Discussing Technique without any actual musical context

[ajspiano]

shtop apoistrophe abucse

You know I do it just to annoy you.. I have to let out my inner troll somewhere.

......

Actually Paul, its your generally fair and sensible forum behavior that would lead me to believe you may avoid telling someone that they come across as incompetent if its not necessary..  I also do know what rhetoric means, despite ignoring it in this case.. although perhaps my answer being anything other than 'yes' makes your question less rhetorical.

[thalbergmad]

I hope students are not wasting any time reading this pointless Battle of the Big Heads.

Thal

[keypeg]

I hope students are not wasting any time reading this pointless Battle of the Big Heads.

I am a student and also learning about teaching.  I find this thread disappointing.  It is in the teacher forum so one would think that it is teacher-to-teacher.  The title itself would hold promise, except that the title is actually a foil for disagreeing with one or two people's approaches without ever saying so directly.

I don't like titles suggesting something that's not there.  In that case I get stubborn and decide to discuss what the title actually says.  Ok - so it's about teachers discussing technique.  Is it possible for teachers to discuss technique among each other without musical context?  Of course it is.  If you say that it helps a student to play well if he doesn't have a locked wrist, that is an element of technique, and it does not need musical context.  Furthermore, if TEACHERS discuss such things among themselves, of course each teacher will know how to apply it, if they are any kind of teachers.

So how about ignoring what the topic is sneakily about, and discussing what it should be about, per the title?

[p2u_]

So how about ignoring what the topic is sneakily about, and discussing what it should be about, per the title?

I'm all for it, but I would rather see such a discussion in a NEW topic, not this one. People who come in later may still react to the dirt because they start reading from the beginning.

Paul

[hfmadopter]

I hope students are not wasting any time reading this pointless Battle of the Big Heads.

Thal

Ya, you would think it would be about time to wrap it up ! I mean 3 pages deep now, really ?

[hardy_practice]

Could you be more specific?

Not wishing to  add to the hot air, I'll decline.  I've copious works on piano playing, all full of examples.

[nyiregyhazi]

I must agree with LiiW.  There's much too much hot air and not enough hard example in this forum when it comes to technique.

Given your identity (and the quality of your single page example of op. 10 no 1 on youtube) you'll have to forgive me for being amused.

[nyiregyhazi]

Wow, what a thread.. amazing how much happens when you're away for 5 minutes (two days)

So anyway, frankly I agree with liiw.. musical context is required, always..  but in saying that, if you isolate a technical concept, such as octave playing, then you have a musical context - octaves is a musical idea, and it will always be so whether or not you are playing something that is a written piece of music or if it is just a single octave..  discussion on it can not be overly exact without a precise configuration of notes, but there should be concepts or principles in play that allow you to find the right execution no matter what configuration of actual notes you are playing.. 

Such concepts must exist because if they didn't we would not find technical challenges previously overcome (such as melody in octaves) easier in a new piece - and we would certainly not be able to improvise, technically conquering figures that we have never seen, heard or played until that instant.

I don't see why such ideas can't be discussed in written form. They are certainly more open to misinterpretation than if coupled with in-person discussion and demonstration but it hardly voids the value of the conversation. I couldn't count the number of times words alone found on this forum led to improvements in my technique by pointing me in a better direction..  Along with improvements found in books like Fink's "Mastering Piano Technique" and Fraser's "Craft of piano" - and in the case of the latter, there is much to be found in the early sections that are essentially movement principles with no real in-piece context..  rather just discussions on ideas of balance, legato note transitions, loud octaves etc. etc.

Obviously once understood they need to be consciously applied in context though.

Its strange that you started by saying you agree with liiw- as everything you proceeded to say disagrees with him. He insisted that nothing is meaningful in any way unless applied to a singular context from the outset and that no broader principles can be applied to a general type of passage or to technique in general.

We'd have all agreed if he merely stated that technique needs to be fitted to musical purposes. Its the fact he explicitly excluded all the things you speak of above that was the issue.

Funnily enough, I would agree that words are useless for technique when extreme subjectivity is used. Subjectivity and metaphor must be fitted to purpose and requires immediate supervision and tweaking to be sure it doesn't grossly mislead. In my opinion, subjective metaphor portrayed as reality will always harm many if given as one size fits all advice. Equally, it's worthless to try to convey too much specific situational detail about a singular instance. When the broader technical issues are sorted, musicality will lead to details which are too abstract and complex to convey. But this will never happen unless general issues of movement and balance are dealt with first.

[ajspiano]

Its strange that you started by saying you agree with liiw- as everything you proceeded to say disagrees with him.

Its a partial agreement (to the concept of needing a musical example), and response/debate upon the idea of what a valid example is.

My views are rarely so black and white as for me to simply outright disagree with something, and even if I do totally disagree with something - when you bluntly express that to someone so directly you immediately put them in defense mode and reduce the chances of a constructive conversation. Further, if you set you're own mind to total disagreement immediately you are more likely to be be closed to potential growth in your own understanding.

And I was doing my best to ignore the possibility that this is just a personal attack on you, though unfortunately that seems quite likely.

[ajspiano]

Funnily enough, I would agree that words are useless for technique when extreme subjectivity is used.

I agree, though I think there is a reverse of that also, in being overly objective (that's not really the right words)  ..  i mean that if the receiver is not ready to handle it, high levels of detail can create problems, just as subjective non-information can.

Which I believe paul touched on before, some of the conversations that may exist here between members of an advanced enough level can be very beneficial to them, and problematic for someone with limited experience trying to wade through points and counter points without their own basic understanding.

The pursuit of a solid understanding and explanation is a valid goal for teachers and advanced pianists certainly. Perhaps a little much for someone who's studying their first invention. Thinking and processing about how to move in relation to sound is great, its troublesome if you're already occupied just trying to read notation or developing a basic sense of navigating the notes of your piece.

[nyiregyhazi]

I agree, though I think there is a reverse of that also, in being overly objective (that's not really the right words)  ..  i mean that if the receiver is not ready to handle it, high levels of detail can create problems, just as subjective non-information can.

Sure. Objectivity is never to blame directly though, but rather lack of practicality. There need not be a choice between one or the other. Did you try the exercise I mentioned in this thread about using the thumb to create balance in the 5th (and indeed alignment of the whole arm). Objectivity works best when you refine it to the key issues and find an easy practical way of achieving them. I don't think anyone is worse off for understanding the fundamentals of balance and hand movements. I've made many discoveries of things that objective understanding of a model had not been enough to achieve, but I've never been hindered by having the model and it has contributed directly to many of the solutions that I've been finding. The problem is when an excess level of detail stems from a failure to get straight to the core issues- and instead pokes around at mere surface faults that are actually little more than symptoms of the really big issues. When you zone in on the right thing, countless problems (Eg fingers lifting uncontrollably or a stiff wrist) just disappear- without anyone saying "relax your wrist" or "stop lifting your fingers".

[nyiregyhazi]

Its a partial agreement (to the concept of needing a musical example), and response/debate upon the idea of what a valid example is.

My views are rarely so black and white as for me to simply outright disagree with something,

Sure, that's my point- not a single person was ever suggesting that musical context never comes back in. His whole argument was one of exclusionary extremism, that denied that anything technical ever relates to more than single context or that general issues can exist out of a singular context. The only thing I was excluding was his outright exclusion of valid possibilities. Setting his mind on disagreement is exactly what we saw here. The only thing I ever take a truly dismissive attitude to is fiction portrayed as fact (rather than as a subjective approach that is not strictly true, yet may help some) and the kind of small minded dogmatic thinking displayed in the initial post.

[keypeg]

nm

[p2u_]

I've copious works on piano playing, all full of examples.

So have I. The examples in such books are mostly ILLUSTRATIONS of something more general that was discussed before. Nobody denies that certain techniques can be illustrated with certain pieces. But it is almost never the other way around (a piece is discussed as the main topic and all techniques in it are explained step by step) unless you take a special workbook by Cortot that discusses how to study the technique in this or that Chopin etude. That would be too specific and it would not "sell" very well. Methodologists try to set up rules that are applicable to many pieces, emphasizing certain COMMON traits.

Paul

[maitea]

For me (and I can't emphasize enough in the "me" part, I know this won't be everyone's view, nor am I pretending to convince anyone)  there are two distinc elements, the mechanics and the technique.
In this very personal approach, I see the mechanics as the basic motoric action the "senza musica" part of playing. That can go from isolate different touches and create sound directly from the fingers touching the keys, pairing notes with the wrist, chords on the key, off the keys etc etc etc. And technique is the application of those basic movements to the music, for which they need a constant refining of adaptation, since every piece is different, the notes are different, which means that the movements I need to do are also different. But in fact, even if every single piece is different and we need to adjust all the time, the 'mechanics' used in piano literature aren't generally seen that many, and can be taught more sytematically than finding out what the next piece brings you. I feel discussing about 'mecanics" and or technique vital to my understanding and developing as a pianist and a teacher.

Not sure what I just decided to write this, but here we go! 

[p2u_]

In this very personal approach, I see the mechanics as the basic motoric action the "senza musica" part of playing. That can go from isolate different touches and create sound directly from the fingers touching the keys, pairing notes with the wrist, chords on the key, off the keys etc etc etc. And technique is the application of those basic movements to the music, for which they need a constant refining of adaptation, since every piece is different, the notes are different, which means that the movements I need to do are also different.

Thank you maitea. That is very clear for pianists at any level. I am especially happy that those words come from a professional conductor. I tried my hand at conducting too when I was younger, but I found the mechanics (timing of the hand and body gestures to communicate with the members of the orchestra/choir) VERY hard, much harder than any of the other requirements. Funny as it may sound, I had to learn that first without musical context and for quite some time before I got the feel for it to apply it in "real" situations.

Paul

[pts1]

Had LIIW not gone spinning off in a crazy direction with this thread topic, it would have been a much more useful discussion.

As it turned out, however, he started off with an indefensible position and resisted reality for three long pages now.

Its rather like saying you can't discuss ballet outside the context of Swan Lake or any other ballet.

Tell that to the ballerinas whose lives are spent working on body conditioning and mechanics in order that they can perform in Swan Lake or what have you.

It is well and good for Michelangelo to say "I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free".

But how many hundreds of thousands of chisel taps, anatomical study, sketches, years of craft experience on top of his genius did it take to arrive at this philosophical and pithy summation?

It is as simple as this, IMHO: correct mechanics lead to correct technique which leads to art.

Mechanics ---->   Technique ----->   ART


So LIIW is either having a bad week, or is lacking in mechanics and technique and is trying to talk his way to art.

And if that's not it, whatever else his position is has nothing to do with the realities of classical piano playing IMO.

[hfmadopter]

I tried my hand at conducting too when I was younger, but I found the mechanics (timing of the hand and body gestures to communicate with the members of the orchestra/choir) VERY hard, much harder than any of the other requirements. Funny as it may sound, I had to learn that first without musical context and for quite some time before I got the feel for it to apply it in "real" situations.

Paul

Interesting, now that you mention it, as a kid taking accordian and playing in the all accordian band we all had to take a turn conducting ( I know that's different than what you are speaking of)! We were first told of it as a group. Then taught one at a time how to hold the wand, count beats and well, conduct the sections of the band. It was fun and enlightening. Then we got up and actually did it in practice, not on a real live entertainment stage but on stage at rehearsal. I suppose some cut it at that music school and were selected to become conductors at some point along the way but that wasn't me ! I was about 13 then and gave up accordian around 15.

[lostinidlewonder]

I think it is fine that people find noncontextual information very useful. That doesn't phase me one bit, it is also not surprising. People work in different ways. I however want to highlight another stance that many others also do not find it very intelligent at all. There is only a MINORITY of people who constantly reply to this thread with their opinion that non-contextual discussion is on par with contextual discussion. I can literally count you all on ONE hand! But the amount of your responses? It is almost like ants trying to shout and be noisy.


People who are trying to learn on pianostreet might be confused why they do not understand generalized non-contextual descriptions and waste much time trying to understand it. I would like to give them the other side of the story, that you do not have to understand it and that is totally fine.

If those of you who defend it so vigorously get your knickers tied up over a different stance that's your problem. I do not reply to all of those who agree with me or who disagrees, yet ALL of those who are agreeing with me get questioned and picked apart by the other team. You just can't let it go by and accept there are people who think generalized non-contextual technique discussion is silliness. It really highlights the insecurity and defensiveness of these people, very telling.



It also seems that a number of you have problems remembering what context and out of context means. I am talking about discussing technique with NO context as being useless a situation we find on the internet a great deal since we are not in a classroom situation, with a Piano or the music.


On the internet we often have the situation where one can only discuss without an instrument to highlight context or music. Only words! ONLY WORDS. Please get that through your heads.

As soon as you touch an instrument and put the words into a contextual movement at the instrument you have context. However on the internet we have many descriptions how one should move their body without any relation to an actual sound production on an instrument or with any referrence as to where that movement is supposed to be used in context to musical example. They even go so far to describe how you should touch the piano describing in as much detail as possible where posting a video or pictures would show a lot more and is muuuuch less clumsy than words.


Sure there are things you can learn without a piano being infront of you, certainly! But why don't you stop for a moment and think about what they actually are? Do they constitute a huge % of piano playing? I will answer, CERTAINLY NOT. And they will 100% be useless if one cannot find context to use them in, if you have nothing to test them and acknowledge it being useful in practice then you do not complete the circle of learning, thus it fades away into nothingness.


I already pointed out
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=50174.msg546827#msg546827

that if you discussed repeated octaves for instance you need to know what kind of repeated octaves you are talking about. I rattled off many different situations. Yet there are still those who think you can discuss repeated octaves as a SINGLE technique which can be discussed and controlled in words without musical context. This is absolutely short sighted. If you generally speak about octaves it doesn't complete the picture one bit, you still will not understand them fully since the generalized description does not teach a couple of things

1) Context, highlighting many different situations the action under investigation.
2) application of knowledge, how to apply observations and FEELING them in contextual practice.

A huge hole in understanding if these are above are not satisfied.

Generalized non-contextual descriptions leave readers in the air about WHERE to apply the knowledge and HOW. It makes itself look clever speaking about generalized movements in great detail but totally miss out in completing the picture with context or application.

Speaking in generalizations also assumes that everyone reading the words will interpret the words in the same manner. This is not true. Words can be understood in several ways and when you chain together a huge amount of physical direction with words you unavoidably create a body of text that is confusing and not mathematically accurate.

[nyiregyhazi]

You're still not putting your argument about missing contexts into any  context. I suggest that you take two or three instances of repeated octaves and illustrate what conflicting advice you would give, in order to illustrate how anything that applies to one simply cannot be meaningfully applied to the others. Others can also provide their own thoughts and you can perhaps illustrate how no single piece of advice could have relevance to all three (and illustrate how any advice given on one would serve to hinder on the other examples). I'd like less generic talk criticising generic talk and more context please- given that your arguments are demanding it yet failing to offer any.

PS the context of advice about repeated octaves is of repeated octaves. You are the only one failing to provide context to arguments. Refusing to accept that a piece of advice can pertain to a wide set of circumstances does not make it devoid of context.

[lostinidlewonder]

You're still not putting your argument about missing contexts into any  context. I suggest that you take two other three instances of repeated octaves and illustrate what conflicting advice you would give, in order to illustrate how anything that applies to one simply cannot be meaningfully applied to the others. Others can also provide their own thoughts and you can perhaps illustrate how no single piece of advice could have relevance to all three. I'd like less generic talk and more context please- given that your arguments are demanding it yet failing to offer any.

Im sorry N I will not do anything you ask for because I have made my stance clear. I do not need to jump through your hoops to make my stance any more understandable. If you and your minority group don't understand, then I'd rather you remain that way, it is ok with me!

I also appreciate the private messages of support of what I am saying. There are a number of lurkers who do not wish to post on here because of how the other team attacks different opinions and tries to put question to their credentials PERSONALLY.

[nyiregyhazi]

Im sorry N I will not do anything you ask for because I have made my stance clear. I do not need to jump through your hoops to make my stance any more understandable.

I also appreciate the private messages of support of what I am saying. There are a number of lurkers who do not wish to post on here because of how the other team attacks different opinions and tries to put question to their credentials PERSONALLY.

What a pity that they are not secure enough in their opinions to join in with your one-man quest to prove that no single element in piano technique can apply to a wide range of situations. There's a difference between attacking casual exclusion of evident possibilities (without so much as an interest in consideration of views) and thoughtful reasoning against such a small minded view (that is founded directly upon examples that illustrate worth in what you have excluded, rather than a predetermined stance). Only one poster has been on the attack in this thread. The rest of us are simply bemused by casual and blinkered denial of what we have all observed to be genuinely useful.

Starting up a victim complex at this stage would be a lot more effective had you not made so many rude and casual dismissals in quite so many prior posts to various posters.

[lostinidlewonder]

What a pity that they are not secure enough in their opinions to join in with your one-man quest to prove that no single element in piano technique can apply to a wide range of situations.

You fail to understand that some people do not like to argue their stance, that doesn't mean they are insecure at all, it means they don't have the time/interest to invest in such things. That is totally ok, howver if you want to use that as a negative issue on their behalf go ahead and do so, you have a tendency to do that to those you disagree with. I find it amusing that you think this is a one man quest You surely see the world through peculiar glasses.

There's a difference between attacking casual exclusion of evident possibilities (without so much as an interest in consideration of views) and thoughtful reasoning against such a small minded view (that is founded directly upon examples that illustrate worth in what you have excluded, rather than a predetermined stance). Only one poster has been on the attack in this thread. The rest of us are simply bemused by casual and blinkered denial of what we have all observed to be genuinely useful.

I'm sorry but when you made fun of someones that highlights how below the belt you like to go to try and discredit someone.
Here is a response from you to someone who agreed with my stance:
eg:

Given your identity (and the quality of your single page example of op. 10 no 1 on youtube) you'll have to forgive me for being amused.

Starting up a victim complex at this stage would be a lot more effective had you not made so many rude and casual dismissals in quite so many prior posts to various posters.

This has nothing to do with the topic and is just another one of your deranged perspectives on what others are trying to do, if you need to respond stay on topic.

[p2u_]

I do not reply to all of those who agree with me or who disagrees, yet ALL of those who are agreeing with me get questioned and picked apart by the other team.

ALL? How many are there LiiW? I have seen one here and it was the 5th reincarnation of the notorious troll keyboardclass, hardy_practice, who can be recognized from a mile away.

Instead of repeating "it is so because I said so and because EVERYBODY (!) thinks so", give some real arguments, please, and convince us that this thread is not what everybody thinks it is. Thank you.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

ALL? How many are there LiiW? I have seen one here and it was the 5th reincarnation of the notorious troll keyboardclass, hardy_practice, who can be recognized from a mile away.

Yes ALL. Go back and read, everyone who has a hint of agreeing with me gets questioned and even those who do not want to elaborate get abused and made to look inferior.

Instead of repeating "it is so because I said so and because EVERYBODY (!) thinks so", give some real arguments, please, and convince us that this thread is not what everybody thinks it is. Thank you.

This already has been done, I do not need to jump through more hoops. There is enough already posted. Thanks.

[p2u_]

Yes ALL. Go back and read, everyone who has a hint of agreeing with me gets questioned and even those who do not want to elaborate get abused and made to look inferior.

That is not true. Opponents give solid arguments to represent their stance. It is up to those who don't agree to counter such arguments. That is the point of intelligent discussion. Nobody is attacked personally unless they're asking for it by their behavior.

This already has been done, I do not need to jump through more hoops. There is enough already posted. Thanks.

Please show me where a good argument was posted. "Yes, LiiW is right because I also have many books with examples" is not an argument. I already pointed out what the function of those examples is in such books.

Paul

[j_menz]

convince us that this thread is not what everybody thinks it is.

Like this?

[lostinidlewonder]

That is not true. Opponents give solid arguments to represent their stance. It is up to those who don't agree to counter such arguments. That is the point of intelligent discussion. Nobody is attacked personally unles they're asking for it by their behavior.

Please show me where a good argument was posted. "Yes, LiiW is right because I also have many books with examples" is not an argument. I already pointed out what the function of those examples is in such books.

Paul

Irrelevant to topic, ignored.

[p2u_]

Irrelevant to topic, ignored.

Why is that? You started a topic with an extreme generalisation that has no support. You also think you are representing the masses. Please, take your stance and give some good arguments for the benefit of all.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Why is that? You started a topic with an extreme generalisation that has no support. You also think you are representing the masses. Please, take your stance and give some good arguments for the benefit of all.

Paul

It all has already been elaborated upon, if that is not enough for you then bad luck. This thread is not meant just for you, I will not elaborate any more until I feel there is something worth elaboration upon. If you don't like that then I don't care I can't help you.

[p2u_]

It all has already been elaborated upon, if that is not enough for you then bad luck. This thread is not meant just for you, I will not elaborate any more until I feel there is something worth elaboration upon. If you don't like that then I don't care I can't help you.

People want to learn, LiiW. Why are you unwilling to participate in a NORMAL discussion?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

People want to learn, LiiW. Why are you unwilling to participate in a NORMAL discussion?

Paul

I love to discuss but I do not have to discuss constantly with the same people thanks. It ends up being a one way convo, please open PMs if you want to seriously discuss with me in person. You may notice my responses are almost exclusively between you and ny, this is boring for people.

[p2u_]

You may notice my responses are almost exclusively between you and ny, this is boring for people.

Ignore N., ignore me if you feel that we are attacking you personally. Please respond to what other professionals have to say in this topic. Keypeg, Maite, Pts1, asjpiano, and anybody I may have missed, who expected a lot of this topic, but has been very disappointed up to now.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Ignore N., ignore me if you feel that we are attacking you personally. Please respond to what other professionals have to say in this topic. Keypeg, Maite, Pts1, asjpiano, and anybody I may have missed, who expected a lot of this topic, but has been very disappointed up to now.

Paul

Maybe I respect their stance and do not need to question it? That doesn't make my stance any lesser.

[p2u_]

Maybe I respect their stance and do not need to question it? That doesn't make my stance any lesser.

Who says your stance is "lesser"?
EDIT: Maybe your target group is just different? It would be good to put the extreme generalisation in the first post into more context. That is probably what everybody is asking for.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Who says your stance is "lesser"?
EDIT: Maybe your target group is just different?

Lesser in the sense that the value of what I have written is not diminished by me choosing not to address every single response. What I post highlighted a perspective upon the difference between discussion of technique in a Contextual manner and Non-Contextual. If you disagree with it that is fine but at the same time there are many who agree. Those who disagree will have the tendency to respond that is human nature, those who agree will not as much.

I am not looking for people to agree, I'd rather just let people think for it themselves and make their own choice. I don't need feedback from people highlighting their opinion, a very small % readers actually respond on pianostreet.

It would be good to put the extreme generalisation in the first post into more context. That is probably what everybody is asking for.

It has been done.

[p2u_]

What I post highlighted a perspective upon the difference between discussion of technique in a Contextual manner and Non-Contextual.

It would be useful, though, to define the target groups of different approaches. For example:
1) You say you represent the mainstream.
2) I represent the many victims of the system you propose.

It is only natural that the approaches will be different, isn't it? Why make this a personal war, because that's what you make it when you make such generalisations as seen in the first post of this topic.

Besides, this is the Teacher's section. Many things are assumed for the category of professionals so named. Teachers want info they can work with. Other ways, maybe, to phrase one and the same idea.

The "Performance" section is mostly for professional pianists, so the subject will be approached from another angle. That's another category, another target group. It doesn't make sense to establish the same rules for different categories of professionals. I hope you can at least agree with that? The problem there is that too many people who are not qualified engage in the discussions. Besides, they have VERY big egos, which is the main reason for clashes.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

It would be useful, though, to define the target groups of different approaches. For example:
1) You say you represent the mainstream.
2) I represent the many victims of the system you propose.

No no this is making everything too complicated. I just want to discuss the obvious difference when we discuss technique in a contextual and non-contextual manner. You are trying to change my discussion to suit your needs, I am not interested.

It is only natural that the approaches will be different, isn't it?

Of course, but no serious musician I have met and I have met a whole lot of them, tell me that they learn predominantly through non-contextual technical discussion. All professors of music, some who have qualifications that stretch your entire arms length if all written out (ok maybe a bit over exaggerated! ) have discussed technique with me in terms of context. Sure there are movements which apply to many issues but the thing is it instantly is connected to some sort of context.

I believe if you do not circle in the context to technical discussion it becomes very much less worth. I am sure if there was at least some type of context to all the word salad of technique discussed on pianostreet then actually more people would start to understand and appreciate it. Unfortunately the non-contextual discussion simply remains, those seeking knowledge might think lesser of themselves if they don't understand it and waste time trying to, I like to offer them my professional advice as a piano educator that they need not worry.

I also would find it a travesty if teachers on pianostreet started teaching their students in this way, teaching without context and just word salading them in lessons.

Why make this a personal war, because that's what you make it when you make such generalisations as seen in the first post of this topic.

That is your opinion, this is not a war. My stance is presented strong, I don't toe the line or pretend. I have elaborated on my stance throughout the thread, no serious reader simply reads the opening post and leaves it there. If they do then that is their own problem not mine.

Besides, this is the Teacher's thread. Many things are assumed for the category of professionals so named. Teachers want info they can work with. Other ways, maybe, to phrase one and the same idea.

There is info they can work with here. Maybe it is not how you want it packaged but that doesn't matter, you are not the only reader.

The performance thread is mostly for professional pianists, so the subject will be approached from another angle. That's another category, another target group. It doesn't make sense to establish the same rules for different categories of professionals. I hope you can at least agree with that? The problem there is that too many people who are not qualified engage in the discussions. Besides, they have VERY big egos, which is the main reason for clashes.

Paul

You have to get out of your administrator mindset. You cannot control how a discussion is presented, if you disagree with how someone does it then you don't need to try and control them to do what you like.

Teachers discuss technique with their students often, so it would be good for them to understand the difference between non-contextual and contextual discussion.

[p2u_]

@ lostinidlewonder

You are talking about things that pertain to the STUDENTS' section of this forum. As a rule, things you object against are not discussed there in that way. Professionals (Teachers and Pianists) talk on a different level with each other. They don't need context to know what they are talking about. It's all more in abstraction.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

@ lostinidlewonder

You are talking about things that pertain to the STUDENTS' section of this forum.

No I am not.

[p2u_]

You are talking about things that pertain to the STUDENTS' section of this forum.

No I am not.

This does not much to make a point, LiiW. I have had many discussions with real professionals of all walks of life. No context is needed because much is assumed to be there already. The conversation is usually in abstractions.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

This does not much to make a point, LiiW.

It clarifies that you are trying to be deceptive and put question to my ENTIRE thread that it doesn't belong here. You troll.

I have had many discussions with real professionals of all walks of life. No context is needed because much is assumed to be there already. The conversation is usually in abstractions.

I studied under masters like Roger Woodward who ALWAYS spoke in context to the music I was learning or technical movements I have experienced. So what you say is not universal especially for this titan of the piano music industry.

[p2u_]

I studied under masters like Roger Woodward who ALWAYS spoke in context to the music I was learning or technical movements I have experienced. So what you say is not universal especially for this titan of the piano music industry.

In a Teacher-Student relationship that makes sense, yes. I am talking about Teacher-to-Teacher and Pianist-to-Pianist.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

In a Teacher-Student relationship that makes sense, yes. I am talking about Teacher-to-Teacher and Pianist-to-Pianist.

Paul

Discussion as to how one teaches belongs in a teaching section. Now stop putting a tangent to my threads.

[p2u_]

Discussion as to how one teaches belongs in a teaching section. Now stop putting a tangent to my threads.

? We are in the Teacher's section with what I hope are all professional teachers. I'm talking to you as a colleague. What's your problem?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

? We are in the Teacher's section with what I hope are all professional teachers. I'm talking to you as a colleague. What's your problem?

I have no problem, I am just deflecting your misinformation about where my thread belongs.

[p2u_]

I have no problem, I am just deflecting your misinformation about where my thread belongs.

I am not talking about where your thread belongs. I am talking about the content of the first post, which is a generalisation that does not hold for every section of this forum.

Paul

[j_menz]

If I can butt in, the argumant appears to have boiled down to one over whether, in some discussions, "context" can be both more general than a specific example (single bar of a particular piece, for example) and can also be assumed or taken as implied.

In principle, it seems to me that this is unarguably true.

In practice, some discussions try and do this where one (or more) participants are not up to the task. It is also possible, particuarly on written forums such as this, that misunderstandings may crop up so that the assumed context varies between participants leading to (often nastily expressed, unfortunately) confusion and frustration.

In my experience, discussions at the abstract level can be very rewarding, but anyone participating should at all times feel at liberty to ask for, and if asked to provide, concrete examples to elucidate their position.

[lostinidlewonder]

If I can butt in, the argumant appears to have boiled down to one over whether, in some discussions, "context" can be both more general than a specific example (single bar of a particular piece, for example) and can also be assumed or taken as implied.

In principle, it seems to me that this is unarguably true.

In practice, some discussions try and do this where one (or more) participants are not up to the task. It is also possible, particuarly on written forums such as this, that misunderstandings may crop up so that the assumed context varies between participants leading to (often nastily expressed, unfortunately) confusion and frustration.

In my experience, discussions at the abstract level can be very rewarding, but anyone participating should at all times feel at liberty to ask for, and if asked to provide, concrete examples to elucidate their position.

This is a welcome fresh air of reason.

[p2u_]

In my experience, discussions at the abstract level can be very rewarding, but anyone participating should at all times feel at liberty to ask for, and if asked to provide, concrete examples to elucidate their position.

Good thinking, j_menz. I think NOBODY in this thread will have anything against that. As a matter of fact, it has been mentioned more than once. Examples are always useful illustrations of what is talked about in general, in abstraction.

Paul