discussing and/or considering technique

[keypeg]

A topic was introduced in an unfortunate manner, since the initial reference to particular discussions by particular individuals set the tone, so that the actual topic suggested by the thread title never really managed to get discussed.    This is the topic that interests me, and I find it extremely important.

Playing an instrument obviously involves playing music as well as technique.  They intermesh. You can't have music without technique = a way of playing.  There is no point in technique if you won't be playing music.  So the two intertwine.  But I will argue against the idea that one must always precede the other, or that either cannot be explored separately at some time for whatever reason.

Here is a scenario:  A new teacher comes in.  A portion of her students all have problems with certain kinds of music, and they all do awkward things technically.  If you think to dig, you'll discover that all her problem students are short, and their difficulty is due to being seated too low.  This teacher needs to learn the overriding principal that height and distance have a huge effect on the ability to have good technique.  You do not need to explore a single piece of music to get at that principal.  In fact, it would get in the way.

Unfortunately the above scenario exists and is common, because anyone can teach, while having an incomplete background.

Another scenario comes when a student has already acquired strong bad habits, and the minute he sits down to play, the sound he wants to produce associates itself with those habits.  Or there is some particular makeup to the student.  One possible way of addressing this is to practice things away from music.  If names and "experts" need to be mentioned, Seymour Fink is one.  I would make a difference between a teacher who says "I don't teach that way." rather than "This is wrong, because I don't teach that way."  Why not be open that other possibilities exist which work for people in particular circumstances?

I am against any rigid stance on either side and also suspicious of extreme views.  If anyone has a THE way, I want to run.  When it gets academic and scientific, especially without experience, that makes me cautious.  I have argued that it depends on the makeup of the student, and where that student is at during any particular period of time.   It also depends on the individual teacher, and how that person is wired - because the whole thing is a balance.  The teacher is interacting at the same time with music, and with a given student.  What I do not want to see is some kind of "thou shalt not".

Meanwhile, an anecdote is not necessarily a "personal journey".  When I was teaching, it was drummed into me never to write in generalizations alone, but to back these up by observations.  In that way, two or more sets of heads can look at things possibly from various angles.  There may be other items being overlooked.  Or the generalization can be corroborated.  I gave some student experiences, but these also had to do with results from teaching decisions.  Meanwhile, we have these ideas of what is and is not good for a student, with no student in sight.  As a teacher, I have seen teaching theories rise and fall.  The wiser teachers took the theories with a grain of salt, and did what worked, while observing their students closely (and listening to them).

[keypeg]

It is extremely frustrating to have to go back and forth, pasting quotes, because in the middle of a discussion the thread has been locked.  I took the time to find out what the topic actually was, before responding anymore.

Lostinindlewonder responding to me:

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

In a  TEACHER forum, can teachers not discuss such concepts, so that they will know how to apply them when teaching their students?  Simplistically, what about our teacher whose short students have mysterious technical difficulties because they are sitting too low?

Secondly - a few times you guys were talking about "talking about" technique.  Who is actually considering words as being teaching?  What about action?

In fact, I helped someone privately who was not getting the right information from his/her teacher.  The person was sitting so close to the piano, that her elbows were almost behind her instead of slightly in front.  So I "wondered" what type of position she might find most comfortable for playing.  The student experimented, and discovered that sitting higher and further back made a huge difference in her playing - OVERALL.

To me, this is "discussing technique without a musical context".  But it is not chattering about things.  It leads to concrete actions.  This type of thing affects everything you play.  Agree, or disagree?

[keypeg]

Again responding:

Lostinidlewonder to me:

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.

The first thing is that this discussion is in a teacher forum.  Therefore we have teachers participating, who are then observing their students and giving them that guidance.  If any of these teachers are missing some knowledge, then they cannot give that guidance.  Therefore the teacher may say "This student of mine sucks at playing fast notes in piece X, passage Y." never realizing that the student is short, the shoulders are hunched or wrist is arched - it has nothing to do with the piece, and everything to do with missing knowledge.  It does happen, however, that this particular piece requires speed which the "sitting too low" prevents.  Yes, the student needs to work on specific things.  But the teacher needs the knowledge.

but it means nothing to them if they don't actually feel it and test it out. That is the context.

Here I think we may actually be on the same page.  In some things, however, I don't think we need an actual piece of music.  The point is to be at the piano, and doing things at it.

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. 

This is the rub, and what went wrong the first time.  The topic was purportedly about discussing technique, but it was about THIS kind of discussion of technique.  The present thread is intended to be broad, and not about that kind of discussion.

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.

I agree with you there.  I worked briefly with a teacher who believed that everything had to be perfect from the beginning, and if it wasn't, then the student was condemned with that imperfection forever.  But if you look at small children, they stumble and mispronounced words, but over time it all comes into focus.  They walk and dance, give speeches and sing.

It can happen, however, that a student gets stuck in some habit, and at those times getting at it separately from music may be effective for that student - and then it gets brought back into the music.

What bothers me is a unilateral and inflexible approach.  I have felt all along that the presentation did not represent the actual thoughts.

[keypeg]

Never mind. Lost cause.  Someone delete this thread.  It is too bad that something so important got mushed like that.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am against any rigid stance on either side and also suspicious of extreme views.  If anyone has a THE way, I want to run.  When it gets academic and scientific, especially without experience, that makes me cautious.  I have argued that it depends on the makeup of the student, and where that student is at during any particular period of time.   It also depends on the individual teacher, and how that person is wired - because the whole thing is a balance.  The teacher is interacting at the same time with music, and with a given student.  What I do not want to see is some kind of "thou shalt not".

There are many areas where it's stupid to present a one-size fits all idea- like ultra-superficial external ideals such as that as the fingers must be curled or must be straight. However, you can go too far with the "everybody's different" idea. People aren't that different- when you take it to certain core issues. There are many things that advanced skills are absolutely dependent on and which must be acquired. Sometimes there are different ways to get them, but a lot of the time using "different" approaches is simply to neglect fundamental necessities that leave students progressing to some degree, yet basically converging towards a plateau- that "their" way could never realistically transcend.

In my opinion, the thumb is one element which is criminally neglected and very few teachers do anything much at all about the issue (other than extremely indirect approaches which simply give a long-shot at allowing the student to figure out things that they are never told). Without proper activation, the hand is perpetually getting squashed and a host of unconscious muscular tighteness become a habitual means of retaining balance. It works superficially up to a point- before the student converges on a point where they cannot push their limits any further.

I've been working with a student recently who is playing Chopin's 1st Ballade and who has just started the 2nd. Even though she is quite technically advanced in many ways, I'm having to put a lot of focus into getting her thumb more active via these exercises:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/action-and-reaction-in-practise-part-i.html

They are very similar to various aspects of Alan Fraser's approach. I don't know if I've yet seen a single student who doesn't underdo the movements of the thumb (that are needed to free the hand and arm up from getting squashed into the keyboard or stiffened to resist that). Beginners and advanced students alike always need to learn how to open out and create more length in the arm. In many cases, the results of getting their thumbs engaged can be pretty startling. Obviously there are many different ways of organising the fine details of everything, but we shouldn't think that anything which is viewed as universally relevant is therefore bogus. It depends on whether it's founded upon accurate observations about fundamental requirements or upon the mere fact that the teacher was taught a certain superficial point and unthinkingly applies the same, for no good reason. When it comes to the exercise from that post of "waving" fingers while standing on the thumb, I've never found a single student who didn't have substantial room to loosen up and align their forearms by performing it. It has also proved equally successful with students who hold the arm up too stiffly and with those who start with too much weightedness. From either side, they learn how to find something closer to the midpoint- where the arm is at ease but not bearing down heavily on the thumb. Aside from virtuosi, people simply aren't accustomed to what a small but very precise and clear thumb activation can offer in terms of allowing freedom.

Also, I must say that I see where LIIW is coming from- even though he does his case no favours by presenting such a ludicrously polarised case. I don't wish this to read as any speculation about yourself, but it's common to see students who don't get quite how strong the link between technique and musicianship is. To be perfectly honest, I'd actually be very skeptical of many teachers who proclaim that they separate music and technique. The way to do this effectively must be VERY specific, if it is not to be harmful. You need to work in a way where fingers articulate cleanly and effectively BUT where the arm is also moving well and properly attached to the keys by the fingers, so as to be extremely free. If any teacher fails to convey the quality of movement just right, they really can do untold harm by separating music and technique. It's also very common to see students who are getting the aspects of technique that can lead on to musicality completely wrong- yet deluding themselves that they are learning the "technique" first and that they can add the music after. I stress that I'm not wish to imply that I hold any suspicions about you personally, but there are some students who need to be forced out of a comfort zone that is not necessarily doing them any real good. In cases where I separate musicality and technique for a student, I can only afford to do it because I have the awareness of whether the specific style of technique I am trying to ingrain really WILL be transferable to the musical execution. However, you see all kinds of appalling approaches such as bobbing the arm up and down once per note for a legato melody- as if that will supposedly produce even a jot of useful technique for that passage. A legato melody really must be learned with a seamless quality of arm motion coupled with clear finger actions that bond with the piano at the keybeds (and don't overrelax). Any dropping exercises should be applied to somewhere where they are actually suitable. Sometimes it's absolutely right to say never, based on relation of technical issue to musical necessities. In a legato melody I would never consider it anything but a gross musical hindrance to drop the whole arm down twice for a repeated note in a dotted rhythm say (rather than drift the wrist gently up while activating the finger twice for fine control)- and any student who separated technique from music by playing it that way (without caring about the lumpy result) would be missing the point if they thought they could simplistically add music after that problematic starting point.

While I disagree with the individual stance LIIW has taken, there are many more reasonable arguments from his "side" that are genuinely worthy of consideration in the big picture. It would have been a far more interested two-ended discussion, perhaps, had he not polarised the issues quite so stubbornly and uncooperatively. There are plenty of intelligent ways to illustrate his side of the story- even if it is vastly exaggerated (and plain ignorant) to say that you can never usefully separate music and technique in any way. After his stance in the other thread led everyone to take an extreme view in favour of separation, I hope the above gives a reminder of the fact that there are very real dangers, that lead some people to end up that bit too dogmatic about the connection. It's not always wrong, but there's no shortage of dangers when you do separate music and technique.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just a brief thought- by the way. Sometimes the best teachers are those who SAY they don't separate music and technique- but who get the student to step significantly back from a musically exaggerated end product, when showing them how to improve things.

It doubtless makes me an appalling hypocrite, but I'd be as skeptical as anyone of any teacher who proclaims that he likes nothing better than to start with the technique and add the music later. I know that that this is perfectly possible, but unless I'd seen the specific manner in which that teacher goes about doing it I'd always be tending to suspect that the "technique" they get the student to start out on would actually cause them problems. It's easy to see that Paul knows what he's doing, but I think there are few teachers who know how to make separations in a productive way.

I prefer "pure" technique work to be done outside of actual pieces. When you're trying to do "pure" technique with a passage that is part of a piece, even the dryest work needs to be done with some kind of awareness of what it is supposed to lead to (even if you're doing something as extreme as practising an accompaniment part staccato instead of legato). When you're building up something that is a piece of music, I prefer to think of reducing exaggeration of musical shapes- not eliminating them altogether from the technical preparations.

[pts1]

The subject of piano technique is a very difficult one to discuss or impart in any way, with or without a piano or musical context. Many, many books have been written on the subject.

And far too many are too complex, too opinionated, and nearly indecipherable.

My thought on the subject of learning basic mechanics in a non-musical or let's say "neutral musical" context (which I'll explain later) is that it is of vital importance.

IMO, the main problem with learning to play is that the would be pianist must be taught basic but vital physical and mechanical tenets.

For instance, the first and single most important "rule" is how to sit. Without this, the arms cannot hang correctly supported by the shoulders, the forearm cannot "float weightlessly" at or above the keys, you cannot have a mostly straight line from forearm, through wrist, through hand,  curving gently through finger.

And without this, you really can't understand or correctly place the hand/fingers on the key in a "natural curve" which is barely a curve at all and certainly NOT a curl -- like when the hands are held limp at ones side, arms relaxed there.

Then the student should be taught, IMO, that there are two basic muscle groups that play the piano: intrinsic muscles (those originating within the hand) and extrinsic muscles, those that originate in the arms and operate via tendons passing through the wrist.

I doubt very much students are taught to first learn to play using the intrinsic muscles.

Were it so, many of the later problems encountered in romantic literature would not exist, IMO.

Excess rolling of the hand to "play" with the thumb and fifth fingers would not occur.

Bumping up and down with the wrist and arm to play each note would not happen because they'd never start!

If students got a good grounding in genuine finger technique, the rest would be infinitely easier to acquire, i.e. introduction of the forearm and upper arm to assist the fingers.

There are really NOT that many basic movements, though there are innumerable combinations and degrees of movement.

But if you get it wrong, you can be in store for many miserable years of confusion and hardship.

In a non-musical context, I think the student should be taught how to sit, arms floating relaxed feeling, hands almost limp on the keys or slightly above, and then how to play a good stroke with each finger alone, without arm, learning to feel that "electric" brief touch (or slight hit) on the key that once it occurs sending the key to the keybed, all effort ceases and the finger "pops" back up by means of the key back weight and the natural construction of the hand/fingers.

The simple Hanon exercies are great for getting the  "feel" and embedding the habit of this.
Doing simple Hanon, or any other simple five finger exercises, is great for focusing on these important mechanics without having the more complicated and distracting task of trying to "make music".

Scales, I consider "neutral music" context, in that its best to practice them slowly -- fingers only -- in a "generally" musical way... e.g. accent on the beat, or maybe triplets, maybe cresc decresc
and so on. This could be the first "mating" of mechanics and music with very little downside.

Once the student learns how it feels to use the intrinsic muscles, he can then start to add arm when necessary to "aid" the fingers with the arm.

This is why Bach insisted on finger technique studeis and Chopin too!

And it is my opinion this is best learned OUTSIDE of musical context or minimal at the best.

Then there are the Bach Inventions, while musical, can be played with very simple musicality while focusing on the above described finger technique.

IOW, I think to introduce musical goals on a student TOO soon can easily force them into a state of technical confusion without having developed a technical basis that readies them for the increased demands of "music making".

So absolutely -- there is quite a valid place for musical context free learning/discussion of piano playing mechanics.

[maitea]

An extra consideration, whilst agreeing with the above, is that it alo depends on the learning stage, and learning process of the student!! It is not the same to work with someone who has suffered an injury and needs retraining even if he was very "advanced", to someone who comes to his first piano lesson. In the first case I believe the student needs much MUCH more focus in the 'how'. He needs to understand his own body at the piano, and relearn basically how to touch the piano. It could be weeks exploring different aspects of the mechanic with simple excercises, without involving music, before puttin a score in from. (Unless that would be too hard to take on that individual, so I'd choose fragments of different pieces, to work on those particular aspects, but it would only be excerpts. As the involved int he music can cloud the physical feeling that has to be acquired and develop). In the second scenario, I will introduce the student to piano, teaching him possibly a brief musical piece (without score btw) whilst making him aware of what his hands/body needs.

In my particular case, I've suffered plenty from very poor teaching, I've done it all. Didn't know the thumb was a finger, moved my arm up, down for everynote, or the contrary was blocked adn stiff... All because as pts1 was explaining, I didn't understand the basic finger action. (Lengthening and slightly pulling back) I only understood piano as 'up and down" of the fingers, and to my buffling now a days, I sometimes was more worried of the "up" than the down! ;O The consequences of not understanding basic principles are exponential as the years go by and the repertoire demands more.. Proof that not all teachers who advocate that they teach technique separate from music know how to do, is that I did plenty of scales, arpeggios and Hanon. Just flat wrong. Wrong posture, wrong perception of the movement required, wrong sound. (a resulting poor sound, but also an imaginary poor sound, as I didn't know any better-teacher never played).

In the ideal scenario of a pianist, sound and gesture are one. You imagine the voicing of that chord, and you have way to play it. There is a melody that needs a crescendo and you know how to produce this. Even more, you are in the stage feel like the said melody will have a subito pianismo, and at the same moment you felt it needed that, you are able to do it without even thinking to command your fingers. But there is a lot to be done in the practice room to acquire that control.. And some need to digress and dillute the components before reuninting it with the music. It just depends.

However I'm very assertive in that there are some basic 'mechanics' that need to be acquired. Playing the music per se won't bring you those necessarily, and def. not if you've been misguided and have distorted ideas on the funcitoning of the body and tone production at the piano.

[ppianista]

Once the student learns how it feels to use the intrinsic muscles, he can then start to add arm when necessary to "aid" the fingers with the arm.

I disagree. My first concern is teaching students that motions of the fingers never should be cut off from the arm. And when beginners are made to keep their arms still and focus on the finger motions only they tend to "hold fast" their arms and wrists. For beginners, it is very unusual - and unnatural - to isolate a tiny motion AND avoid unnecessary tension in the rest of the body.

You're absolutely right about the importance of the small finger motions and the "electric" touch. I'm only saying that it's not wise to BEGIN the learning process with it. You propose a method that goes bottom-up, I prefer the top-down method: begin with the whole and induce the analysis of the little elements later. Because the focus on the little things is more complicated.

On the other hand, I ask my students right from the beginning to produce fast repetitive motions, as in a sequence of 4 semiquavers and a crotchet: ta-ta-ta-ta-tam. They do this first by clapping their hands while saying words with the same rythm (in German: "Kaffetasse-Tam"). Later they have to play this "Kaffeetasse-Tam" with the wrist (knocking on the table with a fist) and the single fingers on the keyboard. But I always take care that they do so in a relaxed way and stop them when they are getting too tight. - These exercises enhance the quick and small motions we need IN ALL JOINTS involved in the playing (not only the fingers).

[pianoman53]

Obviously, if a student sit too high or too low, it needs no musical context, as in a piece. However, to explain "Your elbow should be in parallel with this/that, your knees should feel this/that, your muscles will respond in this way, and this muscle will prevent this from happening" (as it is explained in many topics) is for me, and obviously LiiW, something way too academic and too scientific.

This "technique", though, is not a very good example, since everything new always feels crap in the beginning, especially for beginners.

Our point was, no matter how unclear it was, that none of us seemed to like the fact that music was such a small part of the discussion. For me, and maybe for him too, technique is not how you move your fingers or how fast you can play, but how well you can achieve the sound you hear in your head. That's the problem with these discussions! They seem to ignore the fact that technique is completely useless if you don't know what you want to hear.

I know that one needs to learn how to play a certain thing before that kind of thinking can be applied in a masterful way, but the other way around is at least as important - why wasting time on learning how your body works, if you have no idea about sound image?

[keypeg]

My position is that a teacher should have full awareness of all possibilities, and will then choose the right approach and solution for the student in front of him/her.  The teacher forum is the place where teachers can gather ideas or new knowledge.  What we read here is not a "how to" of playing.  If the teachers have a fair background in piano and music, then they would also know in what kind of music the music applies - or they might want to see it fleshed out.

Ok, I'm reading several posts, one of which talks about independent finger motion because the teachers sees too much of the opposite, and another which talks about the opposite.  Does this not depend on where the student is at?  Additionally, would a good teacher not make sure that a balance of both is there for the student?

The independent finger motion approach would not be good for me right now, for example, because that is all that I did have.  Someone who is the opposite may need just that.  Anyway, that is why I work with a teacher who advises me based on observation.  That's how I see globally - that ideally a teacher has a repertory of knowledge, and knows which to apply in which case.

I do agree that excessive detail is not a good idea.  And these are definitely not things for an inexperienced person to try in a "how-to" way because anything can be misunderstood, or be inappropriate for that person.

[nyiregyhazi]

My position is that a teacher should have full awareness of all possibilities, and will then choose the right approach and solution for the student in front of him/her.  The teacher forum is the place where teachers can gather ideas or new knowledge.  What we read here is not a "how to" of playing.  If the teachers have a fair background in piano and music, then they would also know in what kind of music the music applies - or they might want to see it fleshed out.

Ok, I'm reading several posts, one of which talks about independent finger motion because the teachers sees too much of the opposite, and another which talks about the opposite.  Does this not depend on where the student is at?  Additionally, would a good teacher not make sure that a balance of both is there for the student?

The independent finger motion approach would not be good for me right now, for example, because that is all that I did have.  Someone who is the opposite may need just that.  Anyway, that is why I work with a teacher who advises me based on observation.  That's how I see globally - that ideally a teacher has a repertory of knowledge, and knows which to apply in which case.

I do agree that excessive detail is not a good idea.  And these are definitely not things for an inexperienced person to try in a "how-to" way because anything can be misunderstood, or be inappropriate for that person.

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of independent fingers. Students who supposedly aimed too much at finger independence usually have too little. Their problem is a stiff arm and lack of understanding of how to free it with ongoing sideways motion. you can never have too much finger independence and there's no stage short of virtuoso level where this should be anything less than part of the picture. If a student is not tearing through scales at lightning speed, they have yet to learn enough independent movement.

The big problem for me is that moving away from this almost always involves passive fingers and arm bobbing. This creates only superficial progress that leads towards a plateau. Only by learning to make genuine finger movement (in tandem with understanding of how to free the arm, rather than lock it) can students go forwards in the long run. When that is put aside, there's no hope of agility evolving. If an arm movement serves to replace fingers moving keys, it's not the style of movement that you can build technique on. Although you can learn freedoms by using constant gravity drops say, all the same freedoms can be acquired by correctly associating a slow arm drift to finger motions. This way you get what you actually need- not superficial freedoms that are lost the instant you have to play a fast scale.

[keypeg]

My point is that such decisions are made between a teacher and student, with the teacher observing and guiding that student based on those observations.  There is no question of what I "understand" about finger independence, because that is not what I am writing about.

The whole point is for students NOT to take this forum as a "how-to" book, but for teachers who do have some background to glean new ideas from each other, so that THEY can do the teaching.  I am making on attempt to "understand" any technique being presented here.  I am making the point, however, that such attempts to understand can lead to major error of interpretation.

[nyiregyhazi]

I disagree. My first concern is teaching students that motions of the fingers never should be cut off from the arm. And when beginners are made to keep their arms still and focus on the finger motions only they tend to "hold fast" their arms and wrists. For beginners, it is very unusual - and unnatural - to isolate a tiny motion AND avoid unnecessary tension in the rest of the body.

You're absolutely right about the importance of the small finger motions and the "electric" touch. I'm only saying that it's not wise to BEGIN the learning process with it. You propose a method that goes bottom-up, I prefer the top-down method: begin with the whole and induce the analysis of the little elements later. Because the focus on the little things is more complicated.

On the other hand, I ask my students right from the beginning to produce fast repetitive motions, as in a sequence of 4 semiquavers and a crotchet: ta-ta-ta-ta-tam. They do this first by clapping their hands while saying words with the same rythm (in German: "Kaffetasse-Tam"). Later they have to play this "Kaffeetasse-Tam" with the wrist (knocking on the table with a fist) and the single fingers on the keyboard. But I always take care that they do so in a relaxed way and stop them when they are getting too tight. - These exercises enhance the quick and small motions we need IN ALL JOINTS involved in the playing (not only the fingers).

? You want four quick reversals of the whole arm for four simple notes? Are you serious? Why not teach them to start with a low wrist and slowly drift it up through the four notes? To teach children that the secret to piano playing is to perform the equivalent of banging the whole arm against a table once per note is something that I find a horrific idea. I wouldn't even consider this kind of quality until they have learned to free the arm and move their fingers. not until prokofiev is it time to start punching notes out from the arm, rather than unifying them into longer gestures.

[nyiregyhazi]

My point is that such decisions are made between a teacher and student, with the teacher observing and guiding that student based on those observations.  There is no question of what I "understand" about finger independence, because that is not what I am writing about.

The whole point is for students NOT to take this forum as a "how-to" book, but for teachers who do have some background to glean new ideas from each other, so that THEY can do the teaching.  I am making on attempt to "understand" any technique being presented here.  I am making the point, however, that such attempts to understand can lead to major error of interpretation.

that's fine if they have the right teacher. But if a student isn't tearing through fast scales, yet their teacher isn't actively developing finger movements (but instead encouraging the arm to compensate for lack of them) the teacher is guiding them to a plateau.

Differences are usually superficial- even if one student seems too reliant on fingers. Ultimately, it's the same blend of fingers moving keys but arms drifting freely horizontally that technique hinges upon. If you don't move the arm well, you can't develop true finger independence anyway-so it's never a case of having too much (and is more accurately viewed as to little- seeing as the fingers can't move independently of actions that stiffen the arm). While fine details will be adapted to each case, only virtuoso no longer need to develop independent finger motion.

[keypeg]

that's fine if they have the right teacher.

And hopefully sites like this one will help form these right teachers.

[nyiregyhazi]

And hopefully sites like this one will help form these right teachers.

absolutely. That's why I stress that it's a relatively small issue when it comes to where the student is starting from. I use to deal with stiff arms in a superficial way- that could frankly have distracted some students from the finger actions that they really needed, in order to achieve meaningful freedoms. these days, I can show students how to achieve meaningful and sustainable freedoms- by ensuring that any momentary work on freeing the arm is immediately put into back into the necessary context of fingers actively moving the keys. In my opinion, any teacher who spends more than a few weeks making it all about the arm is creating a vicious circle, rather than getting to the heart of true technique. work on freeing the arm is meaningless unless rapidly applied to development of an an active hand as the source of key movement. Go too far and you've programed the student into the very problems that will force the arm to keep locking back up (except in a comfort zone of slow and easy pieces). Sometimes what seems to be adapting to a student's need is worse than having a basic formula to work towards.

Obviously adaptation is vital, but there's also a basic blueprint of what is objectively necessary to develop (whether developed directly or by subjective means).

[keypeg]

Obviously, if a student sit too high or too low, it needs no musical context, as in a piece. However, to explain "Your elbow should be in parallel with this/that, your knees should feel this/that, your muscles will respond in this way, and this muscle will prevent this from happening" (as it is explained in many topics) is for me, and obviously LiiW, something way too academic and too scientific.

In a lesson situation I would agree.  In a discussion among teachers, however, I can see some teacher begin to think about what he or she has taken for granted, and start exploring it.  Maybe the next student who has a problem, she then has more to pull out of her grab bag of solutions.  Of course the teachers would also respond to what they find useful, and ignore the rest.  I think the danger comes when students try out what seem to be "formulas".  Btw, I can relate to the "academic/scientific" to one of my professional fields.

This "technique", though, is not a very good example, since everything new always feels crap in the beginning, especially for beginners.

In fact, that presents a quandary for students.    What you are given, especially if you had a habit which was poor but did work in some fashion, a new way of doing things, for a while you will play worse.  Eventually it will be better.  But you might also be given garbage which destroys good things you have, and it isn't always easy to tell which is which, and whom to trust.

Our point was, no matter how unclear it was, that none of us seemed to like the fact that music was such a small part of the discussion. For me, and maybe for him too, technique is not how you move your fingers or how fast you can play, but how well you can achieve the sound you hear in your head. That's the problem with these discussions! They seem to ignore the fact that technique is completely useless if you don't know what you want to hear.

Perhaps we can broaden this to "sound".  You don't necessarily need to have a given piece of music if you talk about sound.  Technique consists of physical interaction with the instrument, respecting the nature of the instrument and the nature of the body, for the purpose of producing sound.

I know that one needs to learn how to play a certain thing before that kind of thinking can be applied in a masterful way, but the other way around is at least as important - why wasting time on learning how your body works, if you have no idea about sound image?

A friend recently passed on a well-worn old hard cover book by Matthay.  He wrote something in there which struck me as true.  Namely that a lot of what we do is beyond awareness of specific muscles and such, and in fact you may be doing the right thing internally but not look quite right, or doing the wrong thing internally but on the surface the imitation is perfect.  The interaction between teacher and student is subtle within that sphere.


[/quote]

[pts1]

Though I'm not a teacher as I've mentioned before, I have worked with adults who were beginners for brief stretches who wanted to learn a little about piano playing.

I would start with the simplest of things, like identifying the keys: say, C D E F G, and then giving a brief explanation of how to sit, hold the arm, hand, etc., and then without further instruction "see" how they could play C D E F G with fingers 1 2 3 4 5

Invariably with the thumb, the hand rolled to the left and wrist dipped, then fingers 2 - 4 a kind of jogging motion with the wrist while the individual fingers tried to find firmness or shape with which to play the key, and finally the 5th finger which did another "rolling to the right" along with an arm dip combined with a little bit of finger movement.

Just this was supremely hard for my "studenst", and introducing the concept of "musicality" would only have been alien and overwhelming.

Since these were just little short term "teachings" with curious friends who were considering taking up the piano and wanted a bit of an introduction, I didn't really teach anyone for any length of time.

However, it was clear to me that set off on their own having no idea as to how to proceed, they'd likely never figure out the correct mechanics and would never get beyond playing simple popular music.

And that's fine, if that's what they wanted.

But as in any serious undertaking that requires the expert use of the body at high athletic levels -- and make no mistake, pianists ARE small muscle athletes -- it cannot be gone about in any old way, and time mastering the basic mechanics and time maintaining the basic mechanics, is a must with no shortcut,  IMHO.

I certainly don't see learning to use the fingers as a "top down" method.

Fingers are the primary units of touch -- first, last and always -- where piano playing is concerned, and IMHO everything else is subordinate to their proper use.

As a talented child, teachers wanted to "put me out there" and rushed me into "making music", rushed me into "sound images" and I had to figure out the mechanics for myself, and if I didn't get it right, it was because I was lazy!

So I have been through the "music making" school of technique and mechanics, and it doesn't work.

Music is the GOAL, IMHO, and the tools must be in place to reach it.

[pianoman53]

yeah, okay. So it didn't work for you. I never said, or at least didn't mean to, that technique shouldn't be practiced. What I meant was to do it with some sort of musicality. How would you get any better if they explained what your body looks like from the inside? I Never said that musical examples Has to be Beethoven sonatas or Bach. It can just as well be Czerny or even Hanon. As long as it doesn't become only about technique (in most cases, obviously there are exceptions where technique has to be done out of anything else), but also about a context.

I was raised in doing technical exercises every lesson. Obviously I learned how to do it all, but I could never figure out where, by myself. It took me until very recently until I could really make a work up to a good standard by myself. That was because my new teacher, who didn't use the time in explaining technique as a part of nothing. I know that you can't go to a child and say "Think of the sound before you play it", but I don't believe in spending years of explaining how the wrist works, before s/he is even introduced to sound.

[ppianista]

? You want four quick reversals of the whole arm for four simple notes? Are you serious? Why not teach them to start with a low wrist and slowly drift it up through the four notes?

You're a hell of a master of wilful misunderstanding, that's for sure.
 

To teach children that the secret to piano playing is to perform the equivalent of banging the whole arm against a table once per note is something that I find a horrific idea.

Agreed.

But is that what I proposed? Where exactly?

[keypeg]

Because of my own journey, I ended up being exposed to teaching philosophies, sometimes by teachers working with me on a shorter basis.  This was not always on piano, but that should not matter.  One thing I ran into was this:

The teacher had run into problems somewhere along the way.  Maybe technique was taught with very little on how to make pieces sound musical.  Maybe good sounding music was emphasized, with little on technique.  Maybe technique was taught as ultra relaxation and the person had to try to get out of mushiness.  Maybe the person was given such a stiff way of playing, that he had to find his way into relaxation.   The list could go on.  Whatever the teacher encountered, he would want to make sure that the opposite would happen.  Usually he found a solution for that particular problem, and wanted to make sure all students would have that solution.  Where it became harmful was if the teacher lost perspective of the whole.  You have the student in front of you who has his own makeup, and if you go by your experience, pushing what you yourself had missing or too much of, it might not suit the student in front of you.  Having run into some of this, when any teacher emphasizes one single thing in this manner, I become cautious as a student.  For the same reason, if two teachers in a discussion have opposing views, I often see that both of them are right - or rather, that the combination of both their views probably presents a better picture.

[keypeg]

 I know that you can't go to a child and say "Think of the sound before you play it", but I don't believe in spending years of explaining how the wrist works, before s/he is even introduced to sound.

But why words?  Why explaining (in words) what to do with the wrist, or (in words) "think of the sound"?   Actually, I don't quite understand not being introduced to sound.  You cannot play on the piano without producing sound, and you cannot demonstrate anything without producing sound.  If a student plays for a teacher, does the student not get feedback on the sound?  Is it only on "that is the wrong note"?  I'm not being rhetorical.

I do like Lostinidlewonder's idea of starting with imperfection, and gradually tweaking the student's technique.  To be able to do this, the teacher has to have a deep understanding of how technique works, how different temperaments function in different students, observe how the students use their bodies etc.  Then you draw on that knowledge as you observe and guide.

Technique, to my mind, includes sound.

[pianoman53]

I know, I'm sorry that I made it sound like that.
Obviously I don't base this only my own experience. I'm also very much aware of that students sometimes need the "this is how your body works"-talk. Also, if you come to a student with a bag full of bad habits, it's maybe even more important to focus on the technical part. With all new students, I do technical exercises the fist lesson, without any real musical thought, just to see that, say, they don't stiff their arms or wrist. The danger, for me, is when one gets stuck in this pattern for too long. Many students knows, for example, how to play octaves - in the technical sense - but once they find octaves in a piece, they can't seem to figure out how to get passed the technical aspect of it. Or, they know how to play a very difficult piece in a very technical manner, but without any imagination of sound.

And that's what I see here a lot. It seems to take the discussion away from music, and into the technical aspect.

[keypeg]

duplicate post

[ppianista]

I would start with the simplest of things, like identifying the keys: say, C D E F G, and then giving a brief explanation of how to sit, hold the arm, hand, etc., and then without further instruction "see" how they could play C D E F G with fingers 1 2 3 4 5

What you, as an advanced pianist, reckon to be the "simplest of things" is very different from what a beginner reckons to be simple. The ability to analyse the motions of your body when you're playing, to hold them apart and control them separately - and, above all, stay relaxed while doing so -  is a very advanced skill. It's a manifestation of pianistic mastery. It's the goal where all the "technical" learning is headed for.

For a beginner it is very difficult to sit still and relaxed and to move just one finger in a certain way. She will most probably be very tense, because naturally we tend to tighten up bodily when we focus our mind on some tiny, unexperienced thing. Just watch children when they make their first writing efforts, how they are labouring with their whole body!

As a teacher one needs to know what is simple and what is difficult from the perspective of the pupil one is working with.

And one needs to be patient with the pupil's temporal inabilities or habits. So, e.g., I'm well aware that ONE (in general) shouldn't accompany each single note with motions of the wrist when playing legato. But if the pupil doing so had had the habit of playing with a stiff wrist and applying too much pressure whith her fingers on the key bed before, then I'm glad that she now is able to release and let her wrist swing loosely. Because this "wrong" or "bad" habit means progress. And an important one. But of course it's not my intention to fixate what is just a step in the learning process as the ideal of legato play. Not at all.

I think, this double perspective on piano technique is crucial for teaching. And, perhaps, also for discussing technique in a teacher's forum.

[keypeg]

Well, part of the purpose here, at least to my mind, is to explore things further, more than seeing rights and wrongs.  I wonder how many people end up looking at their background from new angles, for example.

.... The danger, for me, is when one gets stuck in this pattern for too long. Many students knows, for example, how to play octaves - in the technical sense - but once they find octaves in a piece, they can't seem to figure out how to get passed the technical aspect of it. Or, they know how to play a very difficult piece in a very technical manner, but without any imagination of sound.

  It sounds like when you were a student, "technique" consisted of learning things in isolation, such as playing octaves. Then when you worked on pieces, you played pieces, without your teacher giving any application to the technique that you practised separately.  Would that be it?  And this would be more or less the opposite experience of Pts1.

[keypeg]

 Just watch children when they make their first writing efforts, how they are labouring with their whole body! 

Actually, I think this is something to borrow from.  Well, one reason that small children use the large muscles is because the small muscles aren't developed much yet.  But also, it is healthy for the whole body to be involved, or put another way, it is not healthy for the entire body to be held perfectly still and only one part moving.  That is a thing we do too much of as adults.  It is much more natural for the entire body to be responding or being part of the action or feathering etc., even if it is in micro-movements.

In my own journey as a student we're actually trying to deliberately borrow from what children do.  Because they have not yet locked up their bodies.  And I also suspect that in our development into adults, maybe our small movements grow out of the large movements.  And also, when you start looking at sports, no part of the body stays uninvolved.  The golf player and the baseball player involves toe to head as the club or bat swing around.  In fact, feet and legs have a role in piano, and I don't mean for pedal alone.  You want to learn to direct everything, but not in the sense of inhibition.

[pianoman53]

Maybe you're right. I'm not experienced enough, in teaching, to be able to tell if my "way" works or not. My ideas simply comes from reading books from famous pianists, from the 20th century. Obviously I also need to learn with experience. Though, I see that it inspires the students I have more when taking something from actual music. I guess it also depends on level.

[keypeg]

As a talented child, teachers wanted to "put me out there" and rushed me into "making music", rushed me into "sound images" and I had to figure out the mechanics for myself, and if I didn't get it right, it was because I was lazy!

In a distant way, I can relate to that.  It is distant in the sense that I did not have lessons until I was way into adulthood.  I started on an instrument I had never played before.  I picked things up quickly.  I have a natural urge to be expressive so by hook and by crook, using the little bit I'd been given, I made my music as expressive as I could.  My playing probably had more flow to it than that of most beginners, and I advanced fast for a year before running into problems.  At some point it became a search for "technique".  I ran into absurdities and did weird things while trying to solve this on my own, and then I abandoned that because it was tying me into knots.  Meanwhile, students may have the wrong idea that technique must be perfect, and if they could "let go and relax" they could play with greater ease.  So thinking that was going on, I was encouraged to make music, as in your example.  It IS true that to some extent, what you feel and hear in your mind will to some degree transport your body to do roughly the right thing.  But that only goes so far, and you can also do wrong things by going that route.  In any case, I found myself in the situation of being encouraged to make music, without knowing how to go about doing that on a technical level.

At some point through a lot of twists and turns I found out what I needed.  Roughly I think I can outline them as follows:
- There are some fundamental basic things that help you move in a good way, and your playing grows out of that (or if you have fundamentally flawed things, you are inhibited). Then there are specific things to do.
- Technique involves knowing how to use your body to produce a wanted sound on an instrument.  You have to understand something about the instrument too.
- You're trying to produce music, so you have to know on some level what you want to produce.  Crescendo is an element of music.  So how do you produce crescendo physically?  Will you decide from "how soft" to "how loud" you want to go?  Will you decide that in the context of the whole piece?
- Effects such as passion, pathos, sadness, suspense, or "making the listener want to dance" also translate into such dry things as choosing to crescendo, or emphasizing a note, or slowing down significantly somewhere.  You get into elements of "theory" here - understanding how music works.  From that theory and those decisions, you are back into technique - how do I produce these things?
- How do you actually practice and develop this in music?  Before you have the technique, what you do with the music is limited, which is ok, because you are developing other skills.  But when you do start having skills, you still need to know how to learn a new piece, how to build it in stages, and things like that.

All of the above are a far cry from, "Take this home and make it musical after you know the notes."

I got a piano at the tail end of all of this.  I had played self-taught decades before and knew that whatever I had done physically back then would not serve me.  For me personally, what seems to help me, is to keep the "music" (expressiveness) that I want to produce tucked away in the back of my mind, but work fairly mechanically to get the habits into my body that I need to get.  Otherwise the feeling takes over and runs what the body wants to do, and generally those are not good things.

But as in any serious undertaking that requires the expert use of the body at high athletic levels -- and make no mistake, pianists ARE small muscle athletes -- it cannot be gone about in any old way, and time mastering the basic mechanics and time maintaining the basic mechanics, is a must with no shortcut,  IMHO.  

Here is where you see (unnecessary) arguments, however.  Because while everyone agrees that a set of things need to be learned, how to go about it will vary.  I think that there is no one right way - what ultimately matters is that at the end, all the elements will be there.  Teachers will have different approaches, and they will vary it according to the student.  You have a bunch of things interrelating, and some are almost in contradiction with each other, but still belong together.  The bottom line is that it works, that in the long run the student has what he needs, and that it works for that particular student.

[keypeg]

Maybe you're right. I'm not experienced enough, in teaching, to be able to tell if my "way" works or not. My ideas simply comes from reading books from famous pianists, from the 20th century. Obviously I also need to learn with experience. Though, I see that it inspires the students I have more when taking something from actual music. I guess it also depends on level.

I think that there is also something right to this.  It's not that music and technique are two separate things that have to be learned one after the other, but that they are intertwined.  In the beginning when there isn't much of skills, there also isn't much that a student can do with music.  Somehow the skills have to be built, and applied to the music.

When there are discussion here, I'm hoping that it will give teachers ideas, rather than it being some formula of how to work with music.

[nyiregyhazi]

You're a hell of a master of wilful misunderstanding, that's for sure.
 

Agreed.

But is that what I proposed? Where exactly?

Nothing was willful. Take responsibility for your own language. You went from tapping from the wrist once per note to moving the keys without ANY reference to any changes that you might be expecting in the quality of motion, from that that of one separate arm impulse per note. You also spoke of all muscles being involved in FAST motions straight after. If you were were expecting anyone to divine from that that you wished for the playing of the notes to be integrated into a SLOW and continuous arm motion (rather than the series of quick motions for each note, as you prescribed for the table tapping and then extolled the supposed virtues of) you might as well have been expecting mind reading.

If you'd like to clarify what you actually meant but failed to convey (or even so much as allude to by implication) , please go ahead. If a person is told that every muscle needs to move quick (and has been given an exercise that encourages the arm to tap a table once per note) they will continue to move their arm quickly and once per note unless instructed not to. While it's all very easy to correct misunderstandings in person, people will not read your mind when you give a misleading description of what you really want via words alone. If that isn't what you were hoping for, the least you need to do is actually mention it- after everything about your choice of words pointed very directly to it.

[nyiregyhazi]

And one needs to be patient with the pupil's temporal inabilities or habits. So, e.g., I'm well aware that ONE (in general) shouldn't accompany each single note with motions of the wrist when playing legato. But if the pupil doing so had had the habit of playing with a stiff wrist and applying too much pressure whith her fingers on the key bed before, then I'm glad that she now is able to release and let her wrist swing loosely.

I'm with you on that. But why encourage an inappropriate quality of movement in that passage? I'd give them generic loosening exercises on completely different notes and then come back to the passage with a newly loosened wrist and show them how to keep it while moving the arm smoothly and continuously. I wouldn't want to infect the passage with useless bobbing movements even as a temporary exercise. At the most, I'd pick occasional problem moments to get them to sag down and loosen - but I wouldn't want to them to do it once per note for the sake of it even once. It would distract tremendously from what they actually need in the passage.

[ppianista]

But why encourage an inappropriate quality of movement in that passage? (...) I wouldn't want to infect the passage with useless bobbing movements even as a temporary exercise.

The free swinging of the wrist is not altogether inappropriate and useless. The sound gets better immediately and the player is enjoying the relaxed feeling. The swinging is only wrong when it results in (wilful) overemphasizing each note or when it becomes a fixed, unnatural habit. Because this would hinder the learning process which directs to a natural flow in which the single motions become smaller and quicker and blend into each other by the time.

[nyiregyhazi]

The free swinging of the wrist is not altogether inappropriate and useless. The sound gets better immediately and the player is enjoying the relaxed feeling. The swinging is only wrong when it results in (wilful) overemphasizing each note or when it becomes a fixed, unnatural habit. Because this would hinder the learning process which directs to a natural flow in which the single motions become smaller and quicker and blend into each other by the time.

If you do it once per note it is guaranteed to run totally against what is needed for a smooth line and also to encourage the player not to connect their arm well via stable fingers- which is what creates the vicious circle of dependence. The wrist can drop sometimes, but its truly useless unless the student is learning how to integrate many notes into a single flowing arm gesture, before the next down motion. Doing it once per note is never desirable for a legato melody because it will not sound smooth or connected and it will actively distract from the quality of movement that makes such a sound possible. It's much more useful to select occasional suitable moments for a down and to do everything possible to eliminate any superfluous bobbing elsewhere- via horizontal movements and minute upward drifting of the wrist until the next down (so the fingers have to get properly involved, from a place of freedom).

[ppianista]

The wrist can drop sometimes, but its truly useless unless the student is learning how to integrate many notes into a single flowing arm gesture, before the next down motion.

Quite right. But I was not proposing the swinging wrist as THE ideal of legato technique. I mentioned it just as one step in the learning process of an individual to whom this may be a progress.

My emphasis was on the double perspective on technique: there the ideal as a goal for all pianists (without individual context), here the single pupil in a temporal state of learning with individual abilities and impediments.
And I was proposing not to judge (and reject) each learning step by the abstract ideal, but to be patient. I'd like to add: and to be trustful, too. Because if once a student has got the knack of it, many things will fall into place by and by quite naturally. I really think that it's not wise for a teacher to exercise too much control on everything the pupil does, especially in the beginning.

Doing it once per note is never desirable...

I don't mean a wilful, "technical" motion with the wrist - DOING something as a means to a certain end. I'm talking more about releasing, LETTING the wrist swing loosely. There's a big, a very important difference between these two kinds of action!

[nyiregyhazi]

Quite right. But I was not proposing the swinging wrist as THE ideal of legato technique. I mentioned it just as one step in the learning process of an individual to whom this may be a progress.

My emphasis was on the double perspective on technique: there the ideal as a goal for all pianists (without individual context), here the single pupil in a temporal state of learning with individual abilities and impediments.
And I was proposing not to judge (and reject) each learning step by the abstract ideal, but to be patient. I'd like to add: and to be trustful, too. Because if once a student has got the knack of it, many things will fall into place by and by quite naturally. I really think that it's not wise for a teacher to exercise too much control on everything the pupil does, especially in the beginning.
 
I don't mean a wilful, "technical" motion with the wrist - DOING something as a means to a certain end. I'm talking more about releasing, LETTING the wrist swing loosely. There's a big, a very important difference between these two kinds of action!

Fine. I specified quite explicitly that I was arguing against use of one individual down movement per note. I did not argue against a free wrist- as long as it is moves at a slower and steady rate rather than down into every note to replace active finger motion. The point about such a style of movement is not whether it's to be used for the end product but whether it's possible to casually move on from it after using it as a learning exercise. I don't think the instincts easily forget the experience of something quite so distant from a useful quality of movement- whether it's a passive drop or a willful movement. Either way it encourages poor connection between finger and key and causes lumpy sounds- unless the wrist motion is vastly slower than the rate at which keys sound. If you don't get at least two notes per motion, nothing constructive to the end product is trained.

[keypeg]

This is exactly the type of thing being targeted in the original thread - these specific arguments about how things ought to be.  It really depends on context: what the student is doing and what you are observing.  I would never take any of the "oughts" I am reading here.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is exactly the type of thing being targeted in the original thread - these specific arguments about how things ought to be.  It really depends on context: what the student is doing and what you are observing.  I would never take any of the "oughts" I am reading here.

Theres simply no conceivable circumstance  which a student "needs" to dunk their arm down once per note for a legato melody. Down movements are not meaningful (within the context of a phrase) unless you add at least one additional note that is moved by the finger, as the arm floats away rather than falls down again. Without the complementary follow up movement, you learn nothing but harmful habits.

Any freedom issues can be developed equally well with separate exercises that don't risk infecting the passage with counterproductive movements.

[pianoman53]

Theres simply no conceivable circumstance  which a student "needs" to dunk their arm down once per note for a legato melody. Down movements are not meaningful (within the context of a phrase) unless you add at least one additional note that is moved by the finger, as the arm floats away rather than falls down again. Without the complementary follow up movement, you learn nothing but harmful habits.

Any freedom issues can be developed equally well with separate exercises that don't risk infecting the passage with counterproductive movements.

Fine, so become the best teacher in the world, who only have perfect students. Why do you even waste your time here then? And why aren't you in any better school right now? This is exactly the problem. She has one view, and everyone here except you can seem to accept it. And no, yo can't. You either say "No, you're wrong", "Yes, well.. However" or "Yes, I have exactly the same idea".
Never ever in a million posts have you or will you write "Okay, you and I simply have different opinions on this. Lets leave it here".

We simply have different opinions on what a discussion is, so lets leave it here...

[nyiregyhazi]

Fine, so become the best teacher in the world, who only have perfect students. Why do you even waste your time here then? And why aren't you in any better school right now? This is exactly the problem. She has one view, and everyone here except you can seem to accept it. And no, yo can't. You either say "No, you're wrong", "Yes, well.. However" or "Yes, I have exactly the same idea".
Never ever in a million posts have you or will you write "Okay, you and I simply have different opinions on this. Lets leave it here".

We simply have different opinions on what a discussion is, so lets leave it here...

I didn't say "you're wrong". I detailed the specific reasons why the idea would not be necessary for any student and illustrated that it trains a quality of movement that has very little that is meaningful in a final execution. All it trains is freedom- which can easily be done in a separate context that does not promote further bad habits in the passage.

If other teachers want to promote exercises that actively distract from the need to to integrate multiple notes per arm gesture, that's up to them. But I'm not going to with anything that destructive merely to be open minded.

[pianoman53]

I didn't say "you're wrong". I detailed the specific reasons why the idea would not be necessary for any student and illustrated that it trains a quality of movement that has very little that is meaningful in a final execution. All it trains is freedom- which can easily be done in a separate context that does not promote further bad habits in the passage.

If other teachers want to promote exercises that actively distract from the need to to integrate multiple notes per arm gesture, that's up to them. But I'm not going to with anything that destructive merely to be open minded.

Well, you've done that sooo many times, it's even insulting that you claim you never said that, so I'm not going to go further into that.

And if a specific teacher tells something, you're going to missunderstand it so far until you claim that they agree. So no, you're not part of discussions, you're simply agreeing with what you say, and disagree with what other say.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, you've done that sooo many times, it's even insulting that you claim you never said that, so I'm not going to go further into that.

And if a specific teacher tells something, you're going to missunderstand it so far until you claim that they agree. So no, you're not part of discussions, you're simply agreeing with what you say, and disagree with what other say.

I'm not interested in arguing about arguing so rant away about my right to express honest opinions if you wish. I'll stick to pianistic issues thanks.

[pianoman53]

I'm not interested in arguing about arguing so rant away about my right to express honest opinions if you wish. I'll stick to pianistic issues thanks.

Yeah, I'll go and discuss about music, while you still are obsessed with technique.

[keypeg]

My emphasis was on the double perspective on technique: there the ideal as a goal for all pianists (without individual context), here the single pupil in a temporal state of learning with individual abilities and impediments.
And I was proposing not to judge (and reject) each learning step by the abstract ideal, but to be patient. I'd like to add: and to be trustful, too. Because if once a student has got the knack of it, many things will fall into place by and by quite naturally. I really think that it's not wise for a teacher to exercise too much control on everything the pupil does, especially in the beginning.

I agree with this.

[birba]

This whole thread is way out of my league...

[keypeg]

This whole thread is way out of my league...

No, it's not.  The discussions that nitpick on miniscule details are out of the league of this thread.  Let's just ignore them and carry on.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, it's not.  The discussions that nitpick on miniscule details are out of the league of this thread.  Let's just ignore them and carry on.

Examples that illustrate exceedingly generalised issues in a real world form are not irrelevant. Also, you were the one who deemed my simple example to be one of inappropriately writing something off. You have to write some things off due to context, by exercising intelligence, otherwise a big liberal free for all does nothing but harm, due to the absence of focus. Some movements are more likely to infect students with new problems than to help them in a meaningful way, when applied to the wrong passage. Unless we strive to understand the difference between superficial solutions to problems and deeper alternatives, we can end up replacing one problem with a brand new one- that may very well contribute directly to the fact that even most long term learners never develop any significant agility, but merely the ability to play slow lyrical pieces. I believe this is primarily due to inadequate attention to what works and too much open mindedness about unsupportable ideas that actively distract from necessary foundations.

Where liiw was right is that the context of a passage often make particular approaches (which might have a useful purpose in a different musical context) inherently counterproductive, no matter where the student is coming from. It doesn't achieve anything to make generic statements about how any old thing goes at the right time (without any specifics about what defines the right time). Without understanding the specific nature of what makes a particular thing meaningful or deeply detrimental to the requirements of a particular style of passage, it's nothing but words. Preaching virtues of being openminded is all very easy and all very meaningless. How to understand the differentiation between what will help and will hinder is where the interest begins. The discussion about open mindedness can be over and done with as simply as by saying that sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. The details of how and why define everything.

If I had to choose between an openminded teacher and a closed minded teacher who knows how to hit the nail on the head, I'd take the latter. It's not about whether you're openminded but whether you know the right advice to give. If you don't, open mindedness is not a virtue but a lack of purpose.

[keypeg]

If I had to choose between an openminded teacher and a closed minded teacher who knows how to hit the nail on the head, I'd take the latter. It's not about whether you're openminded but whether you know the right advice to give. If you don't, open mindedness is not a virtue but a lack of purpose.

An open-minded teacher to me is not a teacher who will accept everything that I say, but a teacher who looks at what is in front of him and knows what to do with it.  What I would avoid is a closed-minded teacher who thinks he knows what the nail and the head are, and hits that same nail and head with every student regardless of what is there.  I have encountered that too often, and once is in fact too often.

[nyiregyhazi]

An open-minded teacher to me is not a teacher who will accept everything that I say, but a teacher who looks at what is in front of him and knows what to do with it.  What I would avoid is a closed-minded teacher who thinks he knows what the nail and the head are, and hits that same nail and head with every student regardless of what is there.  I have encountered that too often, and once is in fact too often.

True, but the issue is not whether the teacher is open minded but whether he has a suitable means to deal with any problem and whether he can convey what is needed in a practical way. Good teachers have many tools but close their mind to things that they know will distract students from what they need. Bad teachers are those who close their mind based on a lack of tools and regardless of efficacy. It's all very easy to talk about open mindedness, but its relatively meaningless when put alongside the real issue of whether the teacher actually KNOWS how to make an effective diagnosis and prescription in response to problems and (above all) how to keep creating new possibilities whether there is a conventional "problem" or not.

The best teachers are those who are able to create an appearance of open mindedness but who know exactly how to lead students down a precise path at the same time. There are countless movements that advanced pianism cannot do without. Whether the student learns these or not is what determines whether their lessons simply make them a little more comfortable with the easiest chopin preludes or whether they learn to be in a position to actually tackle something like chopin etudes. 1001 paths cans lead to the former but relatively few make the latter possible (and many of those that lead to the former actively serve to prevent the latter). Open mindedness should never come before what a student really needs to make genuine progress, rather than superficial progress within a very limited range.

PS You complain a lot about categorising students in simplistic models, but it strikes me that you look to label to teachers in similarly over simplistic ways, tied in to your own experiences. Efficacy of an approach is always the most important issue. I couldn't personally give a damn about a teacher's open mindedness. Unless his methods are not effective, it's not a relevant issue and in no way associates that teacher to any closed-minded ones you encountered- who should be defined by the fact that they  evidently had NOT employed effective methods. Having a clear path of what makes advanced pianism possible is not the same thing.