Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
There was some interest in this in another thread. Rather than derail it, here it is. It's a pity some couldn't be bothered to read Matthay. Perhaps those with no respect for him could start their own thread?
Quote
Finally, coming to so-called "Finger-Touch" (that is, visible movement of the finger itself), you here have all three "species" of touch-constitution available. This means that, when you employ finger-movement, this may consist either solely of an exertion of the finger itself ("first Species") or you may add thereto an invisible exertion of the hand ("second species"), or finally you may add thereto an invisible arm-basis, in its several available ways. Yet all these three totally diverse forms of action (or "species") here come under the heading of so-called "Finger-touch," because only the finger is seen to move. Moreover, Arm-basis in the production of tone may itself be one of four distinct kinds: you may either (a) allow the weight of the whole arm (visibly or invisibly) to help during the act of tone-production; or (b) the weight of the forearm only; or (c) you may combine with the full relaxation of the upper-arm a down-exertion of the forearm (both invisible) to enable you to produce your fullest forte without harshness; or finally (d) you may instead invisibly drive forward with the upper arm while giving this down-exertion of the forearm.
There's a touch I teach I call 'flick' - which Matthay would call 'second species' if the wrist is seen to move independently of the arm, but 'third species' if the arm and wrist move as a unit. Here the finger uses an invisible force (flexors and extensors) to fix it's shape, not initiate movement. Where the expert knowledge comes in is seeing the difference when a student adds some movement from the knuckle rather than solely and invisibly fixing. It's takes a trained eye.
'Flick' is the third touch shown in this silent video.
Attempting to learn how to play the piano anno 2010 by reading Tobias Matthay is the same thing as learning modern health care by studying the historical texts on blood letting, using lead as a tonic and prescribing cocaine and methamphetamine as innocent pick-me-ups for housewives: they are all historical artifacts representing a degree of danger, based on ignorance, founded on faulty principles and superseded by contemporary (scientific) insights.
So, has the piano changed? Has anatomy changed? Has physiology? The invisible is there. That it was elucidated nearly 100 years ago is hardly relevant.
Attempting to learn to play the piano anno 1910 reading Matthay would be equally unrewarding. These are texts for teachers (and student teachers).
Could you point out where this extract 'represent[s] a degree of danger, based on ignorance, founded on faulty principles and superseded by contemporary (scientific) insights'?
I think TheJourney is being very subjective saying this. Yes, approaches to piano learning and improving one's technique are very numerous nowadays, and one can always choose what fits better for his or her personality, etc. However, I do not thinkg that Matthay's aprroach is so old that it's not worth considering. The language may seem a bit too dryish, but if understood it and applied to piano, you will see that this teacher was quite right and knew his business very very well.
Just like F.M.Alexander who invented his world known Alexander Technique. Just think, it was about a century ago now, but its principles are widely used today. There is a very interesting book on this issue - "The Pianist's Talent" by Harold Taylor. It touches upon the similarities of AT and Tobias Matthay's approach in application of both to piano. Very interesting read for a musician, in fact.
As for the quotation from the book, given by Keyboardklazt, the similar things are very well presented in Seymour Bernstien's "With your own two hands", when he speakes about piano technique and body work, Joints of Movability and Joints of Stability. He uses different vocabulary, but the essense remains the same. So, if you are interested in this matter, the book will be very interesting in this respect as well. Chapters 7 and 8 (You and the Piano, and Choreography). No doubt, Seymour Bernstien is very well familiar with many systems and piano techniques, including Matthay.
I felt a certainty that buried in Mr Matthay's pages, in spite of a mistaken, absurd, and even vicious technical system, was an insight into piano technique unmatched by that of any other theorist.
Far from faint praise! I agree, and again, it takes an expert to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Again, it takes an expert to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Well, that is really the hitting the nail on the head of the problem isn't it? If one -- who is not already an expert -- follows all of what Matthay actually preaches, then one risks harming onself from all the chaff.
So, has the piano changed? Has anatomy changed? Has physiology? The invisible is there. That it was elucidated nearly 100 years ago is hardly relevant.
Has our understanding of the underlying physics governing the piano and its sound waves and the neuroscientific understanding of how we can most effectively train our automatic piano playing unconscious and how we perceive sound from the piano changed? Absolutely. Like the difference between night and day.
Has our understanding of anatomy and physiology changed? Absolutely. For example, Matthay's recommendation to use his practice triangle was based on the fallacy of mechanically ‘strengthening’ the muscles of the arm and finger.’ His exaggerated views and imprecise teaching on relaxation (he even used the phrase "the Gospel of Relaxation") were guilty for unwittingly sending generations of pianists off into bizarre out-of-control arm dropping and flopping about and a mis-guided lack of insight into the need for a carefully cultivated controlled tension in skillful piano playing.
Has our attitude towards and understanding of the 'invisible' changed? Absolutely. In Matthay's days it was still all the rage to hold seances with invisible spirits from the herebeyond. There was little understanding of the actual functioning other than vague platitudes of the really important invisible things going on in acquiring a good piano technique (or any other automatic fine motor skill) which have every much to do with what happens inside one's head as inside of one's hand.
Here's something from the Golden Fingers guy (the bold is mine. I don't necessarily agree with all he says on his web page.):
Quote
Common problem: Too much physical effort and stress
This concerns visible and invisible parts of playing. Visible are movements and invisible (but felt) is the condition of the tonus of muscles and muscle groups. An experienced eye though can observe subtle symptoms of stress in muscles.
Visible: movements Invisible: muscle tone
There are at least three aspects, which have to be taken into account in order to improve calmness of technique and finding a well balanced tone of muscles: to seek for calmness, simplicity and easiness in playing.
Calmness - Simplicity – Easiness
An important goal when practicing technique is to master all three aspects. They function on different levels. Learning calmness of muscle tone, simplicity of movements and easiness of general playing. How true and obvious it may seem, these aspects are often neglected in the basic technical education. On superficial level you may book some results, but on a deeper level, problems often stay unsolved. Instead of being calm, simple and easy, technique is often nervous, too complex and stressed even when the matters are considered seriously. Especially stress of the invisible muscle tone is an easily overseen obstacle.
Anyone know how to use it? The Academy page just says ' It is held upright on the lap, and the fingers work on the outer apex of the object.' Knowing Matthay I'd be surprised if it is for "‘strengthening’ the muscles of the arm and finger.".
'seances'!? He's just talking about what can't be see like the foundations of a building or the engine of a car (his analogy).
Quote
Has our understanding of the underlying physics governing the piano and its sound waves and the neuroscientific understanding of how we can most effectively train our automatic piano playing unconscious and how we perceive sound from the piano changed?
well, apparently you believe that a hand need exert no force to balance post-strike. Perhaps matthay Never advocated such nonsensical breaches of the laws of physics. However, it shows the importance of thinking for yourself rather than blindly quoting people.
I don't disagree with the particular passage. However, the idea that this proves that all pianists flop and that you are only one with the expertise to spot is an epic fail. It doesn't even allude to the flop, nevermind prove it. if you're looking to prove some kind of special insight, start putting it into practise at your instrument instead of claiming to see invisible nonsense.
Perhaps you'd also use a text on the fact that air is invisible to 'prove' that invisible demons exist? At least find something relevant to your phony doctrine. It would just as fair to claim that this supports the idea that pianists invisibly play with their dicks.
Sorry KBK - I had a teacher - Isabel Sant'Ambrogio, may she rest in peace - who was a huge Matthay proponent - totally obsessed with arm weight, relaxation, rotation, wiping the keys, kneeding the keys, spent hours dropping my "dead weight" arm onto the keys, all with the obsessive goal of producing a beautiful tone. Trouble was there was practically no attention given to the very foundation of piano technique - articulating the fingers - thus I was left a cripple at the piano - able to produce a nice big fat tone, completely incapable of playing a series of 16th notes competently.
What notable pianists other than Myra Hess came out of the Matthay school, KBK? For that matter, what notable pianist studied with Arnold Schultz?
The understanding of physics in Matthay's time was very much a mechanical, Newtonian view of physics. He sensed that piano playing needed to break free from the fixed hand approach but substituted a systematic mechanical approach, and did not have the insight to be able to make it actionable and fell into the trap of mechanical practicing himself as did his predecessors. This view sees the world through "clockwork" glasses and has as a fundamental assumption the idea that everything is reducible to its mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive constituent parts and that the man-machine connection to the piano resembles and can be approached as a machine-machine connection.
There was also no clear understanding of how we hear nor of the fact that hearing (and listening) is not in your ears but is in fact a subjective mental process and that what we hear can be influenced and even replaced by what we expect to hear. Or of the few and incomplete aural cues that are needed to provide a listener (or player) with the idea that he or she is hearing something (at all or versus something else). The unconscious fluidity, ruthless pruning and pre-conscious merging of our perceptions from our various senses before presentation to our conscious was also not understood, e.g. the fact that we can and do hear with our eyes and with our fingers.
There was no clear understanding of what was really happening in the "invisible". Otto Ortmann put to rest the claims of Matthay and other weight and relaxation specialists. Using dispassionate laboratory readings he demonstrated that it is physically impossible to play even a moderately rapid scale without tightening, in one degree or another, of wrist, elbow and shoulder. Ortmann concluded "the need for a partical return to the older schools of Reinecke and Clementi; undue stress on relaxation has seriously restricted velocity and technical brilliance."
Finally, there was next to no understanding of the nuts and bolts of physical learning processes and neuroscience as we understand it today (where it is still in its infancy). For example, the inability to change autonomous processes directly, the ultimately false dichotomy between "mind" and body, the neuronal basis for learning, how memory works and the importance of white matter in our grey matter, the difficulty or even impossibility by which humans can forget anything once learned, the meager bandwidth of the conscious mind and the implication for building a solid foundation towards a reliable automaticity, the notion of gaining control by letting loose, and any number of psychological constructs that can accelerate learning and encourage the development of integrated and synthesized skills freeing up the budding artist to focus on creative expression, etc. etc.
Piano playing is one of the most complexly synthesized of human activities. Piano playing is brainwork and our brain must coordinate cognitive function (knowing and remembering), sensory function (including kinestheisia), motor functions (controlling movement) and emotional function (feelings) in very specific ways at a level of detail that is impossible for the bandwidth of our conscious mind to follow. It is very important to get the correct balance of the physical movements and to build them systematically as a pyramid or an iceberg of which only the tip being worked on is in active awareness. Spending too much time getting hung up on trying to actively and instrumentally control physical processes while neglecting the other aspects of piano playing is ultimately counter productive. It is like trying to think one's way through a golf swing rather than having an automatic swing that allows the golfer to focus on the target.
Describing piano and learning to play piano in words is treacherous ground in whatever system and terminology one invents. The most carefully worded description of even the simplest actions will be full of potential for misunderstanding by an inexperienced student. There may be no way around it; a student can't know for sure whether what they hear, whether from a teacher or a book, until they've spent enough time finding out through experience what works. Looking back, I could say much of my time spent grinding at the piano has been a refinement of the art of learning piano (with still far to go!).
One could just as easily get hung up on how our grey matter works or the limitations of Newtonian physics (does Einstein help us learn piano better?) as whether we're using enough invisible shoulder.
Personally my favorite approach is to simplify it to the physical feeling of ease, and careful listening. If it feels and sounds good it can't be far off track.
The bottom line is there are dozens of muscles involved in playing a note or chord. Ever had a bad back? Then you know nearly every move you make causes you pain even if you are not expressly using your back muscles Since without postural support your whole body would flop off the bench. When you move your arm up an octave, you are engaging an array of musculature.
I think this discussion really boils down to two interrelated key points.
1) Ease of movement. Through practice and awareness, your body will find the best way for you to execute the task.
2) Secondly, not to be overlooked...after playing a note, your mechanism needs to be ready to play the next one. If you are out of position or bound by excess or unnecessary tension, you will have trouble making the next move.
We can make all kinds of moves to play an isolated note...which proves exactly nothing. It is the context of being able to play the NEXT one in a facile manner tells you if you are on the right track. My $0.02.
We can make all kinds of moves to play an isolated note...which proves exactly nothing. It is the context of being able to play the NEXT one in a facile manner tells you if you are on the right track. My $0.02.
Folks this thread went OT straight away. How about this: Is there or isn't there elements of technique which are invisible because they are not movement? If you accept there is, then that is what this thread is about - discussing that, not Matthay's reputation either way.
Jerry, I go with you part way - I wouldn't use Matthay technique on music pre-Chopin.
The understanding of physics in Matthay's time was very much a mechanical, Newtonian view of physics.
So, there are teachers who teach a relativity pedagogy? I know there is a relativity of Biology but isn't that a bridge just too far at the moment?
Originally Posted by theJourney
There was also no clear understanding of how we hear nor of the fact that hearing (and listening) is not in your ears but is in fact a subjective mental process and that what we hear can be influenced and even replaced by what we expect to hear.
You mean you hear what you want to hear? I'm sure Matthay knew that. He wrote an excellent book on intepretation.
Originally Posted by theJourney
There was no clear understanding of what was really happening in the "invisible". Otto Ortmann put to rest the claims of Matthay and other weight and relaxation specialists.
Which were put back by Schultz.
Originally Posted by theJourney
Finally, there was next to no understanding of the nuts and bolts of physical learning processes and neuroscience as we understand it today (where it is still in its infancy).
Exactly, still in its infancy.
Originally Posted by theJourney
Spending too much time getting hung up on trying to actively and instrumentally control physical processes while neglecting the other aspects of piano playing is ultimately counter productive.
of course there are. However, if you are trying to prove your self-aggrandising claim of being the lone authority who can spy secret flops everywhere, forget it. Invisible movements are possible. However, your claim that everyone MUST be secretly flopping is a whole other matter. Your motivations for starting the thread are not going to lead anywhere.
My reading of the original prose leads me to believe that your "flicking" does not fall under any "species" of "finger touch" because as Matthay says, "all these three totally diverse forms of action (or 'species') here come under the heading of so-called 'Finger-touch,' because only the finger is seen to move."
Matthay --> Mannheimer --> John Perry, Anne Kocielny, Constance Carroll
(Constance Carroll --> Me, incidentally)
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
Ms. Littell never espoused a specific method, per se, but she always stressed relaxation of the hand and using the least amount of physical effort in playing.
I agree that there are techniques where you don't actually see the movement. For example: rotation in scales. When you play a scale slowly you can really exaggerate the rotation. As the tempo rises you see it less and less until it looks like there's none at all, yet it's still there.
I've never been convinced by that. If the muscles can instigate rotation at such a speed, I'd like to see it proven. As for a rational proof that it must still occur, rather than be reduced to literally nothing (or what benefit it might present to constnatly be contracting and releasing those muscles, rather than maintain a steady state)...
Some things simply you train you to release certain muscles or use them better. That doesn't mean the instigation of rotation itself is necessarily retained- not necessarily in even the slightest trace. I'd say it just teaches you how to avoid locking muscles. It's the control and awareness that is carried over- not necessarily the movement itself. I think kbk's flopping is similar. It shows you how to let go of the wrist. For some people this can present a real benefit. However, if you get so caught up in the flopping itself rather than merely use it to teach you certain sensations, well, you end up playing like kbk. Flopping is not merely reduced at speed, especially not in 3rds. Even the faintest collapse is harmful. However, some can get benefits from the experience- as long as they don't get totally lost, as if it were the end in itself.
I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but the notion of "rotation in scales" is simply absurd (no apologies to Matthay and Taubman), and the idea that you practice it at slow speed and then it get's minimized or "invisible" at speed is ludicrous - it defies all logic and common sense. Rotating the whole forearm and hand clockwise, anticlockwise, clockwise, anticlockwise - it would be difficult to dream up a more inefficient and completely unnecessary way to move. You want to play scales fast? Work on being able to articulate each of your fingers with great speed while minimizing tension in your wrist, arm, shoulders, etc. and simply move the arm where your fingers need to be. Rotation is good for turning the doorknob as you exit piano teachers' studios who are selling it to you as a basis for playing the piano. Yikes - what did I get myself into now...
[Nyiregyhazi - I didn't mean this as a response to your post - don't know why when you hit reply it shows up as replying to the last post]
You want to play scales fast? Work on being able to articulate each of your fingers with great speed while minimizing tension in your wrist, arm, shoulders, etc. and simply move the arm where your fingers need to be.
You're right. All of this plus rotation works for me. My whole point though was that the rotation is so small that it is invisible. If you were to see me playing a scale you wouldn't see any rotation, but I would feel it.
For what purpose? Why should rapidly contracting muscles and releasing them to a neglible extent be of any benefit? People believe they do things all the time, but are proven not to. There's the famous example of all those who swore blind that they literally turn their thumb under at speed. Video proved otherwise. I don't believe for a second that it's even possible to rotate that fast. Many pianists can play 12 notes per second or faster. That's supposedly 24 changes of direction per second, for double rotation? Totally implausible. Even if it were possible, how is that rate of contraction/release any more productive that merely staying loose? I've never seen even a semi-credible explanation.
Sorry, the benefits might be real but there's no way you're actually doing it in practise. You're remembering what you learned from the process and then abandoning the rotation. What you're retaining must be something that the rotation inspired you to do at the same time but which can also be done independently of it, not the rotation itself. If it works it works, but the explanation is simply ludicrous.
You've misunderstood. There are only two rotations per octave. C major ascending for example: C to E is one, F to C is the other. The arm can stay completely relaxed doing this.
I think it boils down to Stanza's comment earlier - your body will find the best way. How can any of you know what that 'way' is? That once you've put your knowledge aside and don't interfere, rotation will or will not take place?
I think it boils down to Stanza's comment earlier - your body will find the best way. How can any of you know what that 'way' is? That once you've put your knowledge aside and don't interfere, rotation will or will not take place?
Our bodies may be capable of finding the best way, but by applying wrong thinking, end-gaming intentions and cultivating any number of bad habits unawares, the odds are certainly stacked against us. This is why I think it is dangerous to latch onto such blunt-edged, one-size-fits-all, macro advice like the wholesale application of the relaxed flop or the de rigeur rotation.
so when you willfully flop about with a willfully slack, hand, you are just letting it happen? Maybe you should actually apply what say? If you let it happen invisibly perhaps it would no longer hamper your progress?
my words mean very little admiteddly , compared to what really matters. That is the fact that the irrational nonsense you preach about the benefits of flailing around and deliberately relaxing the simplest and most comfortable means will have the last word whenever you or your students sit at a piano. That is what really matters here...
Do you believe it just "happens"? Or do we have to know how to let it happen? How does that relate to practice?
THIS is the issue that's closest to my heart as a teacher. Where technique is concerned, there's a difference between knowing something, doing something, and teaching someone else how to do it.
Some people like and are aided by rigorous scientific description. Others are hampered by it. I have a basic understanding of how the playing mechanism works, but not a detailed one, and yet I like to think I can play and teach reasonably well.
Technique is one of those things where knowledge is not necessarily power. To use one of my usual analogies, it's like golf. Knowing how a golf swing works doesn't mean you can hit a golf ball. And lots of people can hit a golf ball very well without knowing the intricacies of the swing mechanism.
Going back to the OP, I think there definitely are invisible things working behind the scenes in piano technique. I also think Matthay had pretty good insight and knowledge into what some of them are. But I don't think his descriptions are infallible, useful for everyone, or comprehensive.
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
I agree entirely, that some people are doing things without knowing or understanding how. However, as a teacher, we have to be able to help those who DON'T just end up with a good swing. The more we understand what actually happens, the more we can formulate approaches to cater for individual needs- be they subjective ones or factually supportable ones. The more we simply remember what worked for us (or in some cases what didn't) the less we can deal with a range of problems. As an individual there are cases where people may not necessarily benefit from understanding, however, I do not believe that there are any cases where teachers do not benefit from deeper understanding. Deep understanding is both to know principles and to be able to put them into practise. Not simply to memorise them or copy what someone else said because they are quite popular. Merely to recite things without using any broad understanding or knowing how to put it ionto practise can lead to an awful lot of vagueness and misconstrued facts.
Incidenetally, there are an awful lot of myths about the golf swing. Few golfers learned an instinctive approach. Also, a great many of the finest professional had to make a number of exceedingly concious adjustments to their motions. Coaches like David Leadbetter work with some of the very finest players on the tour (often in the prime of their careers), not just young talents or amateurs. I'm certainly not levelling this at your Kreisler, but the "just do it" approach is generally either an illusion created by a very fine teacher (probably involving a lot of physical prodding to train the right motions) or the work of a very poor teacher. That applies equally to golf or the piano. It is the failure to actually understand what they do that means that some spectacular players do not teach well. Understanding is vital for teachers.
And I agree completely that the "just do it" approach fails far more often than it succeeds. My only caution is that rigorous scientific explanation is not necessarily the best approach.
I also agree that this is what prevents some very accomplished players from becoming very good teachers. A friend of mine who took lessons from a concert pianist was always frustrated with the fact that he would simply say "just do it like this" and demonstrate.
Another concert pianist (who was also an excellent teacher) told me once that she was completely lost with students who didn't already possess a fine technique. She wasn't able to take a mediocre pianist and make them great, but she was able to take a great pianist and make them even better. She was one of the smart ones. I've also met a few too many who don't know how to make a mediocre pianist better but try anyway.
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
Yeah, I think this is only serves to reinforce how vital it is to have a real understanding of what you are doing. Even if subjective experiences are beneficial, why not go on to explain it more rationally, after the subjective experience has sunk in? If the understanding is not passed on along with the skills, it's not much use for the future generations. You don't have to go so far as to explain all with recourse to advanced science, but you ought to have an idea as to the fundamentals of what is going on. If you are only told to do something, you cannot teach anyone with a different problem. If you are told WHY to do something, you may even be able to spot and cure totally opposing problems- rather than simply repeat what you were told and hence push them even further from the solution.
There's no better illustration than the "relaxed" hand at a keyboard. If someone believes they have a relaxed hand when playing chords, when they actually have a very supportive one (mistaking the world of difference that lies between "comfortable" and "relaxed", for a hand that is new to playing) they can do untold harm to students with lazy muscles. What harm could it possibly do that person to realise that their subjective experiences of completely "relaxing" their hand is not accurate and that the same advice of relaxation at all costs could push some people further away from a functional state of comfort? Subjective false impressions should only ever be the first stage of remedial learning- especially for those who might become teachers themselves. You don't have to make things overwhelmingly complex to understand the fundamentals of what actually goes on. Subjective impressions can be essential to some problems, but they should always be on the way to a greater understanding in the long-run, rather left as irrational factual misconceptions.
There's the famous example of all those who swore blind that they literally turn their thumb under at speed. Video proved otherwise.
That sounds like very interesting data. Is that an official experiment that you are referencing? Are you saying that some people thought that they turn the thumb rotationally when crossing over or under, but the videos show that they merely cross the thumb over or under the previous fingers?
Recent Repertoire: Liszt: Concerto #1 in Eb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dY9Qw8Z7ao Bach: Partita #2 in c minor Beethoven: Sonata #23 in f minor, Opus 57 ("Appassionata") Chopin: Etudes Opus 25 #6,9,10,11,12 Prokofiev: Sonata #3 in a minor Suggestion diabolique
It used to be thought that confabulation was a psychological pathology, but now we know that to a lesser or greater degree it is just how our brains work and it is part of what and who we are. We are constantly inventing narratives (whether we are aware of it or not) to explain our (subconsciously) determined behavior and to try to make ourselves appear to ourselves and others to be cohesive and consistent. Given that so much of piano playing has to do with an impossible to monitor in detail barrage of multiple sensations combined with intellect and emotion and in particular proprioception and sound feedback mediated kinesthetic sensory processing for which we have often little conscious awareness and for which we also have next to no common shared language, it is no surprise the kind of inaccurate and simplistic but earnest porkies we tell ourselves and others...
Quote
Confabulation is the spontaneous narrative report of events that never happened. It consists of the creation of false memories, perceptions, or beliefs about the self or the environment...
Bartlett's[6] early 20th century studies of remembering are arguably the first concerted attempt to look at the memory-illusion phenomena. In one experiment, he asked a group of students to read an Indian folktale and then recall its details at various time intervals. As well as errors of omission, interestingly he found numerous errors of commission whereby participants had adapted or added to the story to make it more rational or consistent. ... In the 1970s a number of researchers and theories promoted what has been called the constructivist view of memory, maintaining that reasoning influences memory, in contrast to a prevailing view at the time that memory supports reasoning.[7] Theorists such as Bransford and Franks[8] noted the significance of personal beliefs and desires, or more technically scripts and schemas, in memory retrieval. ... Fuzzy trace theory is based on the assumption that memory is not stored in unitary form. Instead memories are encoded at a number of levels, from an exact "verbatim" account, to "gist" which represents what we feel or felt was the overall meaning of the event.[9] False memory effects are usually (but not always) explained as a reliance on gist traces in a situation when verbatim traces are needed. Because of this people may mistakenly recall a memory that only goes along with a vague gist of what happened, rather than the exact course of events. Three reasons are proposed: First, there is thought to be a general bias towards the use of gist traces in cognition due to their resource efficiency,[7] and people will tend to use gist traces when they seem sufficient. Second, verbatim traces are said to be inherently less stable than gist traces, and decay faster.[7] Third, in the process of forgetting, memories fragment and gist and verbatim traces can become independent.[9]