Scriabin Op 8 No 12 - Advice

[dominict]

I came across this piece a couple of months ago and really loved it, and have looked at a couple different interpretations (the Horowitz one is my favourite) but it looks fairly difficult and I'm not sure if I'm able to play it just yet as there isn't a Henle level attached to it.

For reference, I'm taking A-Level music next year, and recently completed my ABRSM Grade 7 exam with a high distinction, and my Grade 6 theory with a distinction as well. Right before, I played Arabesque No 1 by Debussy fairly comfortably and to a decent quality too. A couple months back I also practiced Czerny's Op 740 no 12 (albeit at a slower tempo). I'm looking towards playing this Scriabin piece before I start my Grade 8.

Another thing: I practice on a really heavy piano at home (74g), but will rent a new piano in a couple of months with a lighter touch so that I can play fast-paced songs easier - it was a hurdle while playing the Czerny Etude. Will that be an issue with this piece?

Any advice would be appreciated - and if the piece is too difficult, I'd also love to hear anyone else's reccomendations for pieces to play.

[nightwindsonata]

It is such a great piece, and one that is nearly always a crowd-pleaser. I've played it quite often myself (even posted a video to this forum). I always refer to it as "the end of the world in two minutes."

As to whether or not you should play it at your level: if you are not planning to perform it for ABRSM or anywhere else, I say go for it. Play it slowly without pedal, hands alone, and definitely work on it with your teacher. It will really stretch your technique, but I will warn you that it will not feel nice to play for quite some time, and if you approach it with a heavy technique or excess tension in your arms, it will hurt quite a lot (in which case, you should definitely not play it). It will be a long project--I would peg it at about the same difficulty as the coda of the Chopin G minor Ballade.

As to the piano--I actually think the heavier piano will benefit you. Contrary to many of the recordings you have heard, this is NOT a fast piece. The marking is "patetico," which is basically "with strong emotion." That does not require a fast tempo, but it does require certain energy to be applied to the right hand octaves and left-hand bass (the inner voices, while important, should not be obvious). Also note that a bit of rubato is certainly allowed (even written in to the music), especially with the left-hand leaps and stretches that you have no choice but to roll. Your teacher should be able to help you facilitate those.

Best of luck!

[dominict]

It is such a great piece, and one that is nearly always a crowd-pleaser. I've played it quite often myself (even posted a video to this forum). I always refer to it as "the end of the world in two minutes."

As to whether or not you should play it at your level: if you are not planning to perform it for ABRSM or anywhere else, I say go for it. Play it slowly without pedal, hands alone, and definitely work on it with your teacher. It will really stretch your technique, but I will warn you that it will not feel nice to play for quite some time, and if you approach it with a heavy technique or excess tension in your arms, it will hurt quite a lot (in which case, you should definitely not play it). It will be a long project--I would peg it at about the same difficulty as the coda of the Chopin G minor Ballade.

As to the piano--I actually think the heavier piano will benefit you. Contrary to many of the recordings you have heard, this is NOT a fast piece. The marking is "patetico," which is basically "with strong emotion." That does not require a fast tempo, but it does require certain energy to be applied to the right hand octaves and left-hand bass (the inner voices, while important, should not be obvious). Also note that a bit of rubato is certainly allowed (even written in to the music), especially with the left-hand leaps and stretches that you have no choice but to roll. Your teacher should be able to help you facilitate those.

Best of luck!

Wow, thank you for the incredibly detailed response! After such a glowing review of the song, I'm almost obligated to play it. I imagine it will be similar to the Czerny pieces in the sense that it will be challenging but considering how beautiful it is I'd say it's worth it, so I'll persevere. Thanks also for the note about the piano; it's true that it can be a benefit to many pieces despite also being a detriment to others, so thankfully it should suit this piece perfectly.
Thank you again for the response, and have a fantastic day!

[lostinidlewonder]

Scriabin has a lot of novel LH ideas and this piece is no exception. The challenge is the LH, if you struggle with octave playing the RH will do you in otherwise that is fairly routine (putting it together with the challenging LH though can make it more difficult). You can approach the piece with LH reductions (maintaining fingering and movements as if you have all the notes) vs all of the RH and then slowly adding all of the LH in stages in an intelligent manner.

[fftransform]

Yeah, I think you can go for it if you have the proper expectation, that it will take you a very long time to learn.  Maybe a year, two years . . . are you happy with making such slow progress to reach this goal?  Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved, the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique.  So if you want to grind on a showpiece that's above your skill level, that's the sort you should look for.

Just make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can.  More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.

[lostinidlewonder]

Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved....make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can.  More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.

How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult? Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.

[fftransform]

How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult?

I didn't.  Here's how you 'quoted' me:

Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved....make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out

vs. what I actually said:

"Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved, the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique."

What did you think I meant by 'the demands it focuses on'?  You excised it from my post and then complained that it wasn't there, very weird xD

Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.

No.  This is the standard Russian School advice for such passages.  This is good form 101, this is what they'll yell at you all the time.  You can't do -less- horizontal moving than the static metaphysical nature of our universe allows.  I don't know how you plan to do it with -less- horizontal motion than I or anyone else would do it with.  Worm holes?  Teleportation?  Flinging your wrists around, overstretching and locking your hand, and making extravagant arm motions is exactly how to add a bunch of extra misses.  Or maybe you want this ABRSM grade 7 student to manifest an arm forte?

[lostinidlewonder]

I didn't.  Here's how you 'quoted' me:

vs. what I actually said:

Well you cut off what I quoted which doesn't make sense at all now.

My removal of what you wrote still presents the same idea. You said the RH then continued to talk about the RH no where did you mention the LH in that sentence at all. I ignored that and then attached what you wanted to say about the LH. IF you really want to talk about the bit I deleted then you will have me complaining a lot which is why I avoided it, but since you insist.

"outside the scope of standard technique." what is that? All technique is connected to one another in some way, there is no mythical outside the scope of standard technique. Why are you double talking too, you said ISN'T REALLY MUCH TECHNIQUE (asides from the RH octaves) then say there is something else which you described as OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE, that is contradictory. How is anything that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE not technique? Or are you trying to suggest that there is some mythical technique and we can't call it technique, it's more a secret movement that you learn from Russian schools only?? LOL!!!! Well you started this all now, let's continue.

What did you think I meant by 'the demands it focuses on'?  You excised it from my post and then complained that it wasn't there, very weird xD

Its not weird at all, what i removed was irrelevant since you made zero attempt at describing your generic terms "technique" and "outside the scope". You used the descriptor "it" and no where did you say LH in that sentence, so all we can think of is you are talking about the RH, but if you are being weird you might mean the Lh and that it has nothing to do with technique because it's really special etc... it is a novel LH pattern but it still can be controlled with standard positional awareness and technique which is not absolutely unique to this piece. 

I am absolutely confident to discuss any phrase any bar any part of this work to prove this point, so if you can please demonstrate this OUTSIDE THE SCOPE technique which cannot be called technique in action, let's see what passage you believe this occurs which exact bars and which exact movement within those bars.

No.  This is the standard Russian School advice for such passages.  This is good form 101, this is what they'll yell at you all the time.  You can't do -less- horizontal moving than the static metaphysical nature of our universe allows.  I don't know how you plan to do it with -less- horizontal motion than I or anyone else would do it with.  Worm holes? 

What rubbish. You said remove vertical movement how much intensity 100% of it, 90%? You said REMOVE which means all of it, that is idiotic, what about reduce? Again why don't you support yourself with actual phrase of music to demonstrate what you are saying, I will be happy to contradict you if you peddle the oddity of removing vertical movements. Perhaps you didn't actually express the technique clearly enough, as you know trying to describe technique in words is fairly clumsy when there is ZERO specific musical context under investigation, as was demonstrated in what you said. You do realize vertical+horizonal movements create arc like movements?

Teleportation?  Flinging your wrists around, overstretching and locking your hand, and making extravagant arm motions is exactly how to add a bunch of extra misses.  Or maybe you want this ABRSM grade 7 student to manifest an arm forte?

Irrelevant.

[fftransform]

Why are you trying to start a fight in this thread?  Has this been welling up in you for a while?  Have you been sitting there, rectum coiled like a viper, just waiting to spew some crap?  I didn't cut off what you quoted, you cut it yourself:

You said the RH then continued to talk about the RH

That's literally the only thing I said about the RH, there was and is no 'continuation.'  You're misreading my post over and over, and then getting pissed off.  Don't get mad at me, get mad at your elementary school teachers who clearly went too easy on you when it came to that whole 'reading comprehension' thing.

Do you just straight-up not know what the word "aside" means?  I don't even buy that your (mis)interpretation is at all reasonable, you're just confused.  Even on a pure grammar nazi level you're wrong, since I had already established the referent of 'it' in the previous sentence as the Etude itself: "Yeah, I think you can go for it..."  As well, in the next sentence 'it' again refers to the Etude.  Given the sentence before, and the sentence after, 'it' suddenly referred to something else in between?  That's like a Q-anon grammar conspiracy!

"outside the scope of standard technique." what is that? All technique is connected to one another in some way, there is no mythical outside the scope of standard technique. Why are you double talking too, you said ISN'T REALLY MUCH TECHNIQUE (asides from the RH octaves) then say there is something else which you described as OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE, that is contradictory. How is anything that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE not technique? Or are you trying to suggest that there is some mythical technique and we can't call it technique, it's more a secret movement that you learn from Russian schools only?? LOL!!!! Well you started this all now, let's continue.

I don't think anybody is gonna consider me as having "started this" one.  You're being absolutely histrionic.  "Let's continue" like a bad anime villain, jeeze get over yourself.

Is the Brahms triple octave trill from the Concerto 1 'standard technique'?  Of course it's *** not.  But by your argument, it is standard technique, or part of standard technique, or however you want to put it, since it has a trill in it so is 'connected to technique'   Are you really pretending to not understand this distinction, just wailing away at your computer keyboard over that?  You can have this philosophical opinion if you want, idgaf, but I think what I meant was clear to anybody not suffering from acute Asperger's.

The leaps in the 8-12 LH (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes) are of a manner that is outside the scope of standard technique to me just like the Brahms trill, it's an extreme distillate, a unique sort of thing that one is not called upon to do in the course of standard playing.

Again, you're REALLY misreading things and projecting your frustrations at me, and I don't like it.  Just to be clear, here 'it' means your whining.

Its not weird at all, what i removed was irrelevant since you made zero attempt at describing your generic terms "technique" and "outside the scope". You used the descriptor "it" and no where did you say LH in that sentence, so all we can think of is you are talking about the RH, but if you are being weird you might mean the Lh and that it has nothing to do with technique because it's really special etc... it is a novel LH pattern but it still can be controlled with standard positional awareness and technique which is not absolutely unique to this piece.

Alright everyone, be careful: Don't use the words "technique," "scope," or "it" around this person unless you want to be deluged with half-illegible philosophy and be scolded for not 'defining' them in your post xD  If they're so generic then why are you forcefully ascribing particular meanings to them on my behalf?  You're inconsistent in your thinking.

I am absolutely confident to discuss any phrase any bar any part of this work to prove this point, so if you can please demonstrate this OUTSIDE THE SCOPE technique which cannot be called technique in action, let's see what passage you believe this occurs which exact bars and which exact movement within those bars.

Normally I'd hope that anybody would be confident about a discussion (kind of low stakes, isn't it?), but after seeing this I believe your confidence is misplaced.  You're acting like an angry 12 year old in the youtube comments xD

What rubbish. You said remove vertical movement how much intensity 100% of it, 90%? You said REMOVE which means all of it, that is idiotic, what about reduce?

I actually didn't say "remove."  Oops.  Are you on drugs?  Maybe in your pcp-induced visual disturbances you mistook it for the word "reasonably," as in where I said "as low to the keys as you reasonably can."

Anyway to the OP, what I said is accurate and it sounds like this lunatic is telling you to do a lot of big, swooping arcs in the air.  They're just wrong, go look up the Horowitz and Sultanov vids and see for yourself, their hands stay very low to the keys except to slam the occasional bottom octave, and even then not coming up dramatically or using some arpeggio-like 'arc' motion.  What I've advised to you is just standard conservatory pablum that I thought was so inoffensive and anodyne that it was borderline-obvious.  Clearly not!  Don't try to make big 1-2/1-3/1-4 stretches or 'roll/fling' your wrist much: the horizontal, gliding arm motion is what should bring your hand where it needs to be.

[lostinidlewonder]

Why are you trying to start a fight in this thread?  Has this been welling up in you for a while?  Have you been sitting there, rectum coiled like a viper, just waiting to spew some crap?  I didn't cut off what you quoted, you cut it yourself:

Well that is your interpretation, that doesn't mean it's the truth. Don't you realize what you THINK and what you KNOW are two different things? If questioning you is fighting that is just weird on your behalf, no need to be so delicate. Based on all your responses it seems that you want to fight not me lol, pot calling the kettle black.

You did cut my quote up of yours, just go up and look it's right there. In any case nothing changes because of what I removed at all so your complaining is irrational.

That's literally the only thing I said about the RH, there was and is no 'continuation.'  You're misreading my post over and over, and then getting pissed off. 

So what do you mean by "Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much technique involved the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique"??

ASIDE means on one side. So you are saying, On one side we have the RH octaves. After that part you failed to mention the LH, or what IT is or what OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE is. It's just a mess of undefined terms, this is why I did not quote it.

Again I am not getting angry or pissed off, that must be your emotions since I am questioning your rather generic response to which you have no response to but your own tears. I can undertsand you might feel threatened if someone asks you to actually be specific rather than let you get away with mysterious terms. I didn't want to discuss those mysterious terms but you chose to say that because I ignored it everything is different. Why not just deal with my first response to you rather than make a mess of this all? If I was mistaken correct me with exact bars of music explaining yourself, but you don't seem to know how to do that.

Don't get mad at me, get mad at your elementary school teachers who clearly went too easy on you when it came to that whole 'reading comprehension' thing.

There you go again trying to make this personal. I asked specific questions about what you said and so far you have failed to support what you have said, which is no real surprise.

Do you just straight-up not know what the word "aside" means?  I don't even buy that your (mis)interpretation is at all reasonable, you're just confused.  Even on a pure grammar nazi level you're wrong, since I had already established the referent of 'it' in the previous sentence as the Etude itself: "Yeah, I think you can go for it..."  As well, in the next sentence 'it' again refers to the Etude.  Given the sentence before, and the sentence after, 'it' suddenly referred to something else in between?  That's like a Q-anon grammar conspiracy!

You did not say LH at all in that sentence, only RH, and then you started talking crazy talk about what is technique and what is not technique because there is some mysterious "OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE". Please, there is no need for elitist type attitudes. I also notice you STILL have not clarified what you meant and instead decided to think this is all personal, thats up to you, but that means your response is rather empty and irrelevant.

I don't think anybody is gonna consider me as having "started this" one.  You're being absolutely histrionic.  "Let's continue" like a bad anime villain, jeeze get over yourself.

I ignored your rubbish because it was ridiculous, you wanted to bring it to the forefront saying it was the crux of everything you said and because i removed it it has changed everything. That is irrational thinking as was already demonstrated, and your lack of supporting what you have to say shows that it really deserved to be ignored. So yes you are starting it, not me. I was happy to ignore it, you pretend what I removed was super important, yet you still are unable to explain why.

Is the Brahms triple octave trill from the Concerto 1 'standard technique'?  Of course it's *** not.  But by your argument, it is standard technique, or part of standard technique, or however you want to put it, since it has a trill in it so is 'connected to technique'   Are you really pretending to not understand this distinction, just wailing away at your computer keyboard over that?  You can have this philosophical opinion if you want, idgaf, but I think what I meant was clear to anybody not suffering from acute Asperger's.

You seem to have troubles keeping on topic. We are talking about this specific Scriabin piece, so please prove what is this amazing mysterious technique you are talking about that is taught in Russian school. Please humor us with your deep secret knowledge lol. All technique is connected to one another in some way. 

The leaps in the 8-12 LH (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes) are of a manner that is outside the scope of standard technique to me just like the Brahms trill, it's an extreme distillate, a unique sort of thing that one is not called upon to do in the course of standard playing.

Bar 8-12 there is no erractic pattern movements it actually repeats the idea, also how would you play this all with horizonal movements like you claim? That wouldn't work.

Post exact bars and we will see that there is nothing erratic or any constant change. Let's see this nice and clearly with actual music. Your response on these bars is just wrong and does not demonstrate any special technique unique only to this piece that is outside the score of standard technique, something you so confidently proclaimed which I wanted to ignore, but you CHOSE to bring it up. Yes you lol.

Again, you're REALLY misreading things and projecting your frustrations at me, and I don't like it.  Just to be clear, here 'it' means your whining.

You have zero proof of such things, it is just all in your head, somehow you believe what you THINK must be what you KNOW. You don't know what I am feeling at all and you have provided no evidence of my frustrations, I gave many questions all of which you can't respond to specifically.

Alright everyone, be careful: Don't use the words "technique," "scope," or "it" around this person unless you want to be deluged with half-illegible philosophy and be scolded for not 'defining' them in your post xD  If they're so generic then why are you forcefully ascribing particular meanings to them on my behalf?  You're inconsistent in your thinking.

Your writing is undefined that is your fault, if you don't think it needs to be defined then you simply are talking without anyone knowing what you mean.

Normally I'd hope that anybody would be confident about a discussion (kind of low stakes, isn't it?), but after seeing this I believe your confidence is misplaced.  You're acting like an angry 12 year old in the youtube comments xD

Run away with tail between legs? Come on, lets discuss the exact bars and exact fingerings, lets see what you mean, there is no hiding when you do such things, I am happy to do it, please start. Stop making guesses about what I am feeling because you are being just more wrong. I have asked you to be more specific and provide exact bars to explain what you mean because I think what you are saying doesn't make sense at all. So if you bring actual bars into discussion perhaps what you are talking about become more clear, I doubt it though but I give you the benefit.

I actually didn't say "remove."  Oops.  Are you on drugs?  Maybe in your pcp-induced visual disturbances you mistook it for the word "reasonably," as in where I said "as low to the keys as you reasonably can."

You said: "take the vertical motion out of the LH". If you "take the splinter out of the LH" does that mean you leave some of it in there or you take it all out? You notice how inaccurate what you said is then, you need to define what you mean not just generic babble.

Anyway to the OP, what I said is accurate and it sounds like this lunatic is telling you to do a lot of big, swooping arcs in the air. 

Where did I say BIG SWOOPING ARCS IN THE AIR? That is your own concoction. You think do all these horizontal movements in the LH, please prove this point with actual music context then we will see how much you really know. But if you want to continue to cry about me and make guesses, oh well thats your choice.

They're just wrong, go look up the Horowitz and Sultanov vids and see for yourself, their hands stay very low to the keys except to slam the occasional bottom octave, and even then not coming up dramatically or using some arpeggio-like 'arc' motion.

Why when I can play it myself? I don’t need to rely on videos.

I am willing to discuss the actual bars of music in specific regions, still waiting for you to start so we can undertsand your secret Russian knowledge.

What I've advised to you is just standard conservatory pablum that I thought was so inoffensive and anodyne that it was borderline-obvious. 

What rubbish, you have not defined your generic responses with concrete refference to exact bars of the music. Are we just to believe you?

Don't try to make big 1-2/1-3/1-4 stretches or 'roll/fling' your wrist much: the horizontal, gliding arm motion is what should bring your hand where it needs to be.

Again you resist bring up actual bars of music to prove you should do horizonal movements and avoid any vertical. You fail to mention vertical movement and all this weird talk about horizonal movements, doesn't make sense at all. What bars are you talking about?

[dominict]

hands stay very low to the keys except to slam the occasional bottom octave, and even then not coming up dramatically or using some arpeggio-like 'arc' motion.  What I've advised to you is just standard conservatory pablum that I thought was so inoffensive and anodyne that it was borderline-obvious.  Clearly not!  Don't try to make big 1-2/1-3/1-4 stretches or 'roll/fling' your wrist much: the horizontal, gliding arm motion is what should bring your hand where it needs to be.

Just to shut off this argument (and thread too now I think), I've been focusing a lot on technique with my teacher and while it should be fairly obvious to you all that I do not have near sufficient experience to give an opinion, my teacher who worked at the Royal Conservatory of the Hague for several decades tends to side with the "hands close to the keys" and little vertical jumps, as well as keeping fingers close together if not in use. However it's also important to note that different pianists have slightly different techniques too - while often it is better to keep your hands low, occasionally vertical movements (albeit often with your arms and not your hands) can be used for expressionism or at the very least to perform certain parts of the piece with more ease.

Either way - whether I'm wrong or not I don't think this thread needs much more to say unless someone has some advice on phrasing or other technique. An update on the piece: I've started learning the notes and have gone over the piece once with my teacher. I've done some rudimentary harmonic analysis on the first page and will do the other two pages when I start practicing them too. As a whole - thank you ALL for the various tips you have given me, and for the support in playing this piece. I don't think it'll take me years as one commenter suggested, but definitely a while. I'm hoping to bring it to semi-performance standard within a couple months, maybe by summer (I practice for 1-2 hours a day effectively, and have decent sight-reading so I don't think it's too impossible). If not, it's still great practice for technique and will complement my Czerny piece well so that I can play more difficult pieces in the future.

Thank you all, and have a nice day

[dominict]

"outside the scope of standard technique."

P.S. Don't think I'm taking sides, but I think this genuinely was a misinterpretation and nothing to get angry about on both parts. The large chords played in the piece, and other difficult parts of the piece are for sure played in other pieces - for example, the Rachmaninoff chord (although that isn't even MEANT to be rolled, but I assume most people resort to rolling it anyway). Another example would be the chords from La Campanella. However, at least in most pieces, and definitely in nearly all the pieces I'm playing at this very intermediate level, the techniques aren't "standard" and are rare, with comparatively just a few exceptions. Yes, it still is TECHNIQUE, but as to whether it's technique that can be applied to many other pieces is debateable, which I think is what fftransform was trying to get at.

Anyway - that should be all. Once again, thank you for all your advice.

[lostinidlewonder]

Nothing to do with anger one bit, it seems many people must have never discussed something with a person who isn’t agreeing with everything they say, disagreement doesn’t mean fighting or anger, and I am not one to walk on eggshells.

None of the technique is so outlandish that it can be called outside the scope of normal technique. If we analyse any bar I can demonstrate that but I won’t do it until someone brings it up and demonstrates what they really know, no point taking over the heads of everyone or giving ideas to use themselves. Perhaps you both haven’t actually performed music which actually is very much outside the scope of normal technique, eg Xenakis Mists. There is no such thing as removing or “taking out” vertical  movement it must be an inherent part of movements at the piano unless you cannot reach the large intervals (you can be forgiven for not being able to reach say the D#G# 11th) then a very fast horizontal movement (which still has vertical aspects to it since the top note needs to be struck from above not side on) makes sense to make it appear as played together but this is not how you deal with the movement throughout the patterns of the LH in this specific piece.

[fftransform]

I'm always down to give phrasing ideas (I wouldn't really call them 'suggestions,' just possible ideas) if you have particular passages in mind.

Just wanted to make sure you had heard these two at least once before you start on it, since they're amazing:

[fftransform]

Me: "I didn't cut off what you quoted, you cut it yourself"

You: "Well that is your interpretation."

Yeah I literally posted a screenshot of it.

Like, I don't even know how to respond to this post in general.  The things you say are just . . . incoherently disconnected from what you're responding to at least half the time.  I'm not just saying that to insult you, it's also true.  The amount of repetition is also a tell-tale sign, well into 'pathological' territory.  It's not like how you used to be; I never got these unstable vibes before from you. You come off like one of those geriatric Trumpsters on Facebook whose words are more like mashed potatoes than an argument.  Aren't you too young for that?

Anyway, just jot me down as 'one more person who told you that you're losing your grip,' and hopefully once you've heard it from enough people you'll seek help.  You should ask your family members or close friends for feedback on this.

Like, for example, you write, "o what do you mean by 'Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much technique involved the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique'??"

(You've misquoted me again to add a typo, btw.)  My responses to you have repeatedly explained what I meant, and the OP also explained to you what it meant, and they had no problem knowing what I meant.  You are mentally struggling with basic conversation.


"ASIDE means on one side."

I have to say, that of all the ways you might have tried to define it, that's the one that doesn't clarify whether you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?  Legit asking.  Aside is used like 'apart,' so 'apart from the RH' means that the other clause in the sentence is about the left hand (unless you wanna play piano with your dick or something, in which case I guess it's unclear).  You know that typo, the comma you dropped?  That's where the clauses were separated.


"I ignored your rubbish because it was ridiculous, you wanted to bring it to the forefront saying it was the crux of everything you said and because i removed it it has changed everything. That is irrational thinking as was already demonstrated[.]"

Isn't that the same sentence with the 'standard technique' remark that you're so focused on?  You've been all-caps screaming about it whenever you're not busy saying how you're not being emotional.

Recall that your original stance was that I was talking about the LH.  Now you're just on a whole different thing; doesn't that clue you in to the fact that you're not being consistent? 


"All technique is connected to one another in some way."

Very Confucian.  That's the sort of well-defined, cross-referenced, indexed, analytical statement that blows my comment out of the water.  Now I see what it is you expect from me to dare comment on something that a genius like you has already rendered such a complete and total treatise on.


"Your writing is undefined that is your fault, if you don't think it needs to be defined then you simply are talking without anyone knowing what you mean."

You mean '[If] your writing...' and '...[,] then that is...' and '...fault[;] if...' and ,...defined[,] then...' and '...simply <---> you are...'  That's five typos in one sentence.  Don't talk to me about clarity.  I'd argue that your use of 'it' there is far more nebulous than any of mine, too.

Also, it's a pretty small sample size, but so far the only person who didn't understand what I meant was you.  For example, I'd say this is bordering on word salad.  To me it's not possible to discern what the point even could be:

'You said: "take the vertical motion out of the LH". If you "take the splinter out of the LH" does that mean you leave some of it in there or you take it all out?'


"Where did I say BIG SWOOPING ARCS IN THE AIR?"

'You do realize vertical+horizonal movements create arc like movements?'

You can tell that's your comment since 'horizontal' is misspelled.  Since you want more vertical movements, it follows that you want arcs!  That's the pesky 'rationality' stuff which you seem to prefer talking about rather than actually using.  Do you prefer these arcs be underwater instead of in the air?


And finally,

correct me with exact bars of music explaining yourself

your response is rather empty and irrelevant.

your lack of supporting what you have to say shows that it really deserved to be ignored.

prove what is this amazing mysterious technique

Post exact bars and we will see that there is nothing erratic or any constant change.

Your response on these bars is just wrong

discuss the exact bars and exact fingerings

I have asked you to be more specific and provide exact bars to explain what you mean

bring actual bars into discussion

please prove this point with actual music context

I am willing to discuss the actual bars of music in specific regions, still waiting for you to start so we can undertsand your secret Russian knowledge.

What rubbish, you have not defined your generic responses with concrete refference to exact bars of the music.

Again you resist bring up actual bars of music

What bars are you talking about?

You're a lunatic.  Look at this absolute, seething obsession.  Talk about feelings, this is so much more 'feelings' than your caps-lock and rage-typos.  I guess that 99.999% of comments on this whole forum are deserving of your deluge.  Get to work!

Anyway, you don't deserve my time like that.  Where do you get off making these sorts of demands?  To reiterate: Get over yourself.

RE 'which bars', like nearly all of them in the A-section and the recap?  If you want to talk about bars so much, tell us why in bars 8-12 a 'horizonal' motion 'won't work.'  You're like, "be specific, give me references, be exact," but then the one puny example you give is just 'it wouldn't work here' with no explanation.  You say that these terms 'horizontal/vertical motion' are poorly defined, but then aren't you implicitly using them to make such a qualitative statement as 'they wouldn't work'?  Oh, and without defining them?  Or are you using my according-to-you-non-existent definition?  Can you be more 'rational' please?

I think watching you try to explain geometry would be a lot funnier than me doing it, given your current state.  My answer is simple: All of it.  You say "it wouldn't work in bars 8-12," well let me counter with the equally deep "sure it would."

[lostinidlewonder]

spam

[fftransform]

All your responses are about your PERSONAL feeling about me

and

You just lack the musical knowledge

you are getting confused lol

you cry and run your mouth off, it's so funny.

you reflecting your own emotions

are you afraid to deal with someone who knows more than yourself?

Are you too afraid

YOu are crying

you have no way of actually being concrete with actual bars

Nope its just your own confusion.

That just highlights the extent of your knowledge.

Are you not intelligent enough

Aww poor thing.

make your stange thoughts understandable.

Lol you are trapped

you will look like an idiot, perhaps thats ok for you.

Aww don't be afraid

Isn't "pot calling the kettle black" one of these phrases in your psychotic repetition repertoire at the moment?  The only difference between my nastiness and yours is that I have panache and you're just boring.  I guess there's a moral difference in how I'm punching down, I suppose.

You made a feeble attempt at saying the LH is very ERRATIC in bar 8-12 but that is very laughable since the patterns are repeated in a way.

No I didn't, you're the one who mentioned this section.  You can't even follow the things you say; already established by your own admission that you can't follow the things that I say.

I already told you which bars.  You're the one dodging, now.

You want me to open MSpaint and draw a red circle around them?  In your bizarre, rage-addled mind this would somehow signify something, I guess?  The only thing that would prove is that I'd waste my time.

As far as I can tell, your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf and put a fingering on it, is that right?  Then I'd just say that the accuracy will be higher on these sections if you are keeping your hand close to the keyboard and using arm motion more than wrist deviation/rolling?  Are you banking on my internet dying while I try to upload a jpeg?

That's your bluff.  It's offensively stupid.  Literally insane thinking.

[lostinidlewonder]

Your AND response is me responding to many of your personal cries about me lol stop being so illogical. Asking you for actual bars is not a personal attack, although i can see how you think it is if you don't know anything at all. You have segregated all those quotes from the actual context in which they were written so they made no sense, even less than my removal of your quote at the very start of our discussion which you were so upset about lol.

Isn't "pot calling the kettle black" one of these phrases in your psychotic repetition repertoire at the moment?  The only difference between my nastiness and yours is that I have panache and you're just boring.  I guess there's a moral difference in how I'm punching down, I suppose.

You get banned for your nastiness lol, there is 15 year history of it. You don't change lol.

No I didn't, you're the one who mentioned this section. 

YOU SAID: "The leaps in the 8-12 LH". So what are you talking about? Not the bars? lol

You can't even follow the things you say; already established by your own admission that you can't follow the things that I say.

I already told you which bars.  You're the one dodging, now.

You choose the bars to talk about go on, prove your HORIZONAL ONLY movements and technique outside the scope of normal technique whatever that means in this case lol.

You want me to open MSpaint and draw a red circle around them?  In your bizarre, rage-addled mind this would somehow signify something, I guess?  The only thing that would prove is that I'd waste my time.

Including the fingerings and which combination of fingers define horizonal movement only and which ones also define technique outside the scope of normal technique lol. That's your own definitions not mine, so go ahead and show us this secret Russian technique lol.

As far as I can tell, your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf and put a fingering on it, is that right?  Then I'd just say that the accuracy will be higher on these sections if you are keeping your hand close to the keyboard and using arm motion more than wrist deviation/rolling?  Are you banking on my internet dying while I try to upload a jpeg?

You post useles jpegs already which have been seen in this thread. So why not post a bar and prove to us your knowledge. You can defeat me in one go, just be concrete! Go ahead!!!

That's your bluff.  It's offensively stupid.  Literally insane thinking.

Ok fftransform", "soliloquy", "skeptopotamus", post bars of music and explain yourself through the fingering, ill show you Im not bluffing. *sharpens scalple*

[nightwindsonata]

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED HERE

[lostinidlewonder]

fftransform", "soliloquy", "skeptopotamus"  (and other names which have been banned in the past) is upset he is asked to be concrete with exact bars of music explaining himself through the fingerings why we should remove vertical movements and how this piece has technique beyond the scope of normal technique (ideas suggested by him). He is avoiding that at all costs.

[fftransform]

YOU SAID: "The leaps in the 8-12 LH". So what are you talking about? Not the bars? lol

Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 12.  You're embarrassing yourself so much that you're ruining the sport of this for me.

I will use my advice in *any* reasonable fingering, i.e. avoid much wrist deviation/rolling and keep the hand close to the keys in *any* bar of the A-section.  Bar 1, bar 2, bar 3, etc.  I already answered this several times.  Here are your circled bars, you may select any fingering you want.  Now please, write this thesis you've been threatening us with.  Sorry, my internet didn't die while uploading the jpeg; you basically just wrecked yourself.

I like how you think bar 11 is 'standard technique' btw

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED HERE

A mental breakdown, as far as I can tell.  Careful posting in this thread, or you'll be asked to give your typing fingerings in order to deserve to comment.

[lostinidlewonder]

Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 12.  You're embarrassing yourself so much that you're ruining the sport of this for me.

you wrote: 8-12 LH, that is not the correct way to define an opus and number so you are merely embarassing yourself. So we can add a third proclaimation of yours that "The leaps in the LH have (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes)". So prove this erratic nature and constant change, good luck!!! All I see is repeated patterns, you think its erratic like Xenakis works which requires a mathematical like disection of the score to appreciate? This Scriabin can be sight read there is no need for vast calculation as with pieces that are erratic.

I will use my advice in *any* reasonable fingering, i.e. avoid much wrist deviation/rolling and keep the hand close to the keys in *any* bar of the A-section.  Bar 1, bar 2, bar 3, etc.  I already answered this several times.  Here are your circled bars, you may select any fingering you want.  Now please, write this thesis you've been threatening us with.  Sorry, my internet didn't die while uploading the jpeg; you basically just wrecked yourself.

Hilarious!!!! You merely circled bars and did not define where you should "take out" vertical movements and only do horizonal, you also failed to define how it is outside the scope of normal technique, these are two points you boldly claimed but fail to support with the score. You also failed to insert the fingerings to define exactly points within the works which highlight your odd ideas. So all you have shown is that you know how to circle bars lol!

You also fail in understanding that the RH can in places take the very top LH notes and merely circled everything, oh dear, perhaps you should have played this piece, if you did you would have understood this option instead of thinking everything in the bass is just the LH Gosh such limited insight when pressed for details, circle bars and say the same generic babble. Why are you so afraid to insert fingering numbers? Please put them in so we can see what you think is right.

A mental breakdown, as far as I can tell.  Careful posting in this thread, or you'll be asked to give your typing fingerings in order to deserve to comment.

Mental breakdown lol, perhaps this is what you will have once we reveal how much you actually know, all these smokes and mirrors of your collapsing. Please define your thoughts with the actual score, circling a bar and not actually describing what you circled in detail is pretty stupid. What you circled must demonstrate your strange idea of "taking out" vertical movements and a description of technique that it outside the bounds of normal technique. It is essential that you reveal fingering otherwise you will not be able to describe anything at all, you should know this if you have ever spoken about a piece in a technical manner with the actual musical score at hand. Please reveal this secret Russian technique for us all!!! lol

[fftransform]

This Scriabin can be sight read there is no need for vast calculation as with pieces that are erratic.

You can't even read English.  That statement is ludicrous.

you wrote: 8-12 LH, that is not the correct way to define an opus and number so you are merely embarassing yourself.

Yeah I'm super-embarrassed that I abbreviated it like 8-12.  Like Chopin 25-6 or Scarlatti 141.  You're right, it would take some sort of supercomputer-like genius to understand what is meant.

You screwed up, just admit it.  One of your deranged leaps-of-thought.  Your leaping technique is pretty suspect to be doling out advice, it seems.

So we can add a third proclaimation of yours that "The leaps in the LH have (huge and with erratic and constant directional changes)".  So prove this erratic nature and constant change, good luck!!!

Add?  That's what I've been saying the whole time.

"Prove" what?  The direction changes almost every time from note to note, and the intervals vary greatly both within the 'triplets' and between them, as well as the irregular placement of the octs/10ths.  If I copy-pasted Herma into Finale twenty times in a row, would you say it's not 'erratic' since there's a 'pattern'?

If the idea is that you went into all this rage over what does 'erratic' mean in some mathematical sense (that of course you haven't defined and would stumble over if you tried) then you're not going to help your "I'm not crazy" case.  There is no 'proving' anything here.  The music is as it is.

All I see is repeated patterns, you think its erratic like Xenakis works which requires a mathematical like disection of the score to appreciate?

You forget one of my other teen-years accounts: Xenakophile!  Maybe you also forget that I'm literally a mathematician now.  So don't even start.  I've appreciated his music plenty without doing any dissection btw (though I have read his book); did you forget I was also john11inch, the biggest modern music youtube channel for like a decade?  Get his name out of your stupid mouth.

You merely circled bars

...

and did not define where you should "take out" vertical movements and only do horizonal

First part's correct.  I said it would be: "Your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf."  You begged me to post a picture with bars circled, because just saying the bar numbers wasn't enough.  I explained that your request was dumb.  Now you see that I was right.

Now you won't engage cuz there aren't fingering numbers.  Next you'll want Schenkerian analysis.  Will you want exact thumb-to-forefinger angles in radians, and rates of contraction?  Cartesian coordinates of hand position relative to middle C?  Do I need to take anatomical measurements of myself first?  If any poor soul reads this, they will laugh at these demands xD

The rest of the statement is ofc wrong.  Because I did tell you the fingering, and I did tell you where I suggest minimizing vertical motion and wrist deviation/rolling: Any fingering, and everywhere.

That's like, the fourth time I answered your question.  Literally my other most recent post in this forum was finding and posting fingerings for every single Hungarian scale.  You're not going to convince anyone that I'm some neophyte.  You can't even convince yourself; if you could, you'd have already chilled out.

It is essential that you reveal fingering otherwise you will not be able to describe anything at all, you should know this if you have ever spoken about a piece in a technical manner with the actual musical score at hand.

You haven't posted fingerings, but have claimed to have described so much!  I guess all your opinions were trash after all.  Post your fingerings, you lazy phony.  You're the one saying it means something, so you post them.  They're irrelevant to what I originally said, which btw remains true despite your tirades.  My advice was better, suck it :3

Lets discuss the actual bars in the piece and see if your generalistic perspective holds up, lets see if you can actually explain it with the music. That way you are trapped into being specific and concrete not just generalise thinking which could mean anything at all.

Nice first post, stranger (you might want to remember to log back into your main account before responding).  Pathetic beyond imagination omg!!!  This is just becoming sad!

[fftransform]

By the way.  Literally every time I see you respond on this forum without giving fingering numbers . . .

Every time.

Forever.

[brogers70]

Hey fast Fourier transform, I think you are correct that LiiW is way over the top here. I'd just say that, beyond a certain point (which I think is in the rear view mirror), continuing to engage makes it harder to decide who's crazier. I suggest just letting him have the last word and thinking about something else.

[frodo1]

Here is part of the original wording fftransform used that appears to be objectionable to Lostinidlewonder. 

Selected original fftransform wording:
“Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much 'technique' involved, the demands it focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique. 

Just make sure you are constantly working to take the vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can.  More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.”


Below, I slightly changed the wording to possibly make it clearer.  I’m wondering if Lostinedlewonder would be more agreeable to this revised wording.  I underlined the changed wording.

Proposed revised wording:
Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much standard technique involved. Much of the demands this piece focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique. 

Just make sure you are constantly working to take excessive vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can.  More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.

[lostinidlewonder]

You can't even read English.  That statement is ludicrous.

Maybe to you since you have no understanding how to sight read such standards.

Yeah I'm super-embarrassed that I abbreviated it like 8-12.  Like Chopin 25-6 or Scarlatti 141.  You're right, it would take some sort of supercomputer-like genius to understand what is meant.

You are the one who used the term embarass, so I throw it back at you, can't take what you give? lol You said 8-12 LH, that could mean 8 to 12, bar 8 to 12.  You should be more accurate in what you write.

You screwed up, just admit it.  One of your deranged leaps-of-thought.  Your leaping technique is pretty suspect to be doling out advice, it seems.

I have not described any technique at all that is all your doing. You still fail to use actual bars of music and describe your technique because you are unable to. You just circle bars LOL!!!!

Add?  That's what I've been saying the whole time.

"Prove" what?  The direction changes almost every time from note to note, and the intervals vary greatly both within the 'triplets' and between them, as well as the irregular placement of the octs/10ths.  If I copy-pasted Herma into Finale twenty times in a row, would you say it's not 'erratic' since there's a 'pattern'?

None of that is erratic at all or irregular. You still fail to prove that in the score itself, you are just saying it and saying SO THERE! lol. You cannot support yourself with the actual score, showing where these erratic places exists. Go ahead and show us.

If the idea is that you went into all this rage over what does 'erratic' mean in some mathematical sense (that of course you haven't defined and would stumble over if you tried) then you're not going to help your "I'm not crazy" case.  There is no 'proving' anything here.  The music is as it is.

There is nothing erratic there, I am still waiting for you to show us in the actual fingering what is erratic at all. There is a repeatable pattern in the LH which by nature makes it not erratic. 

You forget one of my other teen-years accounts: Xenakophile!  Maybe you also forget that I'm literally a mathematician now.  So don't even start.  I've appreciated his music plenty without doing any dissection btw (though I have read his book); did you forget I was also john11inch, the biggest modern music youtube channel for like a decade?  Get his name out of your stupid mouth.

Yes i know many of your accounts which have been Banned by admin because of your rudeness. I laugh at you though, I think its hell funny how you carry on and on. Well done you are well versed at video watching, that doesn't help when you are asked to be specific with the score though, because that requires that you actually have mastered and played pieces to be able to do so.

First part's correct.  I said it would be: "Your whole argument strategy at this point hinges on the idea that I can't circle notes on a pdf."  You begged me to post a picture with bars circled, because just saying the bar numbers wasn't enough.  I explained that your request was dumb.  Now you see that I was right.

You just have no idea how to describe your ideas in a technical manner. Have you even gone to a univeristy to study music, I dont think so. You are simply unable to support what you say with the actual score as was demonstrated with you simple circling bars and saying nothing specfic at all AGAIN.

Now you won't engage cuz there aren't fingering numbers.  Next you'll want Schenkerian analysis.  Will you want exact thumb-to-forefinger angles in radians, and rates of contraction?  Cartesian coordinates of hand position relative to middle C?  Do I need to take anatomical measurements of myself first?  If any poor soul reads this, they will laugh at these demands xD

Finger numbers is essential to make your ideas understood, you did not include any of those so how can we determine what you think is erratic, what is horizonal, what is outside the score of normal technique?? Tell us which combinations of numbers cause these effects, it is simply logical. You have failed to provide any of that which analysis of piano music requires.

The rest of the statement is ofc wrong.  Because I did tell you the fingering, and I did tell you where I suggest minimizing vertical motion and wrist deviation/rolling: Any fingering, and everywhere.

You told us in GENERALISATION, no where did you actually show in the score. I asked you to be specific not generalized, you continue with your generalized response. The problem with these responses is you can appear to know what you talk abouit without acutally knowing what you are talking about. So be specific and show us you actually know. As soon as you do that I will engage appropriately. So far you have not discussed the music in a technical manner at all approrpriate for you to prove your odd ideologies.

That's like, the fourth time I answered your question.  Literally my other most recent post in this forum was finding and posting fingerings for every single Hungarian scale.  You're not going to convince anyone that I'm some neophyte.  You can't even convince yourself; if you could, you'd have already chilled out.

You've failed all the times you think you have tried to answer. I really think you have never acutally analysed a piece outside of looking at videos of other players and commenting what you see in their playing lol!!! Why don't you actually analyse the score properly? Unable to?

You haven't posted fingerings, but have claimed to have described so much!

I haven't at all, quote me! I refuse to give any information that you can use, it all has to come from you and what I see so far is just generalized talk without being specific with the score.

I guess all your opinions were trash after all.  Post your fingerings, you lazy phony.  You're the one saying it means something, so you post them.  They're irrelevant to what I originally said, which btw remains true despite your tirades.  My advice was better, suck it :3

Fingerings in score is my job for the last 25+ years, I am totally at ease to describe the score in a technical manner. lol! How about yourself? You still fail to demosntrate it. It is EXTREMELY EASY if you have done it before, if you can play this piece you should rattle off the fingerings instantly and explain yourself. You instead keep it all in generalized form, I can see through all that easily you don't fool me. So come on show us

1) Horizonal movements only taking out vertical
2) Technique that is outside the scope of normal technique
3) Erratic movements throughout the piece

You have not proven any of these at all using the score and fingering to highlight the action of any of these.

Nice first post, stranger (you might want to remember to log back into your main account before responding).  Pathetic beyond imagination omg!!!  This is just becoming sad!

I like that poster, they seem to understand exactly what I am on about. Too bad you have no constructive response to it lol!!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

I think you are correct that LiiW is way over the top here. I'd just say that, beyond a certain point (which I think is in the rear view mirror), continuing to engage makes it harder to decide who's crazier. I suggest just letting him have the last word and thinking about something else.

I am not the type to bother about being popular or not. I poke and prod and want to get information, people get upset by that its their own fault, why get so emotional about it lol. If there was tone of voice in my writing you would see what I am like.

Oh so asking someone to be specific and describe their ideas in a technical manner which makes specific sense is being over the top?? Im sorry no. Also if you know the history of fftransform you will understand why he is reacting like a crazy man and trying to insult me with every breath. Let him be angry he never changes not over the last 15 years with all those banned accounts.

[lostinidlewonder]

frodo it is not how it is written that causes any confusion, I already have extracted three points form fftransform which are yet to be supported with the actual music. i,e,

1) Horizonal movements only taking out vertical
2) Technique that is outside the scope of normal technique
3) Erratic movements throughout the piece

None of these points from transform have been supported with the actual music.

Below, I slightly changed the wording to possibly make it clearer.  I’m wondering if Lostinedlewonder would be more agreeable to this revised wording.  I underlined the changed wording.

Proposed revised wording:
Aside from the RH octaves there isn't really much standard technique involved. Much of the demands this piece focuses on are outside the scope of standard technique. 

There is nothing that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE. What does that even mean in this specific case? It is an elitist type attitude. transform even tells the op you want to take years learning this one piece? Ridiculous. I can even sight read through the entire piece which would be impossible if it actually had technique outside the scope of what is standard. I can highlight exactly how much standard technique can be found in this piece but I will not give transform any information to use, I want to see what he REALLY knows, which so far is nothing but generalized talk.

Just make sure you are constantly working to take excessive vertical motion out of the LH (especially avoid a lot of affected wrist rolling), keep as low to the keys as you reasonably can.  More arm motion than wrist-pivoting+stretching.

What is excessive vertical motion in context to this piece? It should be easy to describe with the combination of fingerings used and exact parts of the bars. fftransform merely generalizes, I asked him to be specific and he is simply resisting. That to me demonstrates someone who merely wants to talk in generalization and leave it at that. Going deeper requires that you actually know how to play the piece with mastery, not just watch videos of other pianists playing it. lol. Never heard any playing from fftransfrom in 15+ years either but a lot of talk about complicated pieces, I wonder what that means too The fact he doesn't discusss the score in a technical manner which should be VERY EASY for someone who plays the piece, tells me a great lot

[lostinidlewonder]

By the way.  Literally every time I see you respond on this forum without giving fingering numbers . . .

I have demonstrated many times that I am able to describe the fingering logic within pieces. There are posts of mine which are only about that. If you want to take my first response in this thread and ask me about the LH reduction/addition approach to learning this piece go ahead I will describe it in a very technical manner using the score. No one has asked me so I didn't provide it. If someone prompts me to do it, I will do so without any problems at all, the information is all in my head I just need to type it out.

You have been prompted by myself to be more specific and use the score to describe all your ideas which I don't agree with. You can easily defeat my disagreement by supporting yourself with the music and describing you ideas with the exact combinations of fingerings (I however fail to see any logic within the score that supports your ideologies but hope that you had some way of proving me wrong, which you still avoid). There should be parts of the score which highlight exactly what you are talking about. This should be VERY EASY if you have mastered this piece, it would be practically impossible if all you know is watching masters play it on videos because then all you can do is generalise because you have never felt it before in your own hands/mind.

[lostinidlewonder]

Lets discuss the actual bars in the piece and see if your generalistic perspective holds up, lets see if you can actually explain it with the music. That way you are trapped into being specific and concrete not just generalise thinking which could mean anything at all.

This quote from me that neelyang33 copy pasted is the crux of what I am on about.

 Stop the generalized talk and support yourself with the score. Circling bars is not supporting yourself. In fact I find it ridiculous I even have to explain what it means to support yourself with the score. If someone plays the piece this should be very easy to do. Discuss the fingerings, pinpoint which combinations highlight your ideology, the combination makes your argument much more specific and convincing. All I see from transform is generalized talk and why he is resisting actually discussing the music in a technical manner is very odd. Anyone who plays the peice well can do it no problems, if all you do is watch videos then of course your replies can only be generalistic.

[frodo1]

frodo it is not how it is written that causes any confusion, I already have extracted three points form fftransform which are yet to be supported with the actual music. i,e,

1) Horizonal movements only taking out vertical
2) Technique that is outside the scope of normal technique
3) Erratic movements throughout the piece

None of these points from transform have been supported with the actual music.
There is nothing that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD TECHNIQUE. What does that even mean in this specific case? It is an elitist type attitude. transform even tells the op you want to take years learning this one piece? Ridiculous. I can even sight read through the entire piece which would be impossible if it actually had technique outside the scope of what is standard. I can highlight exactly how much standard technique can be found in this piece but I will not give transform any information to use, I want to see what he REALLY knows, which so far is nothing but generalized talk.
What is excessive vertical motion in context to this piece? It should be easy to describe with the combination of fingerings used and exact parts of the bars. fftransform merely generalizes, I asked him to be specific and he is simply resisting. That to me demonstrates someone who merely wants to talk in generalization and leave it at that. Going deeper requires that you actually know how to play the piece with mastery, not just watch videos of other pianists playing it. lol. Never heard any playing from fftransfrom in 15+ years either but a lot of talk about complicated pieces, I wonder what that means too The fact he doesn't discusss the score in a technical manner which should be VERY EASY for someone who plays the piece, tells me a great lot

Thanks.  I agree with much of what you say here excluding the criticism of fftransform.

Your original response to fftransform’s first post was:
“How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult? Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.”

By my adding just a couple words to clarify what fftransform said, you appear to now understand that:

1) fftransform was NOT saying “it’s only in the RH”.  I believe he was saying that the LH was outside standard technique and as such the LH was the most difficult part. I understand your feelings about standard technique expressed above.

2) fftransform was NOT saying to “remove vertical motion”.  I believe he was saying to remove excessive vertical motion.  I understand your concern that fftransform did not specify to your standards exactly what excessive vertical motion is in context to this piece.

I mention this to show that we can ALL misunderstand what someone is trying to say.  The best way to understand is to take extra time to read and understand what was written then respectfully ask for clarification if needed. 

[lostinidlewonder]

I mention this to show that we can ALL misunderstand what someone is trying to say.  The best way to understand is to take extra time to read and understand what was written then respectfully ask for clarification if needed. 

Sorry if how I ask is not how you would ask. I ask in my way, you ask in your way. This is what makes the world go round, variation. If you want me to tally up the personal insults I could, transform would break the scale compared to my provocations.

Still all of this is general talk, I want specifics. Where is there any danger of excessive vertical motion? What does horizonal motion mean if it is not defined and constrained within the score to show us?

Your original response to fftransform’s first post was:
“How can you say it's only in the RH when the LH is much more difficult? Your description of the Lh technique seems rather odd too, remove vertical motion and do large movements horizonally just sets you up for error.”

You quote my first response, we have gone on past that already.

By my adding just a couple words to clarify what fftransform said, you appear to now understand that:

Actually your post did not make me understand anything that I already determined after the many responses.

1) fftransform was NOT saying “it’s only in the RH”.  I believe he was saying that the LH was outside standard technique and as such the LH was the most difficult part. I understand your feelings about standard technique expressed above.

You are only looking at my first response in the thread to transform and formulating everything, there are a lot more posts from me after that. No where did I continue on this path after it was cleared up, but transform brought up more details which I disagreed with.

2) fftransform was NOT saying to “remove vertical motion”.  I believe he was saying to remove excessive vertical motion.  I understand your concern that fftransform did not specify to your standards exactly what excessive vertical motion is in context to this piece.

What excessive vertical motion is possible though? And what is exactly the horizonal movement? Like I said, playing an 11th with your LH if you cant stretch it you have to do a very fast horizonal motion to make it sound like you play it togehter, but if you do this with all the playing its ridiculous. I am waiting for clarification what exactly this horizonal nature is which can be easily defined within the fingering of the piece.

[frodo1]

And what is exactly the horizonal movement? Like I said, playing an 11th with your LH if you cant stretch it you have to do a very fast horizonal motion to make it sound like you play it togehter, but if you do this with all the playing its ridiculous. I am waiting for clarification what exactly this horizonal nature is which can be easily defined within the fingering of the piece.

Good question.  I was under the impression that horizontal movement is the movement of the hand to the left or right.  Example: play C with LH 5th finger then play a C that is 1 octave higher with the same LH finger.  This requires about a 6.5 inch horizontal mvt to the right for the LH.  Except in the case you mention here, the horizontal movement is the same fixed amount for everyone playing a given piece on a standard size keyboard using a given fingering.  Scarlatti for example often requires large, rapid horizontal movements in the cross hand and other pieces.  I might be wrong here.   Clarification is needed.

[lostinidlewonder]

Good question.  I was under the impression that horizontal movement is the movement of the hand to the left or right.  Example: play C with LH 5th finger then play a C that is 1 octave higher with the same LH finger.  This requires about a 6.5 inch horizontal mvt to the right for the LH.  Except in the case you mention here, the horizontal movement is the same fixed amount for everyone playing a given piece on a standard size keyboard using a given fingering.  Scarlatti for example often requires large, rapid horizontal movements in the cross hand and other pieces.  I might be wrong here.   Clarification is needed.

That is the problem with generic answers, unless you have the expertise you cannot fill in the gaps, so then your advice doesn't help those who are trying to learn and only those who have mastered the piece know what it means, rather unhelpful. Certainly when one is prompted to be more specific and describe what they are saying in a more technical format, they should do that quite easily and clearly if they know how to play it, if they just watch videos then you get nothing deep.

You try doing an octave jump with the same finger doing excessive horizonal movements and minimizing vertical movements, it will feel utterly terrible. The moment you raise and lift your hand there is vertical movement, if you trace the exact finger you would see an arc not a straight horizonal line. No one says big rainbow arc movements but at the same time no one should say take out vertical and focus on horizontal movements, that makes no sense and is unncessary in this piece because it is just not fast enough to condone such things. A rapid playing of an 11th if you can't stretch is a very horizonal type movement but even then it has some vertical aspect to it (you don't strike the upper note from side on but from above thus the vertical nature), but this type of playing does not exist between all the notes throughout the piece here under investigation.