2017 was our 20th year online!

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!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad) Piano Sight Reading
train piano sight reading with your iPhone or iPad
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
33 members (Dave Horne, dhull100, CyberGene, Animisha, fr34k, Alex Hutor, 1903wrightflyer, Franz Beebert, Frédéric L, 5 invisible), 389 guests, and 575 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
G
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
Originally Posted by keystring
Since you didn't include a key signature I didn't know whether there was an A or A#, though the A(nat) accidental in the previous measure suggested it might be A#. I played it both ways.

He said fugue #4, and that narrows it down to two fugues, one for each book. He's talking about WTC book 1, Fugue in C# minor.

Go to the end and then up about 4 lines. You'll find it instantly.

The picture is extremely large and confusing...


(ad)
Piano & Music Accessories
piano accessories music gifts tuning and moving equipment
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
I used the picture since I was being asked about playing that one measure, and I answered the question about playing that measure. I didn't pay that much attention to the name since a picture was there, and when there is an excerpt in the middle of something, you can't know for sure whether it's in the original named key at that point. The playing of the measure is done. smile I think I wrote enough in response to the question, and hope for a response once a bit of time is taken reading it. Yes about the picture.

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,949
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,949
Originally Posted by Gary D.
I tell my students that there are three levels of Bach:

Hard
Harder
Impossible

I know this is going off on a tangent: But I don't agree with that generalization. There is plenty of "easier" Bach to pass around, and since I'm no purist (I pedal Bach generously, and I don't deal with that 454545 nonsense fingering) I think a lot of Bach is actually quite accessible.

I teach a TON of Bach to my students, and I'm not really "dumbing it down," either, so that students can play Bach. I just dislike certain antiquated ways of thinking about Bach.

Okay, carry on...


Private Piano Teacher and MTAC Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
G
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
Originally Posted by AZNpiano
Originally Posted by Gary D.
I tell my students that there are three levels of Bach:

Hard
Harder
Impossible

I know this is going off on a tangent: But I don't agree with that generalization. There is plenty of "easier" Bach to pass around, and since I'm no purist (I pedal Bach generously, and I don't deal with that 454545 nonsense fingering) I think a lot of Bach is actually quite accessible.

I teach a TON of Bach to my students, and I'm not really "dumbing it down," either, so that students can play Bach. I just dislike certain antiquated ways of thinking about Bach.

Okay, carry on...

I was being humorous...

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
G
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
Originally Posted by keystring
Answering Prout
First, thank you for responding to what I wrote. I must mention that you only responded to some of it, and the missing parts are ones I'd like to get back to, because they matter.

There was almost no response, and I'll wager you won't get one to this either. I'm going to answer because I'm the one who got insulted.
Quote

I am not against understanding anatomy and how the body works. What I wrote of (the part you addressed) is that this study focuses only on the hands. The purpose of the study itself is not that of helping musicians: it uses musicians as the best candidates for their study. But when they do talk of playing piano, it is totally hand oriented. Lifting the 5th finger high + "finger independence" are in there. You focused on that part of my answer, and I will get back to your musical example. smile I did read your proffered article. I would like you to do me the favour reading my post in its entirety. smile

No one said one word about being against understanding anatomy.

I mentioned, rather pointedly, the the article linked to is not aimed at people who do not have a background in anatomy.

I want to mention that Prout's example, musical, was equally unhelpful, so some may be accused of not being interested in his point because he linked to a picture that was huge, lacking a key signature, and not even letting us see full measures, in context. That makes it a very poor example.

If I were assuming that most people I'm talking to don't even have experience with the WTC, I would not post such a picture unless I wanted other people to feel stupid.

But making other people feel stupid is often the aim of people who post a lot in forums.

The article did not have an illustrations showing what was being talked about. As someone who is in no ways an expert in this field a few pictures would have helped.

When talking about the body I tend to be a visual learner, and looking only at terms that I then have to look up is extremely discouraging and off-putting.

If I described what I teach the way the article described the muscles and tendons of the hands - and this is really about more than the hands, since this involves at least the forearms, which contain muscles, tendons and so on that are "working the fingers" in the hands - then people would rightfully call me a condescending snob if I then accused people of not wanting to learn what I had to say.

If I then stated, with no doubt whatsoever, that I knew I was being condescending, that this was my intent - well, you get the idea. I'm still pretty steamed.
Quote

Work has been done on the physical side of piano playing both in the open public through books, teachings, systems etc., and more invisibly by teachers with their private students. By now I've seen a fair bit of it. This kind of work does consider anatomy. The one important factor is that the piano is not just played with the fingers, and also wrong teaching or learning including a pure finger orientation does lead to injury. From here I can go to your example.

Understanding everything about how the fingers move and how the hands work is not going to stop injuries. You just pointed out part of the problem, the idea that fingers are little hammers, and everything should be rather stiff/rigid. Almost two centuries ago Chopin was railing against such a view, and rightfully so, but there are teachers still teaching that old view, and who knows how many thousands of people are injured following that advice.

You can have a perfect understanding of the anatomy of the hand, and you may have nothing unusual in your hands that point to problems, but if you practice hours every day doing something is harmful, you may still injure yourself. And that happens a lot.
Quote

The Bach: From what I have managed to learn so far, I know that no joint anywhere in the body mechanism should be locked, and all should be free to move. I know that a held note should not be "held down" with force, and there should be a certain flexibility and looseness in those fingers, as well as the wrist not being locked. I know that when a finger lifts, there can be a certain amount of co-movement further in the hand, forearm, upper arm, which may be tiny and invisible but they are there --- there is a chicken or egg as to which lifts which.

That is 100% correct, and I'm not going to say more on this subject.

Unfortunately it is useless for me to comment about such things in this forum because people who think that I don't know how to teach, for one reason or another, have already come to the conclusion with absolutely no reason, and there is nothing I can do about it.

But I have been an opponent of anything that causes pain or injury for as long as I have been teaching - about four decades now. I've seen a lot of problems, and I've fixed a fair share of them.

I'll leave it at that.

Last edited by Gary D.; 12/22/16 04:10 AM.
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
N
4000 Post Club Member
Online Content
4000 Post Club Member
N
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by Gary D.

No one said one word about being against understanding anatomy.

I've already talked about the anatomical ignorance elsewhere; as well about the theses of Vladimir Mazel, that right and wrong movements may look identically, and for a particular performer in a given playing situation there is only one anatomically correct movement. I don't think that ignorance of the anatomical structure of the human body, and not just the hands, is a sign of high-grade teacher with " a developed intuition" . But of course a test is - what happens to the student, if develop problems of fingers and hands.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,462
T
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
T
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,462
Originally Posted by Gary D.
Originally Posted by AZNpiano
Originally Posted by Gary D.
I tell my students that there are three levels of Bach:

Hard
Harder
Impossible

I know this is going off on a tangent: But I don't agree with that generalization. There is plenty of "easier" Bach to pass around, and since I'm no purist (I pedal Bach generously, and I don't deal with that 454545 nonsense fingering) I think a lot of Bach is actually quite accessible.

I teach a TON of Bach to my students, and I'm not really "dumbing it down," either, so that students can play Bach. I just dislike certain antiquated ways of thinking about Bach.

Okay, carry on...

I was being humorous...


I was too. But I would have said four categories instead of three, if I were the first to mention it:
1. Possible for student to figure out fingering on the fly
2. Possible for student to figure out fingering with extended study
3. Possible for advanced player or teacher to figure out fingering on the fly
4. Possible for advanced player or teacher to figure out fingering with study

And then I'd have to observe there are no known Bach pieces in category 1 or 2. Hee, hee.


gotta go practice
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
So far I have only addressed the topic at hand. Prout, I wrote about the material you presented, adding my thoughts and related considerations. You responded to part of what I wrote. I don't know whether you understood the parts you did not write about, or just ignored them. I responded to your response, and since it's only been a day, chances are that you will respond. I asked you to take the time to read the whole thing carefully before responding. I don't know if you will do so.

This time I'm addressing something different - namely the tone toward some of the teachers here. One might think it was accidental, with people not always knowing how they come across. But you have told us that you were condescending deliberately. That does not sit well. In fact, it bothers me immensely and I cannot be alone.

You are making assumptions both about people you have not gotten to know, and perhaps also about your own superiority (?). It's hard to tell. There is greater respect among experienced professional teachers toward each other, than I have seen on those occasions.

You also addressed something to me:
Quote
Rather than dismiss ideas that are foreign or new to me, I would prefer to embrace the knowledge, add it to my arsenal, and be able to argue both sides from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance.

The material you presented is neither foreign nor new to me. That is why I was able to respond in the manner that I did. In regards to "arguing" from any kind of "side", there are no "sides". There is exploration of a broad and complex thing where seemingly opposite and contradictory things are often merely elements of a same puzzle. Various people have added to those parts, and you seem to have dismissed them or shrugged them off. If you are indeed shrugging off new information and new aspects for the sake of one consideration, then you are putting yourself in that position of ignorance. wink I hope that is not the case. But above all, I hope to see respect in this forum rather than what looks like condescension. In my experience, those with the greatest expertise and knowledge are often most humble and kind in their manner. Perhaps you are indeed coming across in a manner you did not intend? Because I am surprised and somewhat disappointed.

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
G
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
Originally Posted by Nahum
I've already talked about the anatomical ignorance elsewhere; as well about the theses of Vladimir Mazel, that right and wrong movements may look identically, and for a particular performer in a given playing situation there is only one anatomically correct movement.

That's simplistic. There may be more than one way to move, but there will be, for sure, ways to move (and lots more) that are 100% incorrect.

But someone needs to point out that going for tests is something that most people are not usually going to do until serious problems have already happened.

For every person who goes to a doctor for answers as to what is causing pain there are probably 100 or 1000 who develop serious pain before realizing a potential problem every existed, and some of those people will get into huge difficulties while studying with "experts" who essentially say: "Trust me. I'm an expert. I know what I'm doing."


Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
N
4000 Post Club Member
Online Content
4000 Post Club Member
N
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by Gary D.

That's simplistic. There may be more than one way to move, but there will be, for sure, ways to move (and lots more) that are 100% incorrect.



I have no reason not to trust to Vladimir Mazel. VM (Age 82), violinist and pianist , for 25 years a leading methodologist of violin playing among music schools in St. Petersburg. For 40 years, specializing in the rehabilitation of physical problems of performers on string and keyboard instruments (also guitarists).
Thoroughly studied anatomy, thanks to his wife - a doctor. Every year, he lectures at the orthopedic center in St. Petersburg; where experts believe that Mazel has developed a new branch of the science physiology of activity . He wrote eight books about his system, one translated into English. His views are based on the works of Friedrich Steinhausen and Nikolai Bernstein, founder of the direction of the physiology of activity.
We are friends for eight years, are constantly talking on anatomically-based playing movements on the violin and piano during teaching ; I even for him a kind of guinea pig. Since have also studied the system Feldenkrayz and Alexander technique,  then I put the system of Mazel on the same level with them.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Nahum, that style of answer bothers me. What I mean is this: A discussion goes along, then somebody throws out the name of a person or a book that is famous, or a person they consider is great, and then nothing more can be discussed because of the great name. This is wrong. And it stops discussion.

The reality is that you wrote a very few words which tbh were somewhat unclear. Mazel did not write them - you did - and it is better to discuss the ideas posted here, rather than talking about the merits of a particular man. So ... You wrote:
Quote
as well about the theses of Vladimir Mazel, that right and wrong movements may look identically, and for a particular performer in a given playing situation there is only one anatomically correct movement.

To start with, your sentence is hard to understand as you wrote it because it can be understood two ways. There are two parts:
- right and wrong movements may look identical
That makes perfect sense, and I don't think you'll get much disagreement
- in a given playing situation there is only one anatomically correct movement
How does that tie in with the first part of your sentence? Well, for one thing, if one cannot tell by appearance, then one also cannot tell whether this "correct movement" is happening by looking. So what do you do with that? If you can't tell by looking, how do you guide a student or learn by watching a good player? The two things are close to at odds with each other. This isn't the problem however.

"only one movement" being correct --- that is the problem, i.e. the part that in its present form seems simplistic. It would have been better for you to expand on this, when that was pointed out, rather than pulling out how esteemed Mazel was (which doesn't tell us anything). The problem I have in regards to "one movement" is that playing piano is a set of movements involving the whole coordinated body from to to head as much as the fingers are involved, of course. That is the simplistic part. Mazel would have set this out over days or weeks or years in person, or over many pages and chapters in his book. The idea gets lost and simplified when put into a single sentence. wink

I think this can be expanded on, because you may have some interesting ideas which atm are sort of embryonic without their real form. wink

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
N
4000 Post Club Member
Online Content
4000 Post Club Member
N
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by keystring
Nahum, that style of answer bothers me .

Me too, but beside me there is no one that is likely to help in the wording in English.
Quote
What I mean is this: A discussion goes along, then somebody throws out the name of a person or a book that is famous, or a person they consider is great, and then nothing more can be discussed because of the great name. This is wrong. And it stops discussion.


A strange conclusion, when you consider that after I left the Soviet Union, I met a great number of completely unknown to me names - such as Tobias Matthay, Joseph Levine and Rosina Levine,Nadia Reizenberg , Alexander, Feldenkrayz, Abby Whiteside, Isidor Philipp, Dorothy Taubman, Suzuki; and more. All of them are very well-known in the West. And you know that I started to do? I began to look for material about them, to copy hundreds of pages of text to Google translator; at that time I did not read English. For us who have grown up in atmosphere of cultural censorship ("musicologists in civilian clothes"), this is perfectly natural; I would expect something similar from the other; especially if the American piano school (about a Canadian does not know) comes from the traditions of the old Russian school.
And then is possible already start to discuss for real.

Quote
To start with, your sentence is hard to understand as you wrote it because it can be understood two ways. There are two parts:
- right and wrong movements may look identical
That makes perfect sense, and I don't think you'll get much disagreement
- in a given playing situation there is only one anatomically correct movement
How does that tie in with the first part of your sentence?
There is no contradiction, but firmly there is a problem. Appearance of movements can not say anything about the inner sensations of pupil; namely to this issue - pre-training of the correct sensations in motor coordination in young children - Vladimir Mazel devoted the last two years; but I'm not sure whether he will be able to complete this work. Nothing like this hadn't met in other languages.

Quote
"only one movement" being correct --- that is the problem, i.e. the part that in its present form seems simplistic. It would have been better for you to expand on this, when that was pointed out, rather than pulling out how esteemed Mazel was (which doesn't tell us anything). The problem I have in regards to "one movement" is that playing piano is a set of movements involving the whole coordinated body from to to head as much as the fingers are involved, of course. That is the simplistic part.
We can say: "Only one anatomically correct coordination of movements of body parts." I agree that it is very difficult, and requires research.


Quote
Mazel would have set this out over days or weeks or years in person, or over many pages and chapters in his book. The idea gets lost and simplified when put into a single sentence. ;)I think this can be expanded
I will try, according to my abilities . Not sure on this thread; maybe I'll open separate.




Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,327
Thank you for attempting to clarify, Nahum. My first impression had been that in response to questioning an idea, you had simply thrown out some names of people and systems, and that gives no information. I'm happy, btw, that you have escaped the censorship of bygone days, and could get at all that information - not an easy task. Some of us were censored, and some of us were kept in ignorance in other ways. It's not easy to climb out.

The way I understand your original sentence, the first part is that the "right thing" can't be recognized just by appearance. I've seen that sometimes by watching teachers presenting what they do on Youtube, their students have choreographed movements that should give loose and fluid playing, and yet the sound is ineffective and under the choreography they are stiff or just lost. Another person may appear unconventional, breaking all the rules, but underneath something is going very right.

the other part is finding the thing that makes it go right. But this isn't an easy or simple thing to find, i.e. it should not be taken "simplistically". How's that?

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Ken Knapp 

Link Copied to Clipboard
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
Couch to Concert Hall
Couch to Concert Hall
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Painted ebony keys problem
by grand_BB_71 - 05/07/21 12:42 AM
Hide under piano during earthquake
by twocats - 05/07/21 12:18 AM
1998 Steinway 1098 plate - "P" vs "45"
by pwl - 05/06/21 11:19 PM
Returning/exchanging a new piano
by Fortissima - 05/06/21 10:47 PM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics206,761
Posts3,090,628
Members101,437
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers

Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | MapleStreetMusicShop.com - Our store in Cornish Maine


© copyright 1997 - 2021 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5