a case for technique?

[Bob]

There is a lot of argument over technique and literature here.  A lot of it depends on your goals -- to develop repertoire or to develop technique.


If I'm playing a piece with a lot of finger work, how do I make sure each finger and each hand is developing?  Even if I'm playing a piece that focuses on right hand finger work, it's possible that piece is using 123 and neglects 45.

sure, I could go find a piece that focuses more on 45, or work on that piece later on I suppose after after the 123 piece...


It seems like it might be a good idea to play the 123 piece, and then do some 45 finger work, technical work, just to keep that 45 fingerwork developing.

I'm thinking a lot of this depends on the time available.  If everything could be, then wouldn't working on good repertoire that covers every basic technique be ideal?

What do you think?

[xvimbi]

I'm thinking a lot of this depends on the time available.  If everything could be, then wouldn't working on good repertoire that covers every basic technique be ideal?

What do you think?

You got it! Bach and Scarlatti all the way!

[bernhard]

There is a lot of argument over technique and literature here.  A lot of it depends on your goals -- to develop repertoire or to develop technique.


If I'm playing a piece with a lot of finger work, how do I make sure each finger and each hand is developing?  Even if I'm playing a piece that focuses on right hand finger work, it's possible that piece is using 123 and neglects 45.

sure, I could go find a piece that focuses more on 45, or work on that piece later on I suppose after after the 123 piece...


It seems like it might be a good idea to play the 123 piece, and then do some 45 finger work, technical work, just to keep that 45 fingerwork developing.

I'm thinking a lot of this depends on the time available.  If everything could be, then wouldn't working on good repertoire that covers every basic technique be ideal?

What do you think?

I think you are approaching this the wrong way.

Let us talk (briefly) about the 4th finger, the target of 99% of all technical exercises, and the stuff pianist nightmares are made of.

Now put your hand on a table top so that the hand in being supported on the tips of the fingers, forming a nice “dome”. (A basic “playing” position).

Now keeping all fingers glued to the table, lift the index finger. Not too difficult, right? Now lift the third finger while all the other fingers keep pressing the table. Quite manageable as well. Then the thumb. Not too difficult, I would expect. The little finger? Easy peasy. Finally try the fourth finger. Almost impossible is it not?

This, of course is due to the sharing of tendons, bla bla bla.

This simple exercise/demonstration is also what generated all the fuss about the 4th finger.

But what if this is completely wrong? What if this is a completely and utterly nonsensical way to approach the problem (as we will see there is actually no problem to approach at all).

Now let us try a completely different approach.

Hold your hand in front of you. To make the description easier, let us say the right hand. Hold it in front of you so that the palm is to the left, and the thumb is towards your face, while the little finger is away from your face. Keep all fingers pointing straight up. (like if you were clapping hands with a single hand). Have you ever heard of the zen-koan; “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”. You better sit down, because what I am about to tell you will make you weak at the knees (actually, go to the toilet before continuing, this is the sort of revelation that may result in you pissing yourself ).

So you have your hand open in clapping position in front of you. Now, without moving any finger (you can use the other hand to hold the other fingers in place if you wish), bend the second finger down at the knuckle joint (the joint that joins the finger to the hand). Just move the finger up and down at the knuckle joint. Easy, isn’t  it?

Now do the same with the 3rd finger. No problems, Right?

Now try the fifth finger. Piece of cake.

Now, careful, very careful now… try the 4th finger. It is as easy as any of the other fingers! 

There is no difference whatsoever in the ability of the fingers to bend down at the knuckle joint simply because this movement is not mediated by the shared tendons.

You only have a problem with the 4th finger if you want to lift it, not if you want to bring it down.

(I am going to shout now, so don’t get startled):

THE PIANO IS PLAYED BY PRESSING THE KEYS DOWN!

You do not need to lift fingers to play the piano: you need to bend them down!

It is that simple.

At this point you may come up with the following argument:

“Yes, but to bring the finger down I must lift it first.”

This is true, but the best way to lift the finger is to let the hand do it using forearm rotation.

Put your right hand on the table top again. Now, use the thumb as a hinge, and rotate your forearm to the left so that your hand opens and closes like a door. Since the fingers are attached to the hand, they will be lifted by this movement. All the fingers. No one needs to practice this movement. We do it all the time as part of our daily lives. And because the hand lifts all the fingers equally there is no need to practise this or that finger.

Unfortunately, you may not be able to truly understand the movement I am talking about from the written description above. But then again, maybe you will. If it does, the whole concept of “technique” will change forever. The whole pursuit of “finger strength”, “finger independence”, “finger suppleness” and so on and so forth will become laughable. The gate to virtuosity is wide open, but people insist in knocking at a stone wall.

This is not to say that you do not need “technique”. But “technique” may turn out to be something far more simple – and at the same time far more complex – than one would have thought.

It is far simpler because it is not about “exercise”: you already have everything in working order (unless you have been in a coma for the past 10 years, or have some muscle degenerating disease). It is far more complex because it will be ever changing and ever varying as multiple as the piano repertory.

No one needs to work on “technique” in the sense of exercises. Everyone will always need to work on technique the moment one opens the page to a new piece.

This is of course just the 4th finger problem. There are many other problems in piano playing. But they all are solvable by equally simple means. And notice that I said simple, not “easy”. It is very difficult to find simple solutions (as any mathematician will tell you).

[and, of course, xvimbi is right: Bach, Scarlatti, yeah! ].

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have to say repetiore develops repetiore and technique, it is all encompassing. The more you memorise and absorb, the better your ability to play becomes, hence technique improves. However, if you master technique, then that doesn't do anything for repetiore, because the technical elements used in peices is different from how they are used in technical excersise. Technical study will not make you any good at the piano, it will make you good at hitting notes, but thats it. Playing pieces are more than just hitting notes, if you think about technique while you play a piece it will sound very dry, technique has to be forgtoten so that when you play you are not tied up rather play freely with technical workings being done in the subconsious mind and through the touch routine the piece you play reveals.

However with a failing technique you will find memory of passages will be very tough. Look at for instance, Liszts Transcendentale Etude no 10. The opening chords shared between the hands would be insane for a novice to achieve let alone memorise, but for more advanced pianist something that can be absorbed at once. But that isnt to say that the novice wouldnt be able to do it, of course they can do it! But it would take a  long time, and set up great inefficiency. So technique is important so that the rate of absorbtion isn't hindered. What i am saying is that you can play anything in the world if you practice it hard enough. But you dont want to spend 10 days on 1 bar, where you could learn easier stuff and then tackle the hard bar again and spend much less time on it.

Refelts dan Leau from Debussy for example, I first looked at that when i was a kid and it was too hard for me. A few years back I took it up again and memorised it all under a week and a half. Where if i learnt it as a kid it would have taken me probably 5 months or so because the sounds used, technique used where beyond me. But now those things are so common and understood when i come up to them now as a more mature pianist, I can absorb them almost instantly.

So to say, lets concerntrate on our finger strength as a seperate study seems to be useless. Ok do Hanon, make up some excersises etc, but dont get overly stuck up about the fingers. Just play pieces! I also had weak fingers at first, but i never cared, just keep playing, use the fingers more and more. Does a baby say, ok I have to work out how to run before i walk? no way. I also didnt care about my weakness in fnigers when i started out, i new they would work themselves out if i practiced playing more, just like a baby learns to run when it has walked for a long time. Piano is exactly the same, there are no tricks which will hlep you, yuo just have to keep doing it and playing more and more, dont just stick on your private set of peices, explore!

[lagin]

Here I go, being contrary.  I gotta run so I'll make this short.  I personally would be no where near where I am in my repertoire without all the technique I do, which is manditory if I want my teacher's degree.  That's all, Bye.

[Derek]

If anything, studying technique even a minimal amount simply gives you technical confidence when playing a repertoire piece. It makes you more aware of certain issues that are usually taken for granted when working on a piece.  I don't spend a TON of time at technique, maybe 10 minutes every two or three days or so. It hasn't hurt my technique at all, in fact I think it has improved it.  Power of suggestion? Maybe. Either way it can't hurt.

[key of c]

Without working on technique - pieces will suffer communication.

[key of c]

that is, LACK of communication...

[goose]

I just wanted to second something Lost...Wonder said:

you dont want to spend 10 days on 1 bar, where you could learn easier stuff and then tackle the hard bar again and spend much less time on it.

Absolutely. A lot of people ask in this forum whether a piece is too difficult for them. As if the main criterion for choosing a new piece is how complex and challenging it will be. Many people compare piano playing to mountain climbing, in that there are always tougher hills to climb. But what about taking in the view once in a while, before pressing on with the next stage?

When people ask, 'Am I ready for piece X?' I get an image of someone struggling just to play the notes. It's all worthwhile effort, of course. But why not get some other easier pieces under your belt first? It will both expand your repertoire, your understanding of music, and make the more difficult pieces easier. And, as someone else said, if you have to ask if it's too difficult, then it is. Otherwise, you'd play through it and find the difficult spots for yourself.

There is so much great repertoire out there, but its difficulty is all relative. There was a nice thread about 'great sounding very easy pieces' a while back. But they don't have to be VERY EASY. They just have to be easy FOR YOU.

How many advanced pianists jump straight to Beethoven's late sonatas, I wonder, as soon as they are technically able, without bothering with many of the early ones? Surely the most effective way to progress quickly and develop broad repertoire is to go for a balanced diet of pieces with new technical challenges mixed with ones which include techniques already in your arsenal.

Sorry if I've strayed off the original topic here, but I thought Lost...Wonder's point deserved to be repeated.

best,
Goose

p.s. And thanks, Bernhard, for your usual attention to detail and presenting a different approach to the fourth finger.

[SDL]

talking of fingerwork, Bernhard I have a question for you:

flat fingered playing is necessary in some situations because its natural.  Some other thread on here is about collapsed fingers.  Now I think this is an interpretation on flat fingers and maybe when you are playing Bach/Scarlatti yes you need to cruve but when you are playing more virtuosic pieces the flat fingered technique will be a natural thing in passages (depending on reach, tone you want to portray etc).  So what is your opinion on how you would define what is ffp and collapsed fingers.  Is it a matter of what repetoire you are playing and what label you call it - ie interpretation of definition.  Does my question make sense?

[ujos3]

 
First I want to say that I am convinced by Bernhard advice about developping technique almost only from repertoire.

The main reason is that I've tried it and I noted that studying many different pieces (different styles) I progress very quickly, more than using this time in exercises. . Of course, some pieces don't get learned as perfect as I would like, but in general the improvement is high. The drawback is that it is much more demanding mentally (concentration, discipline, discouragement effects, etc.).

The second reason is that I believe what I read once in an article: Learning is most effective when the task we want to learn (octaves for example) is involved in other complex tasks (playing the second hand, pedalling, dynamics, rythms, etc.).

There have been experiments where people in one group learnt just how to do some task (a dance movement for example). Other group learnt it in complex contexts.
At the end of the training First group did almost no mistakes. Second group did some.

When both groups were in a situation where they should employ the task learnt, but in a different situation from the course situations, first group did more mistakes than second group.

The reason may be that our brain uses its resources with more concentration and effort when it has complex tasks to do, so it has better results also in individual tasks.


Second I want to say that usual arguments against exercises are not good at all:
 
Saying that you can not find the exercises patterns in pieces is not a good argument. When you learn piano just from repertoire you also play most of the time passages you do not find in other pieces. But you progress in spite of it. When playing exercises you are learning coordination, motions, control, rythm, endurance, etc.

Other argument is that they are boring. If they are good for technique they don't need to be fun.

But anyway:
I am sure that in the long run, using all your time just to repertoire has better results than playing exercises at any stage. It is the general improvement that counts and I think the difference is great.
If you want JUST NOW play a good trill many people would go to exercises for trills and improve it a little bit but nothing more. The best thing to do is keep on studying many pieces , playing the trill from time to time and it will come. But exercises won't make you pass from a level to another so easily .

[BoliverAllmon]

talking of fingerwork, Bernhard I have a question for you:

flat fingered playing is necessary in some situations because its natural.  Some other thread on here is about collapsed fingers.  Now I think this is an interpretation on flat fingers and maybe when you are playing Bach/Scarlatti yes you need to cruve but when you are playing more virtuosic pieces the flat fingered technique will be a natural thing in passages (depending on reach, tone you want to portray etc).  So what is your opinion on how you would define what is ffp and collapsed fingers.  Is it a matter of what repetoire you are playing and what label you call it - ie interpretation of definition.  Does my question make sense?

I have been told this about flat fingers. Playing flat fingers really  brings out a cantabile playing sound. (that being that you learn to apply the same weight on all fingers) Therefore Bach and Chopin should be played flat fingers a majority of the time. Of course there are exceptions.

boliver

[bernhard]

talking of fingerwork, Bernhard I have a question for you:

flat fingered playing is necessary in some situations because its natural.  Some other thread on here is about collapsed fingers.  Now I think this is an interpretation on flat fingers and maybe when you are playing Bach/Scarlatti yes you need to cruve but when you are playing more virtuosic pieces the flat fingered technique will be a natural thing in passages (depending on reach, tone you want to portray etc).  So what is your opinion on how you would define what is ffp and collapsed fingers.  Is it a matter of what repetoire you are playing and what label you call it - ie interpretation of definition.  Does my question make sense?

If you drop your arm by your side and relax the hand, you will observe that the fingers have a natural curvature. You should aim to play “around” this natural curvature. Fingers should not be flat, and they should not be curled. Both extremes are inappropriate techniques (=ways of doing) in that they will not allow you maximum freedom/ease of playing.

In certain circumstances, the natural curvature of the hand/finger may have to be flattened of a certain amount, or may have to be accentuated somewhat. But these will be small adjustments. They should not need to be pushed to the extremes of total flatness or extreme curling.

Perhaps the most important bad habit to work out for (specially prevalent in people who insist on playing with flat fingers) is the “break” in the nail joint. All joints of the fingers should be aligned so that the force generated by the arm can be transmitted unimpeded to the fingers and then to the keys.

Finally, it is not about the fingers. The old 19th century idea that the fingers should be like little hammers, being lifted high and pressing on the keys is a misconception. The proper way to play the piano is very different (and feels very different).

Unfortunately it is very difficult to discuss such matters in writing. You have to ask someone knowledgeable to show it to you.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[jeremyjchilds]

My current piano teacher has changed my outlook on technique.

I used to think of it as a way to become familiar with the key signatures, and develop some dexterity...I was wrong.

I now believe more than ever that tech is very important. I will say however, that tech will only give you value if you practice with proper and consistent fingering. This means using the 4th finger more often than not on all broken chords, alternate brokens, and arpeggios. Granted, diatonic scales do little to strengthen the 4th finger.

Similar to What bernard says, the weight must collect at the back of the elbow, then transfer over the top of a flexible wrist (swans head) onto the pads of the fingertips in order to play.

And that is the walue of tech. It gives the student a controlled setting with which to apply this soooooo important concept of arm weight. THe old rule goes, what you play in your tech, will come out in your songs. If you try to hover your hand and punch down the keys with your fingertips, your tone will be uneven, especially when ascending in R.H. or Descending in the L.H.