Is finger strength a myth?

[nyiregyhazi]

Like I said, if you can't understand what I am trying to say its not my duty to inform you. I would if I was interested but there is no interest.

I appreciate what you're trying to say. The problem is that audiences don't. They want to hear pianists who play what they are playing on the night well due to high standards- not pianists who are musically and technically substandard on the night yet had plenty more musically and technically substandard performances up their sleeve.

[lostinidlewonder]

I appreciate what you're trying to say. The problem is that audiences don't. They want to hear pianists who play what they are playing on the night well- not pianists who are substandard on the night yet had plenty more substandard performances up their sleeve.

What has that got to do with the price of fish in China?

[j_menz]

But doesn't that depend a lot on the teacher who continues pressing on with repertoire without requiring a minimum kind of quality?

In the early stages particularly, when a students idea of quality is least formed (or possibly not something they consider beyond getting the right notes). The "minimum kind of quality", though is something that must be tailored to the student. Insisting on levels of quality that the student doesn't yet have the capacity to conceptualise or even hear is not fruitful. Over time, assuming that quality is kept as a consideration (and I'm not suggesting it should ever not be) what the student is capable of incorporating into that sense of quality increases, and the teacher should expand their requirements accordingly.

Not everything one can play usefully needs to be polished up to performance standard, though. Of course one should know what that would involve, but there is much to be learnt from going through a breadth of repertoire at a lesser quality level. Even moreso if one is aware of the shortcomings.

As with many things, being a well rounded pianist requires both breadth and depth, and each should complement and enhance the other.

[j_menz]

The problem is that audiences don't. They want to hear pianists who play what they are playing on the night well due to high standards

Not everything we play do we play for an audience (other than ourselves), nor should we.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not everything we play do we play for an audience (other than ourselves), nor should we.

Indeed. But if we do play for an audience, they care about the quality of what they hear from you at that time. Not about how big the list of pieces that you can play below par is.

[j_menz]

if we do play for an audience, they care about the quality of what they hear from you at that time. Not about how big the list of pieces that you can play below par is.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

It's not about what is directly suggested. The problem is that it's a natural consequence that a performer who is overly concerned with quantity in their practise will have a hard time suddenly producing unusual quality that is worthy for an audience. Unless it's a greater concern than quantity in their preparations, quality will suffer. All pianists should do plenty of sightreading and check their ability to practise efficiently enough to learn the odd piece very quick- but having a wide repertoire doesn't mean anything during a concert. Only the standard of your preparation for the repertoire in the performance matters.

Although making quality a primary goal does not equate with having a tiny repertoire, making quantity a primary goal most certainly tends to interfere with quality of performances- because time spent practising enormous numbers of pieces outside of the program for that night is time that couldn't be spent polishing those to the full.

[dima_76557]

In the early stages particularly, when a students idea of quality is least formed (or possibly not something they consider beyond getting the right notes).

In our system, "getting the right notes" seems to be of somewhat secondary importance. The alpha and omega of ANYTHING you do at the instrument, whatever level you are on, is striving for good tone and intonatsia. Any effort not aimed at "touch" is wasted time and energy.

[j_menz]

Any effort not aimed at "touch" is wasted time and energy.

Any effort not aimed at music is wasted time and energy. Any mere aspect of music is only worthwhile insofar as it contributes to the whole.

[dima_76557]

Any effort not aimed at music is wasted time and energy.

This sounds like something from the theory books. What is "music" without its core elements: tone and rhythm? If they are not required from the very beginning, there can be no music and you condition habits in the wrong direction.

[j_menz]

If they are not required from the very beginning, there can be no music and you condition habits in the wrong direction.

True. But what is "good" for a beginner is a different matter than what is "good" for and more advanced pupil. It's part of the learning process to move from one standard to the next.

[dima_76557]

True. But what is "good" for a beginner is a different matter than what is "good" for and more advanced pupil. It's part of the learning process to move from one standard to the next.

I think that "intention" and "striving for" are the key words; go at least a little deeper than skin deep in any effort you make at the instrument, even if you are an elementary student, even when you sightread, etc.

Remember the Spanish pianist and Bashkirov in the masterclass I posted on one of these many pages? What irritated Bashkirov most of all was that the pianist wasn't even striving to do something with tone, articulation and rhythm. He had conditioned himself to highlight stuff that is of secondary importance (right notes, high tempi, lots of noise, etc.).

[dima_76557]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on topic:

I read that hanon or czerny won't make your fingers stronger because fingers don't have muscles, is this a myth?.

A finger that readies itself to sing or imitate another instrument becomes strong (enough) in itself. If more people understood this, we wouldn't have useless discussions like this one so often. Hanon, Czerny and the dreaded (?) scales and arpeggio drills are merely a playground to practise this principle.

[j_menz]

In an attempt to bring the thread back on topic:

And that will be an improvement? 

[dima_76557]

And that will be an improvement? 

Rather a signal to close a topic about nothing.

[outin]

Rather a signal to close a topic about nothing.

Or maybe a few more pages about what constitutes nothing? 

[thalbergmad]

Today, I am going to attempt an egg flavoured fart.

Thal

[outin]

Today, I am going to attempt an egg flavoured fart.

Isn't that quite easy? Or am I just being arrogant again...?

[ahinton]

Today, I am going to attempt an egg flavoured fart.

I'm as much at risk of committing typos as the next poster, but don't you mean "tart"?

If you're to make your own pastry, you'll need - er - strong fingers...

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

If you're to make your own pastry, you'll need - er - strong fingers...

You don't have one of these?

[pianist1976]

Today, I am going to attempt an egg flavoured fart.

Thal

This is one of the very few sensible things I've read on this thread.

[dumkagal]

Hi--I'm new to Piano Street, and am very interested in the concept of "finger strength." But technically speaking there really is no such thing--check out any anatomy diagram or ask any doctor, and you'll learn that THERE ARE NO MUSCLES IN THE FINGERS--only in the hand and arm. (Sorry if someone already wrote this and I missed it.) The fingers are complexly controlled by minutely coordinated movements of finger and hand TENDONS that connect the contracting/relaxing hand (and arm) muscles to the finger bones. (I'm not sure I'm explaining this optimally; sorry.) But this fact raises important questions about how pianists develop fine, sensitive, and yes--strong-when-needed--touch. The "strength" ultimately comes from finely controlled coordination. Over time, many pianists do develop noticeably enlarged muscles under their forearms near the wrists, and probably at the bases of thumbs and pinkies.

I also think that "fat-fingered" people may well have an advantage over thinner-fingered ones, but maybe mostly because the fingers are probably shorter more than fatter and therefore do not need to bend back away from the backboard, particularly during octaves and wider stretches. But it's people like Martha Argerich who I think were really born to play--check out early videos; she was quite thin then but her arms were reminiscent of Popeye's. I think those heavy, strong arms gave her an advantage over many. (Oh, and maybe her thick, short-looking fingers? Just my 2 cents.)

"Strength," though, is definitely an aspect of powerful playing, but not always the most important one. I think this topic could be explored in many ways.

Adieu for now...

[lazyfingers]

I really wonder what posters mean when they refer to "finger strength".

- Is it strength in the fingers (regardless of where the muscles controlling the fingers are)?
- Or is it the strength of the muscles in the fingers?

I think the assertion that there are "no muscles in the fingers" does not mean very much because from a pianist's point of view (at least from my point of view), the question is whether to play with/from the fingers, the hands, the forearm etc, is more appropriate. To me, finger strength does exist even if the muscles aren't actually there.

[outin]

I think this topic could be explored in many ways.

Sure...indefinitely it seems