Hand Independence

But in fact, I didn't argue with anyone either, but it seemed right to defend a category of people. As personal [opinion], after which for me the discussion is definitively closed also because I no longer have the desire or time to continue, it still seems right to me to remember that when one asserts a concept that one recognizes as being wrong

no, for goodness sake .. here I was wrong!

it would be elegant and intelligent to apologize for expressing oneself poorly, and in these cases one emerges not as a loser but as a winner: everyone can make mistakes, but few have the strength to apologize. Everything would have ended there after one post. You can continue to claim that you haven't offended anyone, but several private comments I have received which, for obvious reasons, I cannot cite sources for, demonstrate exactly the opposite. In light of these statements, I do not intend to continue questioning this matter and even if there was no apology, it doesn't matter; everyone will form their own idea about this matter which has probably already been forgotten. As Paolo said, these discussions have been made over and over again, and when the topic of 'privatists' is opened, it is always a sore spot. I hope, therefore, that we can continue to question interesting and intelligent topics instead of wasting time and especially words and thoughts on topics of such low stature... I will note, however, that my responses never contested your theories on piano technique (which I do not share but which I respect nonetheless, just to demonstrate that I am not the dictator of the situation who decides what can be said from what cannot be said), therefore, my moderation of your post was aimed ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY at that unfortunate phrase.

Regards,

andre wrote:

Bill Gates doesn't even have a degree, and yet look at the goals he has achieved; not defining him as a computer genius would be truly ridiculous.

Hi André... Since he has introduced himself, I will introduce him properly since, up until his legacy for university reasons, we studied together with the dear Maestro Fabio Salustri; we met and subsequently became great friends thanks to the passion we both developed for music. I find the parallel you drew regarding Bill Gates very interesting. In the world, things that are right in an "objective" way are only recognized in science and only when science demonstrates them through the heuristic/theoretical (not even so if not experimentally proven)/empirical method... A mass falls from a certain height to the ground thanks to the force of Gravity, and I believe this is an undeniable truth. As far as art is concerned, but more generally, the study of the piano in our case—and I make this clarification since someone has split music from technique, where what governs judgment is taste; it is difficult to distinguish (within certain limits) what is undeniably right from what is not. We can therefore assume that the right path is the one that leads to concrete results, and it is more right, that path which leads to those results in the shortest time. Everyone has their own conviction and their own path, but Paolo said something very interesting and almost Hamlet-like in his last post...

he who maniacally finds himself following one of the two methods also undergoes a strong formation regarding his own form of judgment. For example, he might always perceive background parts as confused and "not well worked," or he might become too superficial regarding rhythm and/or expression. At most, he might never be satisfied, except by his own "virtual performance model" which cannot contend with music made by Humans and in places built by Humans. My wish: to know how to read and reach the whole... even if not perfectly.

I deliberately highlighted the part that interests me, even though I included what came before for conceptual completeness. Effectively, in my opinion, what he wanted to communicate in the bolded part is not very clear, and since we saw each other today, I asked for an explanation. By virtual performance model, he means, for example, that recording of a famous pianist or an intrinsic mental construction of sound and execution, which distracts us from everything of music. An anecdote from a few years ago immediately came to mind when, while obsessing over some pieces by Liszt including Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 and Liebestraum, I spent a lot of time listening to the same recordings over and over. From constantly listening to the same mush, everything I heard outside of that recording did not please me. I had thus created in my head the "virtual performance model," as Paolo defines it, which distracted me from recognizing what was truly right from what was not. The question can also be asked in another way: "is it possible that among 20 interpretations by great pianists, the only right one is only the first one I listened to?" To this day, the issue has even worsened, and indeed Paolo also returns to these concepts when speaking of music made by Humans and in places built by humans. Why has it worsened? Because today we only purchase non-human records. There are no missed notes, there are no timing errors, there are no hesitations, there are no interpretation errors (relative to what the pianist had in mind but which they failed to externalize during recording). The records being offered to us are indeed too perfect even at a sonic level, precisely because recordings are often made in equipped studios. Consequently, for this purpose: maximum sound cleanliness, extreme clarity of parts, extreme balance of voices in the right and left hands. What is the risk? The risk is that if one only listens to records and creates an image of sound and interpretation in one's head, not only a pianist's interpretation at a live concert, but the sound will also result in being poor. I am always looking for old recordings, where pieces are played from beginning to end without technical artifices, with their imperfections... That is the right way! And this vice is lost when one understands that even by listening to 20 recordings, each different from the other, perhaps they are all correct nonetheless. One ends up understanding these things after years of abandoning the pieces. After this time has passed, this model has been abandoned and forgotten and in light of what has been discovered, no longer drugged by the memory model, we are once again able to lucidly judge what for us is right from what is not. Furthermore, you will have noticed how much pieces improve, in terms of interpretation, when they haven't been played for some time. The reason, in my opinion, is that in this way there is a rediscovery of the piece, as if during its absence we had had the chance to "digest" its parts in order to enjoy its fruits more. Have you ever tried at least once in your life to continuously repeat the same word! You reach a point where that word loses its meaning. By digesting the piece, one enjoys greater fluency, a better tranquility of execution; it seems as if all the notes pass under the fingers with extreme lightness, almost as if attention shifted more towards the beauty of the piece and therefore we are more inclined to enjoy the music, rather than concentrating on which voices or which parts to emphasize; essentially the whole (that value which is greater than the sum of its parts) seems to develop by itself, as if by magic, under our fingers.

Regards,

@TheSimon

First of all, Happy Epiphany.

I agree with you when you say that a hint of an apology would have been appropriate, but it is also true that the impetuosity with which you demanded them made it possible to fail to honor the due commitment without much difficulty.

Regarding the second aspect you raised, I kindly ask you to re-examine my description of the inventors (Type 1 and Type 2), because, and not by chance, one of the keys to understanding what Paolo says lies there. But Paolo also says something else, which I also maintain: instead of continuously creating/inventing, for reasons of so-called efficiency, man adopts and formalizes schemes that prove to be, in certain respects, more productive than others. And, so far, nothing wrong and nothing strange. The damn mess is made when, without performing a critical analysis (and this is also unacceptable!), they extend the scheme outside its limits of validity and, after application, do not even perform a critical revision (and this truly cannot be accepted!).

@Compositor

I am glad for you that you did not argue with anyone and I am certain, having you undoubtedly demonstrated to be an amiable person, that there will be no other occasions in which someone involves you in a "non-argument".

Ah, I forgot, Happy Epiphany to All

Well. I am too gratified that my quotes are being discussed. I do not deserve so much.

I would like to add: speaking with Simone, since I have the flaw of overlapping concepts, I was not quite clear enough; perhaps I should make a further clarification regarding the "virtual executive model". I mean that which forms in our brain, not necessarily after having assimilated a reference interpretation to which we have become attached.

The virtual executive model, the dangerous one, can form even before the performance or listening occurs and .. sometimes prevents the performance from occurring at all. Maniacally studying separate parts and seeking maximum definition of them in clarity, equality, perfect duration, etc.. can form a model for us that is still far from the idea of real performance and can prevent us from achieving the latter. Study focuses on the "success" of reaching individual perfected models ...which perhaps cannot coexist, in the same way, with reality. Our judgment could become "virtual", condemning every "right and pleasant compromise" in the hierarchy of parts. For example, a sound plane that should be in the background will seem "confused" to us, and we will give bad grades to our own performances and those of others. We are "stuck"

Slightly different is "the real executive model", that which we form by listening 500 times to Chopin's polonaise played by Rubinstein. We learn everything perfectly and minutely, even if the listening occurs while ironing, drawing, or screwing something. We become so expert and attached to that performance that we elect it as absolutely correct. We condemn or remove from the podium all other performances, even insignificant ones. We can no longer move away from that model, which for us is right and immortal.

And this is the reason why it is advised to listen, yes, when studying a piece, to some performances, some, but without choosing an absolute model. Only through our own understanding and deepening (also with the help of a good Teacher) will we finally arrive at "our" model. We will then find ourselves comparing our choices with those of other great performers, but more serenely and profitably.

Thank you

I will tell you a story: it's true .. but for obvious reasons I will tell it as if it were just a little tale.

There was a female student who was starting her piano studies. How old could she have been .. no younger than 12 .. no older than 14. She had a very particular character: introverted, shy, very weak .. she would get discouraged by nothing, anxious. She studied piano with one teacher, solfeggio with another teacher. Leaving aside the solfeggio and her teacher.. anyway, it took her more than 3 years to get her license .. she was postponed and failed several times. She was mediocre .. she could have even made it .. but emotion destroyed her.

The piano teacher insisted heavily on technique, on articulation .. many hours of lessons were also spent studying together. One year passes .. he still had not let her lay hands on the repertoire. No Clementi sonatinas, no first easy pieces by Bach, no first canons by Pozzoli or Kunz, etc .. this was because the teacher wanted the basic hand setting to be at least defined .. and for the student to have a certain technical awareness.

The mother of this student goes to the teacher to complain: "a year has passed .. according to the program she should have done this, this and that .. she hasn't done any of it .. only technique and articulation exercises." The teacher gives the appropriate explanations .. however, the student decides to change teachers.

The former teacher and the student would have seen each other again soon .. if she had continued and therefore if she had taken the 5th year. In the meantime, the new teacher made her play, he immediately let her lay hands on the repertoire .. he had a different approach.

The 5th year arrives. The former teacher is not on the commission (perhaps he no longer taught piano) anyway, he decides to follow her exam. Meanwhile, the mother .. speaking with the former teacher (without resentment) .. "no, look .. she found it great. She played immediately .. she had a completely different approach to the piano".

It is the summer session (June). The student gets a 7 on the sight-reading test, a 6 on the technique study, and a 4 in everything else. She is postponed to September. Very discouraged, she left the classroom crying. The former teacher said to the mother: "so much for that 'approach'." It wasn't emotion .. She had played (in the meantime she had grown up .. she was in her 5th year of High School) .. but how she had played!

September .. autumn session .. she retakes the exam. She gets a 5 on the Mozart Sonata (3rd test). A 6, barely and strained, on everything else. That 5 averages with the 7 she got in sight-reading. So she passes the 5th year of piano with a 6. Having reached that point, she decides to interrupt her studies.

No comment regarding the execution of the Gigue from Bach's English Suite in A minor .. it sounded like a Czerny étude. No other comment .. the fact is .. the so-called 'great approach' of the 2nd teacher would have led to excellent results .. as could be objectively observed! and just like that, more or less, can be seen in many students of this second teacher. He might even be a famous concert artist .. an undoubted concert artist. Perhaps very skilled on certain repertoires but .. his teaching proved not to be so much "teaching".

perhaps unlike the first teacher .. whose students always passed exams with acceptable grades!

Regards.

Undoubtedly, with all due respect, perhaps even the second Teacher was not suitable. One must also see the actual dedication and ability of the student.

TheSimon wrote:

One is a good pianist when they have: first, talent; second, much dedication; and third, a good teacher who follows them and understands the needs, abilities, and psychology of the student.

Note the non-random order of importance.

I can study with the best teacher in the universe -> If I don't have talent, I will never be a good pianist.

I can study with the best teacher in the universe -> If I don't apply myself and lack dedication toward the instrument, even having great talent, I will never be a good pianist.

Why talent first?

Because if I feel that the teacher is not helping me improve, I can decide to change them.

Because if I have never applied myself, I can choose to do so.

Talent cannot be changed and cannot be chosen; you are born with it, or you have it or you don't.

Why dedication second?

As a logical consequence, if I can change my teacher for a better one but I do not apply myself, I will still not achieve satisfactory results even having great talent.

Why the teacher third?

There are no more free spots. (Note that with this I do not mean to imply that the teacher is not important; I am talking about three concepts important for the purposes of learning, but which logically can still be arranged hierarchically)."}

Hello everyone,

I wanted to talk to you about a problem of mine that has accompanied me since I started playing the piano.

I have had two teachers; the first explained almost nothing about technique to me, and after studying for a while, the first discomforts appeared in my right arm, specifically in the triceps.

When I spoke to the teacher about my problem, he told me it was due to a weakness of mine and the fact that I wasn't "trained" O.o .... his words did not convince me and I changed teachers.

The new instructor immediately explained to me that my lack of posture was the cause of my pain and that with proper technique, the pain would disappear.

The weight technique was fascinating but difficult to apply because I couldn't relax; my arm continued to hurt.

After a while, I saw results; I was able to play without feeling tension in my arm (even though it would still happen every now and then).

For this reason, 8 years ago, I left piano studies because the thing I loved had become a torment... I no longer felt any emotion 😳..

Today I would like to resolve my problem and I am asking for your opinion.

Does my arm hurt because of a failure to acquire the technique or because of some anomaly in me??

It is a very strange fact, in the left arm I feel nothing!!!!

When I play and cannot stay relaxed, this tension remains in my arm and even at rest I cannot relax

only with a great effort of concentration can I manage to relax it.

Bye 😉

I believe that these issues should be analyzed by observing your setup in person. It is impossible to respond in a detailed and specific way on a forum based only on some impressions you have reported. It would be useful to know if your pain in the triceps of your right arm is something that occurs even with minimal effort in other areas of daily life; this is so we can direct our attention to understand if the problem may be related to an actual physical defect rather than a problem of posture or tension attitude when playing the piano. However, it seems to me that you recognize on your own that you are tense when you play, and prolonged tension obviously causes muscle pain regardless of the degree of "training"—what a bad word... In this case, rather than talking about technique, it would be more appropriate to talk about posture and attitude towards the instrument. You can develop your musculature as much as you want (in any case, I don't think it is that important for the purposes of piano study; I have seen tiny people with great energy in their fingers), but if there is tension, pain will always emerge. Think, for example, about holding a weight behind your back using the triceps: an athlete will probably be able to remain in a position of tension longer than you, but certainly not for more than a few minutes! With this example, I only want to demonstrate that piano training should not be a gym session, but on the contrary, must push towards an awareness of basic movements in order to execute them with extreme relaxation and fluidity while still maintaining great energy, which must not come solely from the muscles and, even worse, from a single muscle, but from the elegant participation of the large muscles supporting the weaker ones (I invite you to watch the second video in the discussions on piano technique where anatomy is discussed; you can find the link on the home page), from the use of body weight, but above all from the coordination of muscles during execution. Achieving this goal is by no means guaranteed and requires, at the beginning, great commitment from the student and great competence from the teacher following you, who will have to notice and correct your problems at their very onset.

only with a great effort of concentration can I manage to relax it.

You could be prone to a bad habit, which is difficult to remove. Without a shadow of a doubt, you need to be followed by a competent teacher who can teach you how to approach the instrument in a relaxed way. The beautiful thing about bad habits is that with a little effort they can be lost, and you will be able to return to playing with extreme tranquility, enjoying the music that will enrich you. My wish, therefore, is that you manage to find a teacher capable of understanding your problem and resolving it with serenity.

Regards,

Interesting story.

In my opinion as well, neither the first nor the second teacher was good.

However, I do not assign any responsibility to the two regarding their method.

I believe, with due caution, that even a third teacher would not have worked.

In my opinion, the student mainly had to overcome difficulties not specific to piano study:

the composer wrote:

... She had a very particular character: introverted, shy, very weak .. she was discouraged by nothing, anxious. ... she was held back and failed several times. She was mediocre .. she could have even made it .. but emotion destroyed her.

... It hadn't been emotion .. She had played (in the meantime she had grown up .. she was in her 5th year of high school) .. but how she had played!

...

Problems perhaps related to the child's development and her relationship with the world, with others, psychomotor problems (although some growth can be noted).

It would have been appropriate to advise the mother toward other professionals, outside of music or, better yet, parallel to music.

Very useful topic. Thanks!