it will also be possible for him/her to play something more difficult of the same type in the future? If this is so, then it makes sense to teach the most effective movement right away, and not something that applies to this piece only.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I feel I have highlighted the evidence as to how technique discussion with context is more important than without context .

I have defined 6 different touches and then asked to apply them to different tempos, so I am talking about a huge amount of different situations. I did not even mention phrasing or repeating with different pedal effects, different rhythmic patterns or repeating chords with context to what other notes support it which I could easy rattle off example after example. To think that all of these instances can be described in a generalizations with no context to pieces is quite silly and insulting to pianists who study for years thousands of pieces to gain understanding of technique.

Just talking about repeated octaves as a single technique and then saying to the student, ok now you know what it is about go forth and conquer every single instance of repeated octaves you find. It wont work, application of knowledge is important and that requires a lot of context (actual pieces)to understand.

We learn through context, studying pieces. I do not disregard talking about technique in words but it MUST be connected to the music you are playing, it must have context. If there is no possible connection then what is being talked about is irrelevant and useless.

[p2u_]

I feel I have highlighted the evidence as to how technique discussion with context is more important than without context .

You have highlighted your opinion. That's OK. But there are other opinions to be reckoned with.
I can assure you that internationally renowned teachers teach in the way I explained. It takes only 2 years to learn EVERYTHING about mechanics if you don't make detours. The rest is musical application in Works of Art, which is an entirely different problem.

One example of such an approach would be Wibi Soerjadi, a personal friend of mine. All his first teacher, Bob Brouwer, did was teach Wibi some simple principles of movement to apply in anything he liked. Complete freedom in choice of repertoire, can you imagine? Another internationally renowned teacher who works like this would be Jacques De Tiège from Antwerp (Belgium), who prepares (or prepared) people for the Elisabeth Competition.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

You have highlighted your opinion. That's OK.

This is not my opinion it is the truth.

But there are other opinions to be reckoned with.
I can assure you that internationally renowned teachers teach in the way I explained. It takes only 2 years to learn EVERYTHING about mechanics if you don't make detours. The rest is musical application in Works of Art, which is an entirely different problem.

But how do you know if what they are teaching you works unless you have context to test it with? When they speak they must have listened and watched you play. If they just talk to you without having observed you they might just as well give you a piece of paper with instructions and post it to you. For 2 years they simply talk to you and NEVER watch you play? I severely doubt it, what they say must have context with many learned pieces.

Discussion on pianostreet IS NOT a classroom situation, technique discussion thus becomes extremely irrelevant if not connected to context. People who ask about pieces and fingering and technique, this is INTELLIGENT discussion. Those who merely talk about random technique with no context are being very silly.

One example of such an approach would be Wibi Soerjadi, a personal friend of mine. All his first teacher, Bob Brouwer, did was teach Wibi some simple principles of movement to apply in anything he liked. Complete freedom in choice of repertoire, can you imagine? Another internationally renowned teacher who works like this would be Jacques De Tiège from Antwerp (Belgium), who prepares (or prepared) people for the Elisabeth Competition.

All the videos you post highlight a lesson environment, there is a piano, there is music, there is discussion. There is a complete circle. On the internet with just written words it is different. This is what I am interested in discussing, not lessons in person.

[p2u_]

This is not my opinion it is the truth.

Oh, OK. Just keep in mind that different people have all their own truth.

But how do you know if what they are teaching you works unless you have context to test it with?

The context as I recall was Liszt's Technical Exercises, not a very exciting piece of art to say the least.

Discussion on pianostreet IS NOT a classroom situation, technique discussion thus becomes extremely irrelevant if not connected to context. People who ask about pieces and fingering and technique, this is INTELLIGENT discussion.

How is that? How will you give a good fingering if you haven't seen the size of their hands or if you have no idea about how they move in general? In that case, we should just have a policy that forbids giving instructions of any kind because it may all turn out to be harmful.

Those who merely talk about random technique with no context are being very silly.

I'm happy and very proud that I am able to appreciate people's efforts to at least try it.

All the videos you post highlight a lesson environment, there is a piano, there is music, there is discussion. There is a complete circle. On the internet with just written words it is different. This is what I am interested in discussing, not lessons in person.

In the case of Wibi Soerjadi: this was recorded during one of his concerts (he is now an accomplished pianist already). I can ask him to explain everything personally on this board if you like. He's quite humble. He may be too busy though...

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Oh, OK. Just keep in mind that different people have all their own truth.

They sure do, my truth is mainstream at least nothing marginalized about it.

The context as I recall was Liszt's Technical Exercises, not a very exciting piece of art to say the least.

I'm happy and very proud that I am able to appreciate people's efforts to at least try it.

In the case of Wibi Soerjadi: this was recorded during one of his concerts (he is now an accomplished pianist already). I can ask him to explain everything personally on this board if you like. He's quite humble. He may be too busy though...

I would love to hear about the experience.

How is that? How will you give a good fingering if you haven't seen the size of their hands or if you have no idea about how they move in general? In that case, we should just have a policy that forbids giving instructions of any kind because it may all turn out to be harmful.

Read through countless threads about fingering on pianostreet. The discussion is very interesting and you can test out other peoples fingering ideas.

Of course we don't need to forbid any form of knowledge, I just like to give a stance that talking about technique without context is very silly and MUCH less than talking about technique with context.

[p2u_]

I just like to give a stance that talking about technique without context is very silly and MUCH less than talking about technique with context.

We may have a different view on what "technique", "mechanics" is? When I read the discussions you feel so negative about, I understand that the members are talking about "micro-managing" of movement, more or less independent of the finger that is playing. You seem to be talking about something else, right?

Paul

[ppianista]

I do not disregard talking about technique in words but it MUST be connected to the music you are playing, it must have context. If there is no possible connection then what is being talked about is irrelevant and useless.

You've got a point there.

I think, mere descriptions of how to do it will never enable you to get it done. Descriptions of  technique will be not properly understood until you have the experience how it feels to do it by yourself.

How did we, as toddlers, learn to pronounce our first words? Did anybody ever give us descriptions or prescriptions of how to move the tongue, the lips, the lungs, the larynx? Would precise descriptions of the necessary bodily actions have enabled us to pronounce one word? Certainly not.

Learning by doing comes before learning by talking about it. And this first step - the doing - can't be replaced by talking; talking can only supplement it.

[p2u_]

How did we, as toddlers, learn to pronounce our first words? Did anybody ever give us descriptions or prescriptions of how to move the tongue, the lips, the lungs, the larynx? Would precise descriptions of the necessary bodily actions have enabled us to pronounce one word? Certainly not.

Unlucky analogue because the scope is quite different. You will never be able to sing well by using the pre-programmed mechanics for speaking. While a toddler doesn't need any such instructions for speaking (he won't understand them anyway), if you go to a Belcanto vocal teacher, it's the first and the last thing they'll emphasize and that is the only way to go. First you learn how to shout/scream without hurting yourself (a very long process) and then you are allowed to very gradually apply the principles to the existing literature so that the shouting/screaming becomes cultivated. Nature doesn't help very much in such artificial activities as singing or playing the piano.

Paul

[ppianista]

@ Paul

I wonder how my young pupils (the youngest have been 5) would react if their first 5 piano lessons consisted of nothing else but my talking about how to touch the piano.
 

You're talking about advanced students at a musical school who already managed to pass the admission exam.

[p2u_]

@ Paul

I wonder how my young pupils (the youngest have been 5) would react if their first 5 piano lessons consisted of nothing else but my talking about how to touch the piano.
 

You're talking about advanced students at a musical school who already managed to pass the admission exam.

Who do you think N.'s and other people's deliberations are aimed at? Surely not at 5-year olds?

Paul

[ppianista]

Who do you think N.'s and other people's deliberations are aimed at? Surely not at 5-year olds?

So what I claimed about doing (know-how) and talking (knowing-that) remains true. Talking-about-doing always comes after and only as a supplement to the doing itself.

Btw the bodily actions that we need for simply pronouncing words are very elaborate, too. Toddlers need a year (or so) of constant training to speak their first primitive words... It doesn't come "naturally" to them.  

[keypeg]

Oh yes sure these basic ideas are fine, but they still will not help you play the piano better without application. We need context to what we are doing, if there is no context it is useless. Even all of these descriptions can be bent and changed, look at how some famous pianists sat at the piano for instance.

So you are saying that anyone saying that these things should be taught is wrong?

[p2u_]

So what I claimed about doing (know-how) and talking (knowing-that) remains true. Talking-about-doing always comes after and only as a supplement to the doing itself.

Btw the bodily actions that we need for simply pronouncing words are very elaborate, too. Toddlers need a year (or so) of constant training to speak their first primitive words... It doesn't come "naturally" to them.  

This is not about who is right or wrong. Of course you're right. The real problem with topics like this is the following: The topic starter writes a generalisation (something that is true in ALL cases) and draws a conclusion for ALL cases based on that generalisation. This itself casts doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such arguments are very easy to refute.

P.S.: About toddlers: My son is now 7. I "developed" his skills, sometimes against what is accepted as the standard. It is unbelievable how the simple action of taking off dust from objects with his fingertips developed his speaking skills! That's because the motorics for those actions are related. Of course I didn't bother explaining this to him. That would have been the beginning of the end. I just gave him enjoyable things to do that helped nature do its work.

Paul

[keypeg]

What on earth are you guys actually talking about?!!!

LiiW, could you please DEFINE it?  You seem to have been hinting about something from the beginning.  Like, I wrote that I think a teacher should guide a student on where to sit at the piano bench and that this has an effect on how we are able to play.  And you are saying that we cannot say that a teacher should give this kind of guidance, without citing a piece.

So, ok:
To play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, Measures 1 - 4, a student should be sitting at middle C, with a height and distance that is appropriate to that student.

To play Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Measure 14, a student should be sitting at middle C, with a height and distance that is appropriate to that student.

That is absurd!

It is possible to say that a teacher should guide a student in these things, without mentioning piece and measure.

So you are talking about something else.  You are probably talking about specific discussions about technique such as they have been held forth here.  If you ARE talking about that, then say so, so that the rest of us can stay out of this discussion.

[keypeg]

I wonder how my young pupils (the youngest have been 5) would react if their first 5 piano lessons consisted of nothing else but my talking about how to touch the piano.
 

So are you guys talking about talking about technique to students?  I thought this was a teacher forum, and you guys were talking about what is important for teachers to teach.

[lostinidlewonder]

So you are saying that anyone saying that these things should be taught is wrong?

Not at all. They need to be practice however while playing the piano, just talking about it and not noticing it while playing will not help you. Highlight the context to the spoken instruction, that is what teachers do all the time. If proper teaching could occur WITHOUT context then you simply could learn the piano by reading about it, it obviously does not work. Being told what to do without actually knowing how to test it out and see it in action while playing actual pieces is also just as useless.

The real problem with topics like this is the following: The topic starter writes a generalisation (something that is true in ALL cases) and draws a conclusion for ALL cases based on that generalisation. This itself casts doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such arguments are very easy to refute.

Please refute what I am saying then, no one has.

Talking about technique WITHOUT ANY MUSICAL CONTEXT is useless compared to talking about technique WITH MUSICAL CONTEXT.

[lostinidlewonder]

So are you guys talking about talking about technique to students?  I thought this was a teacher forum, and you guys were talking about what is important for teachers to teach.

I am not. I am talking about discussing technique as a whole is useless if there is no music context.

[lostinidlewonder]

LiiW, could you please DEFINE it?  You seem to have been hinting about something from the beginning.  Like, I wrote that I think a teacher should guide a student on where to sit at the piano bench and that this has an effect on how we are able to play.  And you are saying that we cannot say that a teacher should give this kind of guidance, without citing a piece.

So, ok:
To play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, Measures 1 - 4, a student should be sitting at middle C, with a height and distance that is appropriate to that student.

To play Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Measure 14, a student should be sitting at middle C, with a height and distance that is appropriate to that student.

That is absurd!

It is possible to say that a teacher should guide a student in these things, without mentioning piece and measure.

So you are talking about something else.  You are probably talking about specific discussions about technique such as they have been held forth here.  If you ARE talking about that, then say so, so that the rest of us can stay out of this discussion.

Simply everything you learn about the piano needs to be experienced while you are playing the piano. Yes you can tell the student to sit like this, put their hands like that etc, but it means nothing to them if they don't actually feel it and test it out. That is the context.

What we have on the internet is people discussing obscure ideas about technique and then going on and on about it. It ends up being a whole mess of irrelevance which has holes like cheese though it begging for contextual examples to highlight.


Your examples are simple examples of course, we would be more interested in discussing the fingering combinations of these pieces. But with beginners they can do all sorts of wrong things with their hands, a teacher observes it and corrects the most interfering problem.

I have much experience teaching beginners and notice all sorts of ineffective technique to their playing, do we simply strip everything they do away and paste in a notion of proper technique? Certainly not! An effective teacher will mold what the student already has, make subtle improvements and edge them to what is more efficient. If you change everything generally the student will not be able to cope or understand.



In a classroom situation we unavoidably have context, there is a piano, there is music there is discussion. On the internet we have a situation where there is no piano, no music but muuuuch discussion. This is the situation I am putting under the spotlight. Discussing technique simply in words without musical context can seem very fun and interesting but it is meaningless if there is no music to connect it to.

When I seriously read any of the discussion on technique in words I see what they are discussing only occurs in certain situations, certainly not a large amount of playing rests on it. Thus I wonder, why is there no context being discussed? The reason is that as soon as context is discussed what you can say becomes a lot less because it needs to talk about something in particular.

You then see how complicated it actually is to talk about technique in words, you actually have to describe tens of thousands of situations. It is silliness. By the time you read all of it you could have learned it through practical means not by reading words.

[p2u_]

Please refute what I am saying then, no one has.

Talking about technique WITHOUT ANY MUSICAL CONTEXT is useless compared to talking about technique WITH MUSICAL CONTEXT.

OK. The first thing that comes to mind is two very significant target groups:
1) the enormous army of people marked by the system as "untalented". They were conditioned to do the wrong thing and reach one speed wall after the other if you teach them technique in a traditional musical context (Pavlov: the environment triggers the conditioned reflex). They will have to learn principles of good movement without musical context to break their own conditioned behavior at the instrument.
2) the enormous army of people who ruined their playing apparatus through flawed teaching principles. They are not served by giving them music to learn principles of good movement (the same kind of conditioning will trigger the same wrong movements and the problem cannot be cured that way).
P.S.: Many of those who work with such people and even those people themselves could very well be the people visiting our forum. The ones that have everything figured out already are too busy practising to waste their time here anyway.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

You then see how complicated it actually is to talk about technique in words, you actually have to describe tens of thousands of situations.

This really does sum up the level of ignorance on display, in a very nicely succinct fashion. If a teacher describes tens of thousands of situations on an entirely individual basis (without having the ability to break it down to some ten or so basic concepts that are regularly common) that teacher is a very poor teacher of technique.

To only be able to see the fine differences without any awareness of the similarities would be astoundingly confusing to the student and would likely involve far too much prescription of useless details. You'd be trying to create musicianship through complex technical description rather than marrying means and method. When you teach a student some basics about technique in an effective way, they should only be aware of commonalities. The rest is down to their musical thinking- which will create the kind of fine details that truly are futile to attempt via language.

You may think it sounds very profound to tie in music and technique. however, if ten thousand scenarios require ten thousand separate technical descriptions rather than a few guiding concepts, you are messing around far too much with triviality- rather than encouraging the student to do a truly effective job of creating each specific means out of a musial need.

Basics need to be done consciously, advanced things need to be done internally. If you cared to distinguish between these (rather than portray generalisations about generalisations as being a universal fact), you'd see that you're failing to apply your argument about applying things to the context to any context. Your argument can only 'be applied to a specific type of case, yet you speak as if it is universal to all.

[lostinidlewonder]

This really does sum up the level of ignorance on display..... If a teacher describes tens of thousands of situations on an entirely individual basis (without having the ability to break it down to some ten or so basic concepts that are regularly common) that teacher is a very poor teacher of technique.

No ignorance at all in my comments. In fact as a teacher we are aware of the countless situations that we may come across because we can refer movement to a huge experience base of at least hundreds if not thousands of pieces. We have to be able to identify specific parts which is not mastered by a student when improving their technique. They may play predominantly fine but in certain parts of a passage they might need to pay attention. Thus discussion can be on tens of thousands if not more instances. We of course have no need to describe every single situation because the need for everyone is different. Thus when discussing technique we need context so that we know what part of the elaborate system of technique we are investigating. 

To only be able to see the fine differences without any awareness of the similarities would be astoundingly confusing to the student and would likely involve far too much prescription of useless details.

No one said we should not notice that there are similar instances, how can a teacher teach a piece they never saw before? Because you can draw from a large experience base of PIECES. Not draw from a list of technical words aimed to describe it. We draw context from music and experience, not words separated from this.

When you teach a student some basics about technique in an effective way, they should only be aware of commonalities.

Define your "commonalities" not the word definition what you believe they should be aware of. And describe how this can be done with ZERO context to actual music.

You may think it sounds very profound to tie in music and technique. however, if ten thousand scenarios require ten thousand separate technical descriptions rather than a few guiding concepts, you are messing around far too much with triviality- rather than encouraging the student to do a truly effective job of creating each specific means out of a musial need.

You misunderstand my intention which has already been addressed in previous post in this post.

Basics need to be done consciously, advanced things need to be done internally.

This is general talk trash, you need to explain yourself or it means nothing at all.

If you cared to distinguish between these (rather than portray generalisations about generalisations as being a universal fact), you'd see that you're failing to apply your argument about applying things to the context to any context.

Meaningless to my discussion.
I want to highlight that: Talking about technique WITHOUT ANY MUSICAL CONTEXT is useless compared to talking about technique WITH MUSICAL CONTEXT.

[lostinidlewonder]

OK. The first thing that comes to mind is two very significant target groups:
1) the enormous army of people marked by the system as "untalented". They were conditioned to do the wrong thing and reach one speed wall after the other if you teach them technique in a traditional musical context (Pavlov: the environment triggers the conditioned reflex). They will have to learn principles of good movement without musical context to break their own conditioned behavior at the instrument.

I am sorry but there is no relevance to my argument in this point. How is this highlighting that learning without context to an instrument/music is better than learning with context? Even if you learn with incorrect technique you have some technique to form and build upon. We do not have to do everything correct but experience improvement to our playing. I do not see any absence of context in your argument thus you are not talking about learning from discussions of technique without context.

2) the enormous army of people who ruined their playing apparatus through flawed teaching principles. They are not served by giving them music to learn principles of good movement (the same kind of conditioning will trigger the same wrong movements and the problem cannot be cured that way).
P.S.: Many of those who work with such people and even those people themselves could very well be the people visiting our forum. The ones that have everything figured out already are too busy practising to waste their time here anyway.

Paul

But they can only recognize improvement by actually putting what they read into contextual experience of pieces. They cannot improve just by thinking of a different approach, it needs to be tested. Thus you still are using context to improve. Discussion of technique without context is what I am saying is useless. These examples you are giving highlight context. Even if you learn bad technique it doesn't matter with the piano. You can improve it and make it feel better. When you feel the better way you will naturally change. Thus doing it wrong is totally fine because when you do it better it will reveal a lot to you.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not particularly interested by any of your arguments. Instead, I'll disprove them with a simple exercise.

The fourth and fifth fingers often operate poorly due to poor starter positions and poor alignment of the arm. When the fifth is felt to struggle, simply pull the thumb back (keeping the fifth finger down on its key), then draw it back in to the piano (while also going sideways a little towards the fifth) and touch beneath the keys. Finger and arm will find superb alignment. Then play the passage as normal and observe how much more ease and control of sound occurs on the note played by that finger.

Instead of dicking around trying to prescribe fine details that may create even more effort and do nothing to aid the basic energy transfer, the exercise gives a feel for how to free and align the arm in the context of a properly active finger. This is useful in general, for ANY musical context. It's actually totally specific- because it provides something that aids the fifth finger's performance in any musical situation that includes it. Anyone with a "weak" 5th will come on leaps and bounds by regularly stopping to do this.

The context here is to when you play that finger- ie virtually every piece of music ever written.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not particularly interested by any of your arguments. Instead, I'll disprove them with a simple exercise.

The fourth and fifth fingers often operate poorly due to poor starter positions and poor alignment of the arm. When the fifth is felt to struggle, simply pull the thumb back (keeping the fifth finger down on its key), then draw it back in to the piano (while also going sideways a little towards the fifth) and touch beneath the keys. Finger and arm will find superb alignment. Then play the passage as normal and observe how much more ease and control of sound occurs on the note played by that finger.

I love it, a wonderful general rubbish example with no context shining in all its glorious meaninglessness.

I would improve fourth and fifth with a contextual exercise of actual notes on a keyboard rather than something which is not even getting the fingers to play the piano at all.


What about the Hanon:

CDCD AGAG  - DEDE BABA etc   
RH 1212 5454.
LH: 5454 1212.

contrasting the strong 12 with the weaker 45 so the student has time to recover from exercising the movement. Then the teacher will give advise to improve the student depending on their needs. The context. Proper teaching.

[p2u_]

I am sorry but there is no relevance to my argument in this point. How is this highlighting that learning without context to an instrument/music is better than learning with context? Even if you learn with incorrect technique you have some technique to form and build upon. We do not have to do everything correct but experience improvement to our playing. I do not see any absence of context in your argument thus you are not talking about learning from discussions of technique without context.

Personal experience. Besides, this is basically the main approach of many retrainers. Putting real music into the equation too soon will not bring the results we hoped for.

But they can only recognize improvement by actually putting what they read into contextual experience of pieces. They cannot improve just by thinking of a different approach, it needs to be tested. Thus you still are using context to improve. Discussion of technique without context is what I am saying is useless. These examples you are giving highlight context. Even if you learn bad technique it doesn't matter with the piano. You can improve it and make it feel better. When you feel the better way you will naturally change. Thus doing it wrong is totally fine because when you do it better it will reveal a lot to you.

It is, of course, tested in special exercises for that purpose, but certainly not in a musical environment before they are ready for that.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Personal experience. Besides, this is basically the main approach of many retrainers. Putting real music into the equation too soon will not bring the results we hoped for.

It is, of course, tested in special exercises for that purpose, but certainly not in a musical environment before they are ready for that.

Paul

I'm sorry but I don't believe that none of this training is instantly referred to pieces they currently play. You could not bear but experiment, or do they tie your hands up?