Practise slow, how slow is slow för you

[ajspiano]

I once had a student who was more concerned with telling me things at great length than actually being taught something new. I sincerely wondered why they actually came for the lesson.

A mind very capable of thinking on its own, (such as your own) - looking much more for an experienced sounding board than direct instruction?

..People seem to come to piano lessons for a lot of different reasons. I've had one who was very talkative, usually about things other than piano. He was very tied down to providing for his family and the piano lesson was his half an hour a week to do something for himself, he never practiced..  he just felt better about learning a bit about something once a week instead of downing the $30 on beer at a pub.

[cablepiano]

I am struggling to polish pieces and was delighted to see this topic in a new thread.
PLEASE, someone, return to the original topic and offer your opinion of what speed works best for you and explain.

[nyiregyhazi]

A mind very capable of thinking on its own, (such as your own) - looking much more for an experienced sounding board than direct instruction?

That was the thing, they had barely even got started as a pianist. I love to hear personal ideas from a thoughtful mind. This was just a person telling me stuff that they'd learned by rote, with little if any personal slant. it was hard to get a word in on what they needed to think about because they kept on and on with irrelevant information. it was as if I was interrupting a lecture if I tried to add an additional point for consideration, to what they'd said. they seemed less interested in stopping to learn anything than in finishing a speech.

[dima_76557]

the slower you go the more mental focus you can give to both the sound you generate and the physical sensation of doing so.

Yes, it's much like using a magnifying glass on those aspects.

I suspect, though, that a pianist of Rachmaninov's calibre had another, more spiritual purpose in doing so: deal with the "diligent", result-oriented self.

[marik1]

marik (I think) asserted that the slower the better, provided the musical idea could be followed.  

It is not quite correct--I never asserted (or even mentioned) "the slower the better"--please re-read my original post.

In any case, the piano technique is all about physical relaxation, touch (ultimately sound), rhythm, and clear idea about musical context--those all are inseparable. The slower tempo helps to follow and concentrate on all of those at the same time, while still having time to see all the details.

I don't see a reason to go much slower than one could follow the rhythm and musical idea (including phrasing, shaping, dynamics, etc., which dictates everything). Really, everything is about mental focus. If you have an exact idea of what you want to do and feel you need a note per hour to achieve your goal, then of course--by all means  .
 
Best, M

[bronnestam]

I am struggling to polish pieces and was delighted to see this topic in a new thread.
PLEASE, someone, return to the original topic and offer your opinion of what speed works best for you and explain.

To me, "slow" playing is so slow that I feel I am in total control of what I'm doing and am not very likely to make any mistake. I see no point in going much slower than that; I will just lose my concentration. The "stability" I feel during this slow play helps me to relax and feel confident. If I just cannot feel this stability even if I play slowly, it means I must work more with hands separated for a while.

I also learn to play the piece a tempo (or even faster) with hands separated before I play with hands together ... where I have to go back to very slow playing ...

   

[timothy42b]

My "why" implied two parts.

One is, as the OP asked, how we determine what is slow enough.  We want to play slow enough for a specific purpose, but for most of us, not slower.  I apologize for misreading marik's post as "slower is better," by the way; it was not a deliberate misread. 

The other is what we do differently when we play slower.  I think that merely playing slowly is necessary but not sufficient, as the mathematicians say.  It is easy to think there is something magic about the speed, but if the speed is not used to focus on something that can't be done faster, then there is likely no benefit at all. 

[nyiregyhazi]

My "why" implied two parts.

One is, as the OP asked, how we determine what is slow enough.  We want to play slow enough for a specific purpose, but for most of us, not slower.  I apologize for misreading marik's post as "slower is better," by the way; it was not a deliberate misread.  

The other is what we do differently when we play slower.  I think that merely playing slowly is necessary but not sufficient, as the mathematicians say.  It is easy to think there is something magic about the speed, but if the speed is not used to focus on something that can't be done faster, then there is likely no benefit at all.  

One of the most typically worthless forms of slow practise is with a metronome. It typically eradicates all of the sense of steadiness of motion and instead promotes stops and starts and a sense of disconnect from the instrument. You have to have a solid grasp of rhythm, but slow practise should virtually feel as if done in free time, where you can subtly stretch time between notes (yet never introduce a dead stop).You should always be able to assess and perceive the quality of contact between finger and key and the connection between finger and arm. it takes time to get the right habits, but once you know what you're looking for it's virtually impossible not to learn something substantial from slow practise. The whole issue is whether the student knows how to bond together long notes via an ongoing sense of very precise contact, or whether they operate vertically in sudden movements, for the sake of getting somewhere in time but without perceiving a continuous path from A to B.  With the latter, slow practise is meaningless. With faint stretching for the sake of clarity in physical connections, you actually learn more about generating a fluid physical rhythm than when complying precisely to a metronome with jerky disconnected motions.

[timothy42b]

My "why" implied two parts.

One is, as the OP asked, how we determine what is slow enough.  We want to play slow enough for a specific purpose, but for most of us, not slower.  I apologize for misreading marik's post as "slower is better," by the way; it was not a deliberate misread. 

The other is what we do differently when we play slower.  I think that merely playing slowly is necessary but not sufficient, as the mathematicians say.  It is easy to think there is something magic about the speed, but if the speed is not used to focus on something that can't be done faster, then there is likely no benefit at all. 

One thing to add:  if you actually teach, you know a student needs to work on one thing at a time.  That affects the speed you need. 

[nyiregyhazi]

One thing to add:  if you actually teach, you know a student needs to work on one thing at a time.  That affects the speed you need.  

if you are a teacher, based on what you stated earlier, are you sincerely saying that you only allow students to do so at either the exact final speed, three quarters of it, or half/quarter speed?

[dima_76557]

[...]what we do differently when we play slower.  I think that merely playing slowly is necessary but not sufficient, as the mathematicians say.  It is easy to think there is something magic about the speed, but if the speed is not used to focus on something that can't be done faster, then there is likely no benefit at all.

Strange as this may sound, slow practice is mainly a tool for pianists who already know their pieces inside out and are already able to fulfil ALL requirements for those pieces.

When playing virtuoso pieces at speed too often, the image in the brain of both sounds and movements gets blurred, even if you know the piece very well. The fingers become "lazy" and they lose speed for articulation, even if the pianist is able to maintain the tempo of the piece and will most likely even go faster than required but with a loss of brilliance, with a loss of valuable articulation, timing, control, etc. In other words: Fast playing makes the fingers slower. Slow practice makes them faster. That's probably a tough one to grasp for mathematicians.

Clearing it all up for the brain and the nervous system to be able to play the "tour de force" again a couple of rounds with full brilliance requires slow, very slow practise. It is humanly impossible to do that kind of re-"programming" at full tempo. Even medium tempo may be far too fast to do that for really complicated pieces.

[timothy42b]

if you are a teacher, based on what you stated earlier, are you sincerely saying that you only allow students to do so at either the exact final speed, three quarters of it, or half/quarter speed?

I do not understand how it is possible to have derived that meaning out of what I said. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I do not understand how it is possible to have derived that meaning out of what I said.  

"1/2 speed is not the only possibility.  I sometimes use 1/4 speed or 3/4 speed as well, and the very slow speeds can be helpful while testing memory.

There's nothing magic about half speed.  .5 times tempo is not significantly different from .45 times tempo or .55 times tempo.  It does make the math much easier.

What is useful is tying the practice tempo in some fixed relationship to the desired tempo, rather than a random speed.  This also helps you be sure you are playing correct rhythms at the slower speeds.

The worst thing you can do is the incremental speedup.  That myth should have been laid to rest centuries ago, but it persists."

So you don't actually abide EITHER by an incremental speed up, for those who need to go slow, nor do you abide what you described above about exact divisions?

So what exactly do you do, when adapting to a students needs? If you're neither restricting them to specific ratios as detailed above nor speeding up incrementally to adapt to their needs, as they progress, what else is there?

[pianoman53]

OH MY FU&"/#("% GOD! WE GET IT! YOU HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!

Since it's more likely that we world will explode than that either of you would change your mind, why can't you just stop acting like 12-year olds and accept it?! MOVE ON ONCE IN YOUR GOD DAMN LIFE!

Fu&king H%LL!

[nyiregyhazi]

OH MY FU&"/#("% GOD! WE GET IT! YOU HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!

Since it's more likely that we world will explode than that either of you would change your mind, why can't you just stop acting like 12-year olds and accept it?! MOVE ON ONCE IN YOUR GOD DAMN LIFE!

Fu&king H%LL!

In this case, it seems that a single individual has different opinions. I'm just asking what his opinion actually is. Is such fury productive in any way?

[pianoman53]

In this case, it seems that a single individual has different opinions. I'm just asking what his opinion actually is. Is such fury productive in any way?

Is asking him productive in any way?

[nyiregyhazi]

Is asking him productive in any way?

Certainly the most productive avenue, if I wish to uncover what he is trying to argue for.

[perprocrastinate]

OH MY FU&"/#("% GOD! WE GET IT! YOU HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!

Since it's more likely that we world will explode than that either of you would change your mind, why can't you just stop acting like 12-year olds and accept it?! MOVE ON ONCE IN YOUR GOD DAMN LIFE!

Fu&king H%LL!

Lol. Regardless of what was said in this thread, and regardless of who I agree with, I commend you for making me laugh; you just summed up the internet.

[ajspiano]

you just summed up the internet.

hahah made me think of this..

[gvans]

Strange as this may sound, slow practice is mainly a tool for pianists who already know their pieces inside out and are already able to fulfil ALL requirements for those pieces.

When playing virtuoso pieces at speed too often, the image in the brain of both sounds and movements gets blurred, even if you know the piece very well. The fingers become "lazy" and they lose speed for articulation, even if the pianist is able to maintain the tempo of the piece and will most likely even go faster than required but with a loss of brilliance, with a loss of valuable articulation, timing, control, etc. In other words: Fast playing makes the fingers slower. Slow practice makes them faster. That's probably a tough one to grasp for mathematicians.

Well said, Dima. It's often the best thing in the world to take a piece you know well and tear it down again. Slow practice is essential for that. Hands alone, sometimes, too, for work on phrasing (something Liszt advocated). I am amazed how often I learn new things about works I thought I had down cold when I do both slow practice and hands alone. Memorization is helped greatly, too, for slow and hands-alone practice pretty much cancels out muscle memory, and forces you to analyze harmonic and melodic structure.

[timothy42b]

Lol. Regardless of what was said in this thread, and regardless of who I agree with, I commend you for making me laugh; you just summed up the internet.

Well.........maybe not all the internet.  Certainly not the majority of threads I am in.  But perhaps a disconcerting percentage on this forum, depending on who contributes. 

[timothy42b]

I am struggling to polish pieces and was delighted to see this topic in a new thread.
PLEASE, someone, return to the original topic and offer your opinion of what speed works best for you and explain.

I think that the speed of slow is (or should be) dependent on the purpose.  Your desire to polish pieces is quite a bit different from that of a beginner trying to get hands around the notes or the need to work on one specific aspect of mechanics or memorization.  My 1/2 speed suggestion (which was never intended to be more than a convenient rule of thumb) probably isn't ideal for you.  Or - who knows?  might be.     

None of my ideas are my own.  They come largely from reading Bernhard, Caruso, Chang, Gieseking, Reinhardt, Whiteside, and others, and of course F2F discussions with real musicians.  For most of those you'd need the library, but Bernhard has written extensively on slow practice here on this forum.  It would be worth doing a search on "Bernhard slow practice" and see what you come up with.   

[ade16]

In my opinion slow practice is like all other aspects of practice; you learn what works for you and what doesn't, everyone is different. Personally, I like the Rachmaninov example, the slower the better. Gradually building up the speed until you can accurately, fluently and comfortably (appropriate fingering?) play all of the piece, or at least that section, at the same speed, gradually schieving the required tempo. Never be tempted to play the less problematic bits faster, slowing up when the going gets tough. At the end of the day though, you have to know what works for you and, even as a teacher, you have to help the student find what works for them, giving a constructive range of practice options, of course, that are tried and tested and do generally work for at least most pianists.

Rachmaninov was a perfectionist, hence extremely slow practice. The story goes (maybe slightly apocryphal) that he was playing his own 3rd concerto in Carnegie Hall with Koussevitsky conducting.
At the end of a fantastic performance Rachmaninov received a standing ovation that went on, and on and on. However, he did not come back to the stage. The conductor many minutes later found him sitting in his dressing room sobbing. "What is wrong", he said, "...they loved your new concerto and your performance of it?" Rachmaninov looked up and said sadly, "...but, I played a wrong note!..."

[timothy42b]

Personally, I like the Rachmaninov example, the slower the better. Gradually building up the speed until you can accurately, fluently and comfortably (appropriate fingering?) play all of the piece, or at least that section, at the same speed, gradually schieving the required tempo.

Without meaning to be argumentative, Rachmaninov didn't do it that way.

He could play it accurately, fluently, and comfortably BEFORE slowing it down to perfect nuances (nuances that probably only he could hear.)  His purpose in slow play was considerably different than that of most of us here. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Without meaning to be argumentative, Rachmaninov didn't do it that way.

He could play it accurately, fluently, and comfortably BEFORE slowing it down to perfect nuances (nuances that probably only he could hear.)  His purpose in slow play was considerably different than that of most of us here.  

I'm 99.9% sure that you just plucked whatever best suited you out of thin air and stated it for fact. Who says Rachmaninoff didn't also learn his pieces in the same spirit? You? Or is there an actual piece of first hand evidence? Although true understanding of slow practise goes beyond the spirit in which many amateurs go slow, there's absolutely no call to say that the same processes will not ALSO be used in the note learning stage (either in general or in the case of how Rachmaninoff practised) . Deciding that whatever would be most convenient to your personal agenda (of refusing to consider incremental speeding up) must therefore be so and stating it as if fact is no way to conduct discussion. You have no business telling anyone what Rachmaninoff's purpose was. Are you in communion with the dead? By all means express skepticism as to whether Rachmaninoff necessarily used incremental speed building, but don't be so dishonest as to state for a fact that he didn't- merely because it would suit your predetermined stance, if that happened to be true.

[lateromantic]

Without meaning to be argumentative, Rachmaninov didn't do it that way.

For what it may or may not be worth, I was rereading parts of Ruth Slenczynska's Music at your Fingertips just recently, and she claims that she learned the method of incremental speed buildup using the metronome from Rachmaninoff, from whom she took lessons as a child.

[nyiregyhazi]

For what it may or may not be worth, I was rereading parts of Ruth Slenczynska's Music at your Fingertips just recently, and she claims that she learned the method of incremental speed buildup using the metronome from Rachmaninoff, from whom she took lessons as a child.

I certainly wouldn't doubt her credibility. It shows how dangerous it is to be intent on generating evidence to fit a preordained opinion (like a lawyer) rather than form opinions based on due consideration of evidence. It's one thing to be inventing facts in the first place, but another thing still to pluck utter nonsense out of thin air and unequivocally portray it as a supposed factual correction to what someone else has said. No matter how inflexible a person's belief system is, the least we can do is maintain honesty when arguing against that which we have doubts about. Theories are supposed to be created to fit facts, not vice versa.

[budhaxiii]

Hi, It's my first post so i guess I could share my way of practice. First I go over the basics: just hitting the notes in the correct timing, no metronome, figure out my easiest fingering(every hand's different, as Liszt said), get an idea of the piece. When I'm familiar with the notes and the structure I blaze through it with full speed but many errors so that i get an idea of what the piece really sounds like. Then, I polish it time-warp style, as slow as possible without brain damage :p taking the more difficult bars a much longer time to play, but It's as if I recorded it at full speed at 2000 frames per second then replaying it at 30 fps, just like that time-warp show imagining time is actually very slowed down and I've noticed that the amount of finesse you can pay attention to in this stage is immense. This is the mind stage.
The idea came to me while playing Osmos, an indie game where there's this time warping thing...
When I think I can't get it any better in the slow-mo I start speeding up, but not accelerando, just play it all at a higher pace. polish that one(doesn't take long if you did a good job on the slowest one), raise tempo again and so on until I get it to full speed.
If there are difficult segments you can't play as YOU wish at this stage slow em down and if they're 4-5 bars or less do the accelerando on them. Worked wonders for me
Then just make music with it. I don't always follow the dynamics or accents rule by thumb. I just want to feel wonderful while playing so i call this the Soul stage.
And that's about it

[brogers70]

I am struggling to polish pieces and was delighted to see this topic in a new thread.
PLEASE, someone, return to the original topic and offer your opinion of what speed works best for you and explain.

Most people who responded to the actual topic of the thread seemed to think of slow practice as what you do before you can play the piece up to speed. I think you are asking about using slow practice to polish a piece you can already play fairly well. For that purpose I don't think there is a limit for how slow to go except your patience. I've never found it waste of time to play extremely slowly, much slower than half tempo, just to check hand position, relaxation, details of the movement from one position to another. I find that it greatly helps fluency at tempo, eliminates random stuttering, and solidifies memory. It sometimes feels like a waste of time, but every time I commit to practicing a piece for a few days at unbearably slow tempo it really pays off.

[indianajo]

There's absolute nothing wrong with accompanying church music, but you cannot possibly hope to understand the differing requirements for advanced classical pianism unless you are involved in it. What works for your specific area is very different to what works in the grand scheme of things. You can't possibly expect to understand requirements outside of your field unless you are going outside of it at an advanced level. It's about as relevant as a busker who plays 3 chords telling classical pianists that they don't need to learn scales but just need three chords in c. I'm not a snob about different styles, but you simply cannot take the demands of more technically straightforward forms and apply them to advanced classical pianism.

Actually, many secrets of the classical pianist performance world have been revealed by a marvelous nineteenth century invention, the phonograph recording.  If one wants to sound like a paid tyro, one listens to what they have done.  
Case in point, Alfred Brendal, who wikipedia says was self taught.  The WFMT FM classical radio service played one of his recordings last week.  His method lead in many cases to pleasing result, although he was not the most publicized or recorded professional pianist of his day. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually, many secrets of the classical pianist performance world have been revealed by a marvelous nineteenth century invention, the phonograph recording.  If one wants to sound like a paid tyro, one listens to what they have done.  

? Could you clarify? I don't follow what you're saying or how recordings relate to the point you quoted. what bearing does this have on a 3 chord busker not being able to appreciate the greater technical and musical demands of advanced classical pianism? and "tyro" ?

[budhaxiii]

I don't think there is a limit for how slow to go except your patience.

Exactly. And patience can be a bugger sometimes, especially for me.
But as I've explained I cope with it by imagining time warping. I even sit down in a slow-mo fashion to get me into the warp state.
Also I try to move my hands and my body as if i'm playing with full speed but the time dilated. Imagine filming someone like Kissin with a 2000 fps camera then playing it 30 fps. It's hard to explain : /

[timothy42b]

For that purpose I don't think there is a limit for how slow to go except your patience.

Patience, and the temptation of the mind to wander.  (often underestimated)

While there has been some discussion of why, and some discussion of how much, there has been no mention of how to play slowly.

There are motions between notes that are continuous at tempo.  At very slow speeds one has to choose between a number of options:  move quickly and wait for the last moment before moving again; slow all aspects of the motion equally (won't really work, will it, as keys don't play when pressed slowly, but it could be approximated); exaggerated components of the motions (rotations, etc.). 

[dima_76557]

Rachmaninov was a perfectionist, hence extremely slow practice. The story goes (maybe slightly apocryphal) that he was playing his own 3rd concerto in Carnegie Hall with Koussevitsky conducting.
At the end of a fantastic performance Rachmaninov received a standing ovation that went on, and on and on. However, he did not come back to the stage. The conductor many minutes later found him sitting in his dressing room sobbing. "What is wrong", he said, "...they loved your new concerto and your performance of it?" Rachmaninov looked up and said sadly, "...but, I played a wrong note!..."

Hm. Could you cite your source, please? I was told another story. Rachmaninov is quoted to have said on that occasion: "...but, I missed the point!" which sounds much more like him. This means that he dismissed his own performance as totally useless for MUSICAL reasons, not because of wrong notes.

[dima_76557]

While there has been some discussion of why, and some discussion of how much, there has been no mention of how to play slowly.

There are motions between notes that are continuous at tempo.  At very slow speeds one has to choose between a number of options:  move quickly and wait for the last moment before moving again; slow all aspects of the motion equally (won't really work, will it, as keys don't play when pressed slowly, but it could be approximated); exaggerated components of the motions (rotations, etc.).  

In slow practice, EVERYTHING is fast except for the tempo of the piece ("fast motion, but slow sequence". (c)).

[ade16]

Hm. Could you cite your source, please? I was told another story. Rachmaninov is quoted to have said on that occasion: "...but, I missed the point!" which sounds much more like him. This means that he dismissed his own performance as totally useless for MUSICAL reasons, not because of wrong notes.

Sorry I cannot quote one particular source as it is an anecdote I have heard retold over many years by many different musicians. (When I have written dissertations for degree work I have always cited all sources, but this is not a dissertation!) Anyway, I did actually say that the story was apocryphal, i.e. maybe slightly exaggerated or distorted, but it still serves to illustrate the point. Namely, that Rachmaninov was very self-critical to the point of neurosis, hence his complete breakdown after the unsuccessful performance of his First Symphony (the conductor Glazunov was drunk! - That story is true!) Nevertheless, Rachmaninov did practise very slowly. There is no law that says once you have a piece up to speed you can't go back to slow practice at a later stage to further consolidate your command of the piece!

[timothy42b]

In slow practice, EVERYTHING is fast except for the tempo of the piece ("fast motion, but slow sequence". (c)).

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of paying careful attention to the motion?  (if of course that is your purpose) 

Not disagreeing with you, just asking. 

[ade16]

Without meaning to be argumentative, Rachmaninov didn't do it that way.

He could play it accurately, fluently, and comfortably BEFORE slowing it down to perfect nuances (nuances that probably only he could hear.)  His purpose in slow play was considerably different than that of most of us here. 

You know no more about Rachmaninov's personal practice methods than anyone else, none of us were there, including you! However, some of us have carried out detailed research which is the next best thing, based on letters and reports from those who knew him well, including students. This is also how research reveals other composers' methods and opinions on practice e.g. Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms etc. I do not understand how you can be so confident that you are right and that everyone else is wrong. Your tone in several of your posts comes across as extremely patronising actually. What are your credentials? In other words, is there any real basis for your opinions being supported by solid research? Furthermore, do you actually know in detail about the personal practice methods of most of us here (in the forum or in the world?)... I think not!!! 

[ade16]

Actually, many secrets of the classical pianist performance world have been revealed by a marvelous nineteenth century invention, the phonograph recording.  If one wants to sound like a paid tyro, one listens to what they have done.  
Case in point, Alfred Brendal, who wikipedia says was self taught.  The WFMT FM classical radio service played one of his recordings last week.  His method lead in many cases to pleasing result, although he was not the most publicized or recorded professional pianist of his day. 

Wikipedia actually says:
"Brendel began piano lessons when he was six with Sofija Deželić, and at 14 he studied piano with Ludovica von Kaan and composition in the Graz Conservatory for the next two years, but otherwise had little formal music education.
After the war, Brendel composed music, as well as continuing to play the piano and to paint. However, he never had more formal piano lessons and although he attended masterclasses with Edwin Fischer and Eduard Steuermann, he was largely self-taught." Not completely self-taught.

I can highly recommend two books by Alfred Brendel himself. Firstly, 'Music Sounded Out' (1990) and secondly 'Alfred Brendel on Music (Collected Essays)' (2001). Both books are very revealing and very interesting!

[dima_76557]

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of paying careful attention to the motion?  (if of course that is your purpose)

I don't think it defeats that purpose, no. My assumptions are:
- the movement(s) I have to make for articulation is/are already known.
- everything in the music is already clear; the only thing I do is program my brain for top performance.
- The brain (not only my brain, but everybody's brain) remembers a sequence of movements best when each separate element in that sequence is made very fast but in slow succession, slowly enough to be registered.

Talking about myself, this means "firing" the finger really fast, releasing redundant tension instantly as soon as I feel the key bed, preparing the thumb as soon and as fast as possible in a scale without sounding its note yet, making preparatory movements across the keyboard really fast without playing the note (for example a new hand position in leaps), etc. These are elements one can pay careful attention to only when the tempo of the actual sounds is really slow.

[ade16]

I don't think it defeats that purpose, no. My assumptions are:
- the movement(s) I have to make for articulation is/are already known.
- everything in the music is already clear; the only thing I do is program my brain for top performance.
- The brain (not only my brain, but everybody's brain) remembers a sequence of movements best when each separate element in that sequence is made very fast but in slow succession, slowly enough to be registered.

Talking about myself, this means "firing" the finger really fast, releasing redundant tension instantly as soon as I feel the key bed, preparing the thumb as soon and as fast as possible in a scale without sounding its note yet, making preparatory movements across the keyboard really fast without playing the note (for example a new hand position in leaps), etc. These are elements one can pay careful attention to only when the tempo of the actual sounds is really slow.

I completely agree!!! I couldn't explain it better myself at this moment in time! 

[timothy42b]

Your tone in several of your posts comes across as extremely patronising actually. What are your credentials? In other words, is there any real basis for your opinions being supported by solid research?

You are typical of those here who indulge in personal attacks whenever they cannot address the issues.

What I have raised on this thread is nothing new, if you have read any of the pedagogical literature.  You could not possibly be asking for my credentials if you were actually aware of the discussions by the really respected teachers.  You are regurgitating "school book" solutions that are now in serious question, blissfully unaware.   (Abby Whiteside died 57 years ago, and you stil haven't heard of her.  Are you a professional?) 

<plonk> 

[nyiregyhazi]

You are typical of those here who indulge in personal attacks whenever they cannot address the issues.

What I have raised on this thread is nothing new, if you have read any of the pedagogical literature.  You could not possibly be asking for my credentials if you were actually aware of the discussions by the really respected teachers.  You are regurgitating "school book" solutions that are now in serious question, blissfully unaware.   (Abby Whiteside died 57 years ago, and you stil haven't heard of her.  Are you a professional?)  

<plonk>  

The value in starting slowly and getting faster over time is not in question- whether you still wish to make a totally dishonest assertion that Rachmaninoff didn't use it or not. Your refusal to acknowledge its worth (without a shred of supportive reasoning) in that last post is exactly the type of thing the poster was referring to. If you want to dispute it, first learn a chopin Etudes by only practising in your simple ratios. See how seamlessly you jump from 3/4 to full speed in op 10 no 2. You are not in a position to have an "opinion" that incremental building is unnecessary until you have done so.


also, you didn't take up my request for you to clarify the discrepancy in your points regarding this issue. You have said that practise speed should be based on the student's need at the time. you also denied what had explicitly been said earlier about 1/4 1/2 and 3/4 speed as practise tempos. Please detail in what way you select the tempo based on a student's needs of the time- that supposedly neither involves either gradual incremental speed building nor via restriction to the ratios you detailed. it's all very easy to make individual assertions, but now it's time to illustrate how they supposedly fit into a coherent whole (assuming that it's even possible to assemble these seemingly conflicting claims into a meaningful methodology without self contradiction)

[ade16]

You are typical of those here who indulge in personal attacks whenever they cannot address the issues.

What I have raised on this thread is nothing new, if you have read any of the pedagogical literature.  You could not possibly be asking for my credentials if you were actually aware of the discussions by the really respected teachers.  You are regurgitating "school book" solutions that are now in serious question, blissfully unaware.   (Abby Whiteside died 57 years ago, and you stil haven't heard of her.  Are you a professional?)  

<plonk>  

When did I even mention Abby Whiteside let alone say I had not heard of her? I was born in and still live and work in England, but she was an influential American piano teacher who is well known to anyone who has studied piano technique in great detail, which I have.
Furthermore, I am 55 next birthday not 12! Who do you think you are with your patronising tone? You have just reinforced the very point I was making about your tone! You come across as a real 'know it all' as we say in England, with very little substance to your argument. I am not blissfully unaware of the many other approaches to piano playing or teaching, in addition to the more traditional 'school book' approaches you refer to. Anyway, you cannot learn piano performance from books. In my formative years I studied with Fanny Waterman (pupil of Artur Schnabel and the founder, Chairman and Artistic Director of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition); I have also studied with some highly respected piano teachers at both the Royal Academy of Music and Royal College of Music in London, as well as majoring in piano studies at London University as part of the Bachelor of Music Degree (First Class Hons 1980). I am a very experienced performing musician (solo pianist, accompanist, orchestral and choral conductor and successful composer) etc etc I could go on, but I am only saying all of this, 'blowing my own trumpet' which is not in my nature, in order to emphasise your rude, arrogant and disrespectful manner. You don't know me or know anything about me! So what gives you the right to question my professionalism just because I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, and just because I have said that I object to your patronising tone? Who is it indulging in personal attacks? You are! I suggest you reread your last post sent to me and imagine how you would feel on the receiving end of it. A bit of empathy perhaps might be good!

It was you who asked "Are you a professional?" I believe I have answered that, though shouldn't have had to really. It is also clear, from reading other responses to your posts, that I am not the only person you are irritating. You have to understand that there are many 'schools' of piano playing and piano teaching and each to their own! Just because I do not entirely agree with some approaches, based on what has worked best for me for over 45 years, does not mean I disrespect Abby Whiteside or anyone else for that matter. I am not saying that I am entirely right, but then again, neither are you! I am blissfully unaware of some things, but not alternative approaches to piano technique, performance or teaching, and I am certainly not blissfully unaware of your patronising and arrogant tone. Are you this rude to people face to face as well, or are you more tactful when not hiding behind your computer? Most communication for me is face to face actually.
You have made me very cross!  

By the way, some specific and concrete examples from the piano repertoire that you have actually played or performed yourself (they are not necessarily the same thing! The presence of an audience is a massive new dimension!); relating to methodology of slow practice or any other aspects of practice technique for that matter, would be very helpful; and might just increase the validity of what you are trying to argue. If you want to talk intelligently, creatively and respectfully, in depth about real music and real aspects of practice and performance technique (again, they are not the same thing!) then let's do it!

[nyiregyhazi]

By the way, some specific and concrete examples from the piano repertoire that you have actually played or performed yourself (they are not necessarily the same thing! The presence of an audience is a massive new dimension!); relating to methodology of slow practice or any other aspects of practice technique for that matter, would be very helpful; and might just increase the validity of what you are trying to argue.

The guy's a church accompanist. he doesn't play any advanced repertoire. a perfectly reasonable pursuit in itself, but a shockingly unqualified position from which to start taking a preachy tone about the supposed myth of incremental speeding up. Anyone has the right to detail things from their own experience from a place of humility and with awareness of what they can and cannot do, but it's to the severe detriment of the forum when people with minimal qualification think they are in position to dismiss particular approaches outright, in fields where they have not the slightest experience of overcoming the demands.

[ade16]

The guy's a church accompanist. he doesn't play any advanced repertoire. a perfectly reasonable pursuit in itself, but a shockingly unqualified position from which to start taking a preachy tone about the supposed myth of incremental speeding up. Anyone has the right to detail things from their own experience from a place of humility and with awareness of what they can and cannot do, but it's to the severe detriment of the forum when people with minimal qualification think they are in position to dismiss particular approaches outright, in fields where they have not the slightest experience of overcoming the demands.

Thanks for that, very interesting! Clearly this guy is way out of his depth, but I wouldn't have picked this up given the rather over-confident tone in his posts!

Anyway, getting back on topic, I really do believe from experience that slow practice is absolutely fundamental, particularly resisting the strong temptation to speed up in the sections which are not so problematic, the danger being that I then trip myself up when a tricky few bars (or pages!) come round. I have learned this the hard way! I am currently learning the Wanderer Fantasy by Schubert. Very slow practice is absolutely essential, as in many other challenging works. A piece I have performed many times is the Ballade no. 1 in G minor by Chopin. That final Presto con fuoco is virtually impossible without very gradually building up to the required tempo. Also, hands separately first, then together, then separately, together, separately, together etc until the required tempo is achieved, and with total accuracy and total fluency!

It is not so important what the precise fractions of the top speed are; 'slow' means slow enough to train the fingers, wrists, forearms, upper arms, indeed the whole body, in the moves required, so that they become a series of trained reflexes, at any speed, including top speed.

Also, another advantage of slow practice is to allow yourself to become completely accurate in the reading of the notation without occasional wrong notes creeping in (e.g. missing some accidentals which affect later notes at the same pitch in a given bar). In this sense I believe that slow practice is also about being meticulous, and it also aids the memorisation process. I always start memorising a piece immediately, rather than just waiting till I have it up to speed. Also, I have been doing some more research and asking around my circle of pianist friends and colleagues, and it is generally accepted that Rachmaninov did practise very slowly; and not just to learn a new piece, but also to relearn or consolidate performances of works already known. Rachmaninov was a particularly great interpreter of Chopin for example, as well as his own music. e.g. check out the famous recording of Rachmaninov playing Chopin's 2nd Piano Sonata in B flat minor Op.35. Lots of accidentals in that first movement for example, and all too easy for misreadings to creep in. That's where slow practice comes in! Its not just about gradually building up to the required speed in a physical sense.

If all this seems too 'school bookish' for some people, well it isn't, it is based on direct experience over many, many years.