Left hand methodology

[gtpiano]

Hi all. I am actually a scientist and archaeologist mostly involved with artefact data analysis. The piano is a hobby to me. I wonder why there is such an emphasis on left-hand methodologies that dictate a precise order approach such as arpeggios etc. I see music as a reflection of one's emotions, not mathematical equations to be solved. I try, with great difficulty to use my left-hand subtly, to enhance my mood with the music. As Oscar Wilde said of art (paraphrasing only), 'art becomes a commodity once its ownership is transferred'. Can anybody suggest how to begin the process of artistry in a left-hand methodology that better reflects emotion, not necessarily expertise?

[lelle]

Hi and welcome!

Our goal when we play is to convey the emotions of the music as deeply as possible. In the hardest pieces, such as those by Chopin, Liszt, and beyond, you need a highly refined command over your body and the instrument in order to even be able to play the notes at all. But you also want to have an as big of an additional capacity to control and shade and make choices with what you are doing, so that you can not only play the notes but make an artistic interpretation and convey the emotions you want to convey. The reason we practise arpeggios, technical exercises, and have a sequenced approach to how we learn the technical patterns needed to play the instrument, is because this highly refined command over our body is built up through working out these progressively more challenging tasks and applying the knowledge that we gain along the way.

In short, the more difficult the piece, the more you need a highly refined command over the instrument, or else your body will simply get in the way of any artistry or emotion you might wish to convey, which is why we we practise technical exercises, scales, arpeggios etc.

[ranjit]

I wonder why you're talking about the left hand in particular, because the same exercises are used for the right hand. My guess is that you can already instinctively play with 'emotion' with the right hand but not the left, and are being asked to focus more on acquiring left hand technique. Ultimately, you want to be able to play anything with the left hand which you can with the right hand. In order to do so, you need to train your reflexes and muscle memory, to the point where you will literally grow new connections which can efficiently handle moving the left hand for the piano. How do you plan to acquire that motor memory?

[sucom]

I agree with everything that has been written already.  I don't think you CAN separate emotion from expertise.  The two go hand in hand because you need expertise to allow music to flow; from each hand individually. Then, and only then, will the two hands play together as they should.

[lostinidlewonder]

I wonder why there is such an emphasis on left-hand methodologies that dictate a precise order approach such as arpeggios etc.

It is because you often get music where it is LH support vs RH melody. 

Can anybody suggest how to begin the process of artistry in a left-hand methodology that better reflects emotion, not necessarily expertise?

This is something that requires actual context to discuss, what music are you studying, discuss the bars of music and you will get a more relevant response.

[roncesvalles]

What "left hand methodologies" are you referring to, as opposed to general methodologies in both hands?
There are very many pedagogical works focused on the left hand, and many of these are made not just to give stock formulas on technique, but to endow the left hand with possibilities most commonly found in the right hand portion of music.  There are many pieces of all difficulties that focus on the left hand, not as a supporter of music but as the main focus.   One of the things I've done is to always play melodies or figures I like in my left hand that are written for the right to develop the way I think melodically and feel supple in the left hand.  Another thing I sometimes do for a left hand warm up is play with my left hand alone pieces written for another instrument like violin or clarinet.

I think there's a difference between technique and mechanics of playing.  Mechanics would be the physical equipment involved and the motions involved in playing something.  Technique however has an end in mind--there is some result that is supposed to happen, and technique is the process of achieving that result.  There is something different between the mechanics of arpeggios (finger motions wrist rotation, release of tension, arm motion, etc.) that can be repeated in an exercise and the technique of arpeggios--which to me is "how do I get this to sound a certain way?" 

In elementary learning an arpeggio may just be something to sound the correct notes in the correct time without drowning out the melody, if there is one.  But the actual technique of playing arpeggios in actual repertoire is something more focused--in Chopin an arpeggio may seem like a homogenous accompaniment, but often its lowest note can be sung as a bassline and its highest note might sometimes be a subtle countermelody.

It's easy to get hung up, especially as an adult, in the early stages of learning the piano.  There are fundamental things you learn that appear very elementary and seem to have little to them either because they're so simple or that they seem abstract and like they would never be applied to anything.  It's easy to view them as merely mechanical.  But as you expand your skills and get acquainted with more repertoire, you can see them deployed in countless different ways to different ends, and you start to realize that the very things you thought were mechanical can be artistic and have a lot of technical room for experiment and expression.

[gtpiano]

Hi. Thanks for the great advice and suggestions. I especially see the relevance of playing the melody lines using the left hand as a warmup exercise. I will definitely make that a part of my playing practice. Many years ago, for ~ 10 years I attended jazz workshops as the drummer (occasionally singing). Our coordinator was a well-known Sydney (Australia) jazz-scene clarinetist' Freddie Wilson'. He used to suggest to beginning pianists that they play their solo parts by simply adopting random arpeggio notes from the chords he handed out as the basis for the songs we played. I say songs because the workshops were predominantly aimed at getting singers used to an improvisational approach to performing. I notice that arpeggios are generally described as ordered scales of the chord notes up or down whereas Freddie was was quite relaxed about a more randomly applied use of arpeggios. What can you suggest in regard to this concept. I find that randomly picking out notes from the chords sounds terribly chaotic at my level of music knowledge. As far as the piano is concerned, I am attracted to jazz from the 1940s-1960s period, e.g., Misty, I should care, Moonlight in Vermont, Autumn Leaves, etc. I will have many questions regarding other aspects of jazz, i.e., alternative and/or additional chords based on relative minor scales, etc. I can get a little confused in such areas. Cheers George.

[ranjit]

I think it's important to listen a lot of music in the idiom in which you want to compose/improvise. Then, you gradually try to imitate it. I would personally stay away from thinking about theory at the very beginning. It's far more important that you capture the ever-elusive "feel". The "feel" then directs you to bring the music out naturally. Especially for improvisation-based genres, I would really recommend trying to play things by ear. It's more than just the notes.

That said, you mentioned that playing chord tones didn't seem to make a melody. That's because a melody also needs phrasing. You need some rise and fall, some points which stick out, etc. One good rule of thumb is to not jump around too much and use stepwise motion, and to have one point of climax in a melody. Make sure that large jumps in melody are intentional -- they can certainly be used for dramatic effect, but you need to use them intelligently. Of course, this is a very procedural way of going about it, but it is still worth practicing this consciously sometimes.

[keypeg]

Hi all. I am actually a scientist and archaeologist mostly involved with artefact data analysis. The piano is a hobby to me. I wonder why there is such an emphasis on left-hand methodologies that dictate a precise order approach such as arpeggios etc. I see music as a reflection of one's emotions, not mathematical equations to be solved. I try, with great difficulty to use my left-hand subtly, to enhance my mood with the music. As Oscar Wilde said of art (paraphrasing only), 'art becomes a commodity once its ownership is transferred'. Can anybody suggest how to begin the process of artistry in a left-hand methodology that better reflects emotion, not necessarily expertise?

I'm actually stuck on "left hand".  Why would arpeggios have anything to do with the left hand?

I'm afraid I was lost for most of the post.  (I don't think there is such a thing as  "left hand methodology).

[gtpiano]

"Why would arpeggios have anything to do with the left hand?" I better let somebody more knowledgeable than me answer that. My research seems to suggest that arpeggios are quite a common bass accompaniment for some reason. I know, however, the Fake books do not encourage any bass, only indicate the melody and chord progression it seems? This poses another question, i.e., if the piano is the only instrument playing should the chords always be played using an inversion that has the tonic as the bass note?

[keypeg]

"Why would arpeggios have anything to do with the left hand?" I better let somebody more knowledgeable than me answer that.

My question was a bit of a statement.  Arpeggios are not something exclusive to the left hand.  Arpeggios can be in either hand or both hands.  You can have music where at first look there is "no melody" but you can draw a melody out by emphasizing certain notes, etc.

[lelle]

This poses another question, i.e., if the piano is the only instrument playing should the chords always be played using an inversion that has the tonic as the bass note?

No, there is no such hard rule. It works the same as when you read chords for another instrument. The chord text will tell you what bass note, for example C/G is a C major chord with a G as the bass note, if it's only C then the root note should be the bass.

[ranjit]

This poses another question, i.e., if the piano is the only instrument playing should the chords always be played using an inversion that has the tonic as the bass note?

No for always, but from my experience this is very common in jazz. It makes sense as well, because with complex chords, they can often become really ambiguous otherwise. In classical, the bass note can be any note in the chord, although the second inversion tends to have a different function than the others and is used more often for cadences.

[lostinidlewonder]

My question was a bit of a statement.  Arpeggios are not something exclusive to the left hand.  Arpeggios can be in either hand or both hands.  You can have music where at first look there is "no melody" but you can draw a melody out by emphasizing certain notes, etc.

It is not exclusively for the LH but if you look at the overall landscape of pieces written for the piano you will see LH support vs RH melody occurs a lot, look at more contemporary repetoire so much of it just that. You can also find a whole lot of classical music which follows it too. So the idea that the LH is always doing support vs RH doing melodic lines is not unusual at all. All pieces could be edited/reduced to a simple chord in LH vs a RH melody so perhaps that is saying something too.

[keypeg]

It is not exclusively for the LH but if you look at the overall landscape of pieces written for the piano you will see LH support vs RH melody occurs a lot, look at more contemporary repetoire so much of it just that. You can also find a whole lot of classical music which follows it too. So the idea that the LH is always doing support vs RH doing melodic lines is not unusual at all. All pieces could be edited/reduced to a simple chord in LH vs a RH melody so perhaps that is saying something too.

I was trying to signal to the OP that music is more than that.  There isn't actually that much music I'm playing these days that does stay that segregated.  And sometimes there is no "melody" per se - you have to draw it out of the arpeggios or chords, and it can meander among the hands.  Just to expand awareness.

[lelle]

All pieces could be edited/reduced to a simple chord in LH vs a RH melody so perhaps that is saying something too.

I think the exception to this would be wholly contrapuntal music.

[lostinidlewonder]

I was trying to signal to the OP that music is more than that.

I think it is fairly obvious that of course it is not always LH support vs RH melody.

There isn't actually that much music I'm playing these days that does stay that segregated.  And sometimes there is no "melody" per se - you have to draw it out of the arpeggios or chords, and it can meander among the hands.  Just to expand awareness.

Of course there is music which doesn't follow LH support vs RH melody but there simply is a huge amount that does. Just have a look at fake books.

I think the exception to this would be wholly contrapuntal music.

That too can be altered/reduced to chords vs melody, it's not going to be exactly the same but sound quite close.

[keypeg]

I think it is fairly obvious that of course it is not always LH support vs RH melody.

It won't be obvious to a beginner who is asking questions suggesting otherwise. Which is why I signaled what I did.

[kittenyarn]

I'm right handed and it seems like my left hand is "weaker" or less capable than my right hand. Isn't there any methodology to correct this problem that could be called a left hand methodology? Or is that solved by focusing equally on the right hand and the left hand? It seems to me like I should be focusing on my left hand more, since it is not as good as my right hand? 

[lostinidlewonder]

It won't be obvious to a beginner who is asking questions suggesting otherwise. Which is why I signaled what I did.

Errr just because a lot of pieces will be LH support vs RH melody what do you mean it isn't obvious that you can go against this? You don't need special knowledge to realize that the hands can do different tasks and are not enslaved to certain movements. They asked why is this the case not whether there are patterns that go against it. It was asked why is it that they observe a lot of LH support patterns, so we should tell them why it is so not say that it isn't always the case. You are trying to tell them that it is not always the case but I showed that there are methods which are heavily that case, eg: fake books. What is the point in telling them it is not always the case when the question was why is there a high propensity for it to occur?

[keypeg]

Because I have been an adult student coming into this from nowhere, and you have not.  You can get all kinds of wrong impressions, and those impressions can stay.  I'd rather be on the safe side than to assume that the "obvious" is "obvious" - because it may not be.

This is going in circles.

[gtpiano]

It was asked why is it that they observe a lot of LH support patterns, so we should tell them why it is so not say that it isn't always the case. You are trying to tell them that it is not always the case but I showed that there are methods which are heavily that case, eg: fake books. What is the point in telling them it is not always the case when the question was why is there a high propensity for it to occur?

As an analytical archaeologist, I look for patterns within archaeological assemblages that empirically suggest orthodoxy or agency in the cultural dynamics. What appears to be one example of agency in jazz music that I have come across is the methodology of, e.g., Bill Evans' playing. As a novice, I have little understanding of his complex harmonics, etc. I have read that he structured his music around block-chords using alternative diminished chords based on certain notes from the diatonic scale. However, it seems to me that his music only just hints at the melody. For example, to me anyway, his version of Autumn Leaves seems to make the melody very elusive, i.e., it shows itself now and again, not all the time. When I find this kind of agency exhibited in archaeological assemblages it points to very specific, punctuated associations within a cultural framework. This suggests to me that music orthodoxy dominates, i.e., melody supported by obvious-to-the ear patterns from the left hand becomes more popular, more marketable than the more elusive jazz patterns? A contemporary example I suppose is 'you'll never walk alone' with its seemingly standard, up and down the scale arpeggio throughout the song. What are your thoughts on this?

[j_tour]

For example, to me anyway, his version of Autumn Leaves seems to make the melody very elusive, i.e., it shows itself now and again, not all the time. When I find this kind of agency exhibited in archaeological assemblages it points to very specific, punctuated associations within a cultural framework. This suggests to me that music orthodoxy dominates, i.e., melody supported by obvious-to-the ear patterns from the left hand becomes more popular, more marketable than the more elusive jazz patterns?

Oh, I don't know.  Yeah, maybe if one has a job playing "cocktail piano," it's best to not indulge in more complicated reharmonizations or oblique voicings/voice leadings in the inner voices, but IME people who hire for those kind of jobs don't really care, just so long as it sounds "jazzy."

FWIW, I wouldn't say that Bill uses a lot of predictable patterns, although some people have tried to systematize the infamous "rootless voicings" used by a number of players from the 1950s onwards:  his main ideas in improvisation is pure melody.  Although, for example, in his *Autumn Leaves* studio recording (among many other examples from the same time period), he's not above using some flourishes in thirds.

And he does seem to have a basic arrangement of the tune in mind, again, especially early on, not that he couldn't or didn't deviate when it suited him.

In his later live recordings, though, all bets are off!

[ranjit]

When I find this kind of agency exhibited in archaeological assemblages it points to very specific, punctuated associations within a cultural framework. This suggests to me that music orthodoxy dominates

It's tricky to understand what exactly you mean here with all of the jargon -- especially the use of "agency" and "orthodoxy" are being used in a rather technical way which may not be equivalent to the common usage of those terms.

What I understand here is -- the fact that Bill Evans comes up with this very elusive rendition of a popular piece, suggests that music is based on that which is already familiar (orthodox) which is seeped into public consciousness to the extent that it will be discerned even with all of the obfuscation. Or, do you mean that the fact that such an abstracted-out recording was made based on a tune which was popular suggests that music is orthodox in general, and the agency in this case comes about as a result of that orthodoxy?

I listened to Bill Evans, and I'm confused by your post. He states the melody very clearly at the starting -- it's clear then that he would be doing a theme and variations-style arrangement. What's so mysterious?

I think that you need to distinguish between the "general audience" and the "jazz listeners". The latter are knowledgeable about the jazz idiom, and are familiar with the general layout that would be used -- this training doesn't have to be explicit and come from a lifetime of listening to jazz. In that way, culture builds upon itself, but there's nothing surprising with that.

melody supported by obvious-to-the ear patterns from the left hand becomes more popular, more marketable than the more elusive jazz patterns

Okay, there are multiple things here (I'm starting to prefer bullet points nowadays lol ):

1. Most jazz performances (including the Bill Evans one) mostly use the left hand for accompaniment anyway, even if it's more involved.

2. The jazz patterns are meant to cater to a niche community (jazz aficionados) rather than the general public. This is true of most art music -- it's different by design. However, there is still usually an aspect of it which is meant to be appreciated equally by the layman.

3. The abstractness of jazz lends itself well to it becoming "background music" which people find pleasant, even though the music might have been played in a way which encourages critical listening. And so it still enters public consciousness.

4. Most of the marketability in pop music comes from high production values, and simple, easy to follow arrangements. There aren't that many songs which are written specifically for the piano, although they may use it as an instrument. It's often just used for a playing a couple of chords.

5. If you look at music where the piano is at the fore, the piano arrangement can often get (relatively) complex in popular music -- Billy Joel comes to mind.

6. So, what you tend to see are *arrangements* of pop music, not necessarily the music itself. Those arrangements are often stripped-down versions, and made to accommodate the abilities of a beginner - early intermediate piano student, which might make it seem as if "popular music" likes those patterns. However, actual performers of popular music usually have more complex parts if they actually play piano arrangements in public, and these are meant for amateurs.

7. Especially in popular music, but in music which has multiple parts in general, some of the instruments must have simple parts in order for others to have complex parts. If all instruments are equally "talkative" it feels like an overcrowded dinner party -- you won't be able to really follow any conversation and it's an information overload. In the case of popular music, the piano usually doesn't do the "talking" and is therefore pared down.

8. I think all kinds of jazz (as well as classical) are relatively niche anyway -- most people would probably be listening to the latest pop act or movie score.

[gtpiano]

It's tricky to understand what exactly you mean here with all of the jargon -- especially the use of "agency" and "orthodoxy" are being used in a rather technical way which may not be equivalent to the common usage of those terms.

Or, do you mean that the fact that such an abstracted-out recording was made based on a tune which was popular suggests that music is orthodox in general, and the agency in this case comes about as a result of that orthodoxy?

I guess what I am saying is that in this particular case, i.e., Autumn leaves as played by Bill Evans, yes, the agency has evolved from orthodoxy. However, things can happen the other way around, as they do in ancient and contemporary production processes. That is, an individual comes up with a unique idea or process (agency) that evolves into an orthodoxy that produces more homogenous production runs. An example of this in ancient production is Late-Bronze-Age blue-glass bead production from Egypt and Mesopotamia. While a contemporary example is the Model T Ford. In music, I guess Rock & Roll is an example of orthodoxy-agency-orthodoxy, i.e., 12 bar blues-agency-rock & roll. I am not sure as to the exact starting punctuated agency-event but someone with more knowledge of musical history could probably suggest a possibility, maybe Rock Around the Clock as played by Bill Haley and the Comets (1954). Another example could be Born to be Wild by Steppenwolf, the beginning of what became known as 'Heavy Metal".

[lostinidlewonder]

Because I have been an adult student coming into this from nowhere, and you have not.  You can get all kinds of wrong impressions, and those impressions can stay.  I'd rather be on the safe side than to assume that the "obvious" is "obvious" - because it may not be.

This is going in circles.

It doesn't require any sort of specialist information as I said before, you don't need special knowledge to know that often you get LH support vs RH melody or that you can actually break this standard. It has nothing to do with early or later training. It is obvious, don't you realize there are things in life that are quite obvious? The question wasn't about the chance that you may break this pattern of LH support vs RH melody, that is OBVIOUS, the question was why is there a high propensity for this to occur.

....This suggests to me that music orthodoxy dominates, i.e., melody supported by obvious-to-the ear patterns from the left hand becomes more popular, more marketable than the more elusive jazz patterns? A contemporary example I suppose is 'you'll never walk alone' with its seemingly standard, up and down the scale arpeggio throughout the song. What are your thoughts on this?

The most popular music is those with a melody people can hum and sing. If you have a solo piece on the piano which doesn't have something that is easily "hummable" it most likely will not be as appreciated by laymen. Many genres of piano music can get to points where they just want to put as many notes in as possible with whatever clever ideas they can come up with, it might be interesting and produce fascinating sounds but to a casual listener it is not going to be that effective or memorable (especially if you do generic jazz improvisation which all sound quite similar to laymen).

People without specialist musical tastes/knowledge just want something that is memorable and easy to understand. If someone expresses their favorite piece of music they are going to hum out the melody not the support or decoration around it. Chords and support are like telegraph poles and the melody the wire that connect the poles together, this kind of format is how most music is constructed and understood. We anticipate the chords that will come but delight in the melody that connects it together.

I don't think it is that interesting or unusual when the roles switch around in the hands. For example if there is a walking bass line vs chords is that really so much different if we flipped it around? As you get better at piano playing the support vs melody segregation of the hands start collapsing and invade each others territory.

The nature of piano playing is that we can accompany the melody we play quite easily ourselves, we can play all the parts of an orchestra or band, this is why the piano is a solo instrument. Many other instruments usually require accompaniment however we see with the piano melody vs support often because we have the capability to do so. So it should not be unusual or require any specialist education to understand why we play all sorts of support vs melody on the piano.

When the piano is playing with others however we often can see total segregation of support and melody, the pianist might choose one or the other or go inbetween. If for example the piano is played as accompaniment when supporting a singer, you may be playing all sorts of chords and arpeggios but not so much the melody. Listeners are going to observe the singer more so than the pianist because that is where the melody lies, sure the pianist can emphasise and decorate the melody and take more attention when the singer has a break but they don't want to over play and drown out the singer with melodic lines while playing with them. I thought I'd mention Kevon Carter, I love how he makes comedy out of his piano accompaniment experiences:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK0INYR6lJvEInYPtYA54KQ

[j_tour]

I'm right handed and it seems like my left hand is "weaker" or less capable than my right hand. Isn't there any methodology to correct this problem that could be called a left hand methodology? Or is that solved by focusing equally on the right hand and the left hand? It seems to me like I should be focusing on my left hand more, since it is not as good as my right hand? 

Yeah, well, join the club! 

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call anything I do "methodical," but while I do a lot of fundamental work with the good old scales (including some odd ones) at the octave, the third, and the sixth, I also work the LH specifically on things like the G major prélude of Chopin, many passages in Bach and Beethoven which feature "running" figures in the LH, and, really, just anything I can think of that helps me move closer to a more complete fluency.  Yes, even Czerny exercises:  some of them are kind amusing to me, even if some of them are more or less cribbed from ideas in Beethoven.

I happen to have a strong LH for many different ideas, probably thanks to background in stride piano, boogie/rock and roll, New Orleans music, walking the bass on the Hammond organ (or piano, very occasionally), and all kinds of arpeggios, but the above paragraph is just how I've been trying to improve.  Being so used to doing chords and wide leaps if, anything, sort of perverted the way I think of the LH, so there's a good bit of neural reprogramming I've had to do.

I have found for a different kind of dexterity the vast majority of Bach I've read to be helpful, even if it's only obliquely related to doing strictly scalar works.  It's firmed up an amount of control, if nothing else.

Not that I can't pretty play fast scalar passages in the LH when needed, sort of, but it's just not as automatic and fluent as I'd like it to be, in order to execute improvised ideas or to cut down on time spent on repertoire that uses the LH more completely and melodically (even if the "melody" is rudimentary and based on scalar motions).

So, that's not much of an answer, since it just boils down to "practice," but that's my method.

But, maybe the one thing that could be helpful is that I have some very concrete reasons for training in this manner, not really just because I think I should, in abstract, idealized sense.

Listeners are going to observe the singer more so than the pianist because that is where the melody lies, sure the pianist can emphasise and decorate the melody and take more attention when the singer has a break but they don't want to over play and drown out the singer with melodic lines while playing with them.

You make some critical points in your post.  I just thought I'd share my annoyance at trying to accompany less-than-accomplished singers at pop/jazz music:  many times it seems they get annoyed if I'm not actually playing the melody along with them.

Which is, IMHO, ridiculous:  it robs the music of any hope of expression and coherence.  Not that there isn't a place when one might one to double the melody, in, say, an instrumental arrangement, perhaps by providing a harmonized version of the melody.

Just a pet peeve of mine and why I really try to make myself absent if various people, at, say a party of some kind, make rumbling noises about wanting to sing a tune.  Yet another reason to skip Christmas gatherings, as if the execrable music weren't reason enough.  Vince Guaraldi excepted, of course!

[lostinidlewonder]

You make some critical points in your post.  I just thought I'd share my annoyance at trying to accompany less-than-accomplished singers at pop/jazz music:  many times it seems they get annoyed if I'm not actually playing the melody along with them.

Which is, IMHO, ridiculous:  it robs the music of any hope of expression and coherence.  Not that there isn't a place when one might one to double the melody, in, say, an instrumental arrangement, perhaps by providing a harmonized version of the melody.

Just a pet peeve of mine and why I really try to make myself absent if various people, at, say a party of some kind, make rumbling noises about wanting to sing a tune.  Yet another reason to skip Christmas gatherings, as if the execrable music weren't reason enough.  Vince Guaraldi excepted, of course!

Yes well it is very ridiculous if they want you to play the melody lol. Perhaps if you are playing for a congregation of people it's fine but a singer should be able to bend time with the melody and sing with it in an artistic manner, if they just want to sing it on tempo with the piano, well that's pretty damn bland!

[keypeg]

It is obvious, don't you realize there are things in life that are quite obvious?

In my present profession I have learned that we must never assume that obvious things are obvious, and more importantly, obvious to others.  Those not in your own field can totally miss what should be self-evident. The maxim is to assume nothing.

[lostinidlewonder]

In my present profession I have learned that we must never assume that obvious things are obvious, and more importantly, obvious to others.  Those not in your own field can totally miss what should be self-evident. The maxim is to assume nothing.

That should not blindsight you from things that are actually obvious then. The question asked was "Why would arpeggios have anything to do with the left hand?" to then say that it is not only for LH doesn't really answer the question although it does state the obvious that one can do other things too. The question itself is rather simplistic so probably would have to be answered with an obvious answer but it should relate to the question directly.

[keypeg]

How about if each of us to gives feedback to an asker in their own way.  An incorrect answer is always of concern and should be corrected for the sake of learners, but "unnecessary" answers is a different matter. We want to be discussing the question, and only that.  A variety of answers also gives a variety of views.  If an asker is confused about anything, they can say so.

[lostinidlewonder]

How about if each of us to gives feedback to an asker in their own way.  An incorrect answer is always of concern and should be corrected for the sake of learners, but "unnecessary" answers is a different matter. We want to be discussing the question, and only that.  A variety of answers also gives a variety of views.  If an asker is confused about anything, they can say so.

Well they asked why does the LH often do arpeggios and you said that it doesn't always happen, but that still doesn't answer the question. You then said that it is not obvious that LH support vs RH melody doesn't always occur which is just ridiculous. There was a question asked and a solution which quoted the question but did not answer it. You even said you don't know why the LH has anything to do with arpeggios. So why confuse the situation when clearly there is a whole lot of music which follows LH support vs RH melody. The question was asked so we should answer with regard to that question.

[j_tour]

Well, it's true just from observation that a generic "homespun" sort of keyboard arrangement does use broken chords (arpeggios) and rudimentary things like that.  In the LH.  I bet anything 99/100 of "sheet music" publications of pop tunes follow that basic form, as does a great many post, say, CPE Bach music.

Sure.

It does make it all the more difficult when one is creating melodic improvisations in, say, the bebop style, where arpeggios as melodic devices are used in the RH. 

Not from the notes, but lack of familiarity of using broken chords, including arpeggios, &c. as melodic elements.

Dunno.