This seems like a very strong statement, that doesn't match my experience in any field, musical or otherwise.What evidence do you base it on?
I do sound better
Then I encourage you to take an extended break, when you have the time, away from the piano. Then after some time, get back to playing. Only then will you know if your technique has degraded or not due to a faulty technique.
What are you doing wrong that you still struggle with something after years of doing it?
I don't beleive anyone can learn a piece to a high level and then return to it after 5 years of not playing it and expect to play it at the same level immediately.
I never said he sucked, however, I did suggest his technique was flawed as can be heard in his recordings. As well, I don't need to prove my own superiority in order to make such statements. If that were true, then the only people who can provide instruction are virtuosos. Your teacher clearly isn't one and s/he doesn't have an understanding of technique. Otherwise, they wouldn't let you play this study the way you actually are which is letting you do whatever you want with extrinsic constraints such as "slow practice" etc.Now here's the rub that you will encounter that you'll probably regret later: you'll not be able to play this piece, or any other piece, unless you constantly practice it. The moment you stop practicing, the skill, endurance, stamina, etc. you built up begins to degrade because it's unsustainable. That's not good technique; that's bad technique. Good technique is effortless and requires no practice once learned. Even Awesom_o has to practice his Chopin studies to maintain them, am I right, Awesom_o?
Hey awesom_o,A random question for you...I really like the Chopin etudes and when I have op 10 12 polished, I want to start learning another one. I really want to learn op 10 4 in c sharp minor. You've played them all, do you think at my level I could learn this etude? Thanks
Maybe if you would explain your secret technique people would listen to you. So far you have been quite vague...Also I never said you had to be a virtuoso to give advise. But if your technique is superior, then your playing should be as well...And I'm not an expert by all means but that slow practice advise has helped me more then anything. Even Rachmaninoff practiced slowly...and you can't argue with his technique
If you want to know awesom_o's technique, he does this thing where he presses too much into the keys. He relies on the force of the fingers for dynamics which requires muscle building. This is why his Chopin Op.10-1 RH is weak and why he pounds the bass octaves to create dynamics, to make up for the lack of it in the RH.
And as for Rachmaninoff, he was part of the old Russian school and he, too, had severe deficiencies in technique.
So which pianist had the MOST deficient technique, Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, or Gould?
Don't know 'bout them others, but Gould had problems for sure.
I've never kept my technique a secret. I write very openly about it very often. You see it in the technical solutions I suggest, as well as the accuracies of judging others' technique based on their descriptions of difficulties as well as just from listening to their recordings.If you want to know awesom_o's technique, he does this thing where he presses too much into the keys. He relies on the force of the fingers for dynamics which requires muscle building. This is why his Chopin Op.10-1 RH is weak and why he pounds the bass octaves to create dynamics, to make up for the lack of it in the RH.As well, I don't do slow practice unless it's to figure out coordination. Once the coordination is figured out, I practice at a faster tempo using the actual technique that is used at speed. And as for Rachmaninoff, he was part of the old Russian school and he, too, had severe deficiencies in technique.
Everybody has problems of one sort or another! Problems doing what? Problems making really great recordings? Problems making lots of money? Problems making a profound and permanent impact on the world of music?
If you want to know awesom_o's technique, he does this thing where he presses too much into the keys.
Problems playing in a way that didn't cause him physical problems, like pain, numbness and major loss of control over the playing apparatus. Check this out https://www.handoc.com/Documents/GOULD_Tubiana20001.pdf
One should be very very careful with the conclusions in the linked document. The author clearly has an agenda when he blames Gould's technique. The truth is, however, that there is no one isolated cause of hand and limb dystonia. A variety of pathological conditions may lead to similar symptoms.
I studied for several years with a teacher who taught me how to 'pull' the keys, and this had a tremendous impact on my playing, both in terms of being able to tackle the virtuoso repertoire of the 19th and 20th centuries, AND being able to play the earlier repertoire of the 17th and 18th centuries with greater sophistication and refinement. Now, 'pulling' and 'pressing' are very, very different motions.
It's not so much the dystonia only, but the various other conditions that plagued his playing apparatus as well. Sitting the way he did is simply very unhealthy for the body, and if habitually use your body in an unhealthy way, you will get problems. So I don't think it is too unlikely his problems came from his body use.
And your medical degree is from where?
Describe this 'pulling' motion you do.
Do you think that you will NOT get problems if you use your body in an unhealthy way?
What was that I heard you say?"Teach me for free please, Mr Beresford"
Anyway, I have no doubt Gould's dystonia was caused by his manner of playing. You can see that Fleisher also has deficiencies in his right hand when he was younger, which he didn't bother to correct after botox treatment. Why he didn't develop it in his left hand also... just look at the videos and find out for your self.
Topic: Some advice needed for Chopin's Revolutionary Etude 