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
Not only are examples useful but they are essential.
For conversations between PROFESSIONALS, they are not always required.Paul
Indeed if they already know the context in their heads already. However if the context is not understandable they would naturally draw on examples. If two people are talking then context needs to be stuck up so that the discussion is on the same issue.
Discussing technique in words is utterly useless if there is no exact musical context to talk about.
In fact, I would say the situation is often the reverse in that teaching or trying to learn musical context WITHOUT technical discussion first is frequently a major problem.
I am not saying that technical discussion is useless, it needs to be supposed by context. Your sentence here does not orphan technical discussion from context but instead is saying that technical discussion is required so that the context is understood, I am not against that. I am against technical discussion without connecting it to context.
Your claim was that we ALWAYS need MUSICAL context.
I believe that very strongly. Anything you learn needs to be applied, if there is no obvious application it is useless.
Anything that aims at giving people something more than mediocrity requires long training BEFORE it can actually be applied in a musical context.Paul
I disagree. If there is no application testing and experimentation how does one know if the training is actually effective? One does not do anything with mastery just because they know it in theory, they need to test it, see the context, see the application, learn.
My point is there are universal and mechanical "truths" regarding piano playing that have nothing to do with music and do not require musical context to learn, and furthermore, musical context may hinder the learning of same.For instance. IMO, its important that pianist learn to mechanically train the fingers to play unaided by arm, wrist, hand movements. Pianists who do not understand this or train for this will tend to "roll" the hand or "dip" the wrist in lieu of playing with the fingers alone.So I utilize the follow exercise. Put all five fingers on the keys say C D E F G We're doing repeated notes one finger at a time. Starting with the thumb play the thumb softly with no other movement of the hand or other fingers.Now play 2 notes, then 3... 3 even quick repetitions.. then do the 2nd finger without moving the hand wrist arm... just the fingers barely moving and pulling the key down quickly with a very small movement to produce a piano volume sound. Learn to do this with all five fingers in say 5 repetitions each, then more... all quickly softly and evenly with no movement of hands, wrists, arms. This is vital mechanical training void of musical context. It is much harder to do this well to train the intrinsic hand muscles without "musical embellishments" than with.Doing it evenly at the same speed and volume is harder than with "effects".This is a universal skill that must be learned. And it has nothing to do with music, though it will be used to "make" music.
Your descriptions here all have context. Ok maybe "musical context" is a term being interpreted in different ways here. As soon as you play a string of particular notes this is musical context to me, just as my hanon example in reply 55. As soon as you touch the piano to create a particular discussed sound effect, this is musical context. What is more important is that one experiences the training while playing. Just internalizing what you should do will not help and does not without actually touching the piano and playing something.
but what we see on pianostreet is elaborate discussion on particular techniques which has no contextual connection, then there is the assumption that the generalized non-contextual technical discussion works for all situations where in reality what they are talking about only relates to specific situations. However they choose not to reveal the context so what little part of the technique is being discussed becomes blurred.
Personally, I give mainly only general info that can be applied in many cases. Even ajspiano mentioned somewhere that he was helped by a general statement of mine. Unfortunately, he did not say which one.If you are not the person someone is talking to, but you think what was said has become blurred for your perception, why not jump in and ASK as j_menz suggested?Paul
I don't take evidence from the internet. I teach hundreds of students every year to draw experience from. I also work in schools and see how other teachers teach. I don't make it a habit to follow freelance teachers.
But again this is not written for the responders but more for the quiet readers more so (some of which are my own students).
It was clear from the very beginning that this was only a big-head ego-tripping spree. Why do you even allow your students to come here? To boost your own reputation?
If you feel offended other professionals see technical discussion in different light that is your problem. It has nothing to do with my ego, I have a large professional musical network which has nothing to do with the internet, why do I want to impress random strangers?Only a very few of them know my user name and some are teachers themselves.
You contradict yourself, LiiW.
Besides you have exposed yourself for what you are: an unworthy member of this forum. You cannot just claim to be an expert and assume that all the others are merely amateurs.
I did not say anything about other members except that those that believe that context is lesser or on par with non-context possess a marginalized perspective. Your opinion as to who is "worthy" to be a member here is totally irrelevant, you are not a king you know.
I wouldn't want to. I'm too humble you know. People have given you reasonable arguments. Instead, as a reply (#164) to a reasonable question, you start drawing things again into a personal level of your expertise and other people's marginality. What do you want, LiiW?
No, it is you who makes a point about my expertise and other people. You say I am boosting my ego in my posts which is totally untrue and I asked why would i want to impress random people when I have a musical network in real life. If you feel threatened by that what am I supposed to do about it? Piano is my profession, I don't need to debate everyone who disagrees with me, I like just the freedom of discussion and that includes not listening to you TELLING me to respond to people, get lost! You however like to kibitz on the sidelines throwing in your disagreements and tagging everything I say in negative light. What do YOU want?
Scroll back, please.
Until YOUR Reply 164 I used a normal tone of respect.
It's you who started confusing things by emphasizing your expertise and other people's marginality.
We are not 14-year old girls here like littletune, you know,
who you can just kick in their weak spots when they are already lying on the ground.
If you start offending people, they'll give you a taste of your own medicine.
I'm going to go against most people and agree with lost... In one part...I don't think it makes sense to discuss without musical example. No, octaves in Beethoven and Liszt are not the same. They are, or should be, of very different nature. Octaves in Liszt means something else then when Beethoven writes them. The same with scales, thirds, chords, or whatever technique. Maybe for beginners, one can discuss octaves, for example, as a general thing, but once the student becomes slightly more advanced, they should start learning the difference.
Very different, actually. Say scales. Take the scales in Beethoven op 101, vs the scales in the heroic polonaise. The ones in beethoven have more "heaviness", even when playing them softly. The way to phrase also becomes very different. Therefore, yes, I use different technique for different composers, abd even different pieces by the same composer.
Well, in both cases the fingers first goes down, and then up. In Beethoven, my fingers are much more curved and the under the thumb is rather quiet, and its mire about moving the weight. In Chopin, my fingers are more straight, and not as close to keys in the under the thumb. They are both perfectly legato, and can be in same tempo, but will sound very differently. My arms and wrists will act differently as well. But again, the fingers goes up and down...
Just internalizing what you should do will not help and does not without actually touching the piano and playing something.
I'm not sure whether this ridiculous straw man argument comes out of genuine ignorance or a willful desire to misrepresent the actual viewpoint you are arguing against.
Either way, funnily enough, when the context is moving a piano key, it's applied to moving a piano key. I don't typically tell students never to play the piano again.
Just as teaching a sportsman to run faster will naturally be applied to a context in his game, learning a new quality of movement independently of piano playing cannot fail to be applied to it when you return to the instrument.
So while it's not true that anyone has been arguing for things that are not to be directly applied to piano keys .... it's actually the case that even a totally decontextualised physical movement away from a piano can improve things when you return to the piano. Even without so much as conscious intent, in many cases.
Okay, I won't sit and measure every tiny difference I do, to please a self-proclaimed expert on the internet. I know I do different things in different composers. If some people here needs scientific proof to understand it, then I won't bother. And yes, I would probably play the same scale differently, depending on who the composer is...
Not a straw man argument. No ignorance or desire to misrepresent. All of this is just your own unconstructive opinion and thus is irrelvant.We are not talking about classroom lessons but discussion of technique with context or not in words ON THE INTERNET. Oh looksy here, a straw man argument, I guess it is ok when you use them?Improve what though? You need to have some sort of context to test if it works, if you can find none and just think it helps without even knowing what you do at the piano it helps, that is utterly useless. Thus making the contextual connection to the words describing technique is essential.
You argued against use of words that are not to be put into practice at a piano. Nobody argued for such a thing.
I suggest you research the definition of a strawman.
Not putting something into a singular context does not mean that it is therefore not to be applied to the context of pianism.
The context is simply wide- not absent as you misportray. If you meant that chain of argument sincerely, you founded it upon an illogical progression.
You are simply repeating assertions as if you think that will make them true.
This is not a discussion but an extremely tragic attempt by an individual to boost his ego via trying to portray himself as an authority- not by strength of argument or by consideration and intelligent rebuttal of pertinent counterpoints. Instead you refuse to openly refuse to address inconvenient issues and repeat assertions. Whatever empty satisfaction you get from that is of no further interest to me here. Perhaps you're used to being granted authority by small fish in real life and cannot deal with not having it among fellow professionals. Alternatively, perhaps you have little in the real world and attempt to seize it online for self affirmation. Either way, a person who only asserts that they are right without giving persuasive rebuttals of what they dismiss does not command respect.
I am somebody thanks.No need.I didn't say it wasn't but it is much much more effective when context is established.I'm sorry if you cannot define specific contextual examples for the information is discussed then it is very ineffective.
Something with a wide remit has a defined context.
Apply my fifth finger exercise to your hanon example, or op 10 no. 1 or any broken chord figure. It functions in these contexts the same as in many others.
I already requested that you do so and you ignored it. In fact, you specifically refused to try it. If you can only base your claim that something is not specific on ignoring the specific example I told you to apply it to, you make it clear that you are only out to misrepresent anything that is inconvenient to keeping up your predetermined stance and have no capacity to consider alternative information- probably because you are not secure enough to risk it proving you wrong.
A secure person will try it and then give their opinion- be it positive or negative. They will not refuse it and then make arguments falsely portraying the nonsense that no example had been given.
You don't want specifics and ignore them when presented to you. You are simply out to preserve an predetermined stance- as if using underhand spin tactics will somehow make your position look strong and admirable. When a person transparently tries to protect their stance by devious means, they illustrate weakness and insecurity.
I'll finish by advising you to look up set theory- seeing as you cannot comprehend it by common sense alone.
Something that applies to balance and efficiency of energy transfer via the 5th finger is specific to ALL instances of the 5th finger. EVERY case of the fifth finger is a specific example of where my exercise can teach something about balance and alignments. Quite how any rational person can fail to see the difference between unequivocally defined specifics and a lack of them is beyond me.
Choose any example of the 5th finger playing a note. My exercise is specific to it. The fact that I will give additional case specific advice does not negate that. Look up the difference between mutual exclusivity and independent variables.
No thank you.This is where you over estimate the value of your exercises. I would feel bad for a student studying Chopin etudes if they needed hanon to improve their 45 function. I would be wondering why they bother trying the etudes if they have this weakness. So it is illogical that your exercises is useful for all levels but the basic.
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.
You prescribed hanon. Not me. What kind of absurd strawman is that? Not only was it not my argument but it was your very own. I'm done here. This ridiculous flailing and weak spin interests me in no way.
Well I have to prescribe them because you are not telling us and keeping your cards close, just flippantly saying op 10 1 blah. That is understandable. As soon as you start telling us what it is most useful for we will see it is for beginners.
Topic: Discussing Technique without any actual musical context 