Improvisation as a means of integration

True, but it wasn't just old reflexes. I did a lot of work on getting my fingers more involved. However, it was only after a break on the piece that I discovered how much I was still under-doing it. I think this thing can happen, but I don't believe it had a thing to do with the internal perception of drama. It was a pure movement issue. It made no difference whether I emotionally detached myself and thought simply of a quality of sound that would be deemed dramatic, or "felt" the drama. It wasn't about gritting my teeth due to emotional reasons, but about the fact that I wanted a big sound but my fingers were underperforming. This left no option but for them to work hard to fight negative movements. They weren't doing enough positive movement and were hence left with not choice but to be bracing. You can see from the very beginning how the fingers are giving way slightly. No amount of musical thinking would have changed that. The stronger my intent, the more they gave way. However, I'm now finding that by treating it purely as a movement issue, I can get the more dramatic sound- without the slightest change in what I am aiming for musically. I don't think it works consciously though. I know very well indeed now that stiffness is never of the slightest use. I've gone as far as to basically "prove" that stable structure is virtually impossible if you try to do it with stiffening rather than well directed movement, in my most recent blog post. But does that mean I never stiffen any more? No- because I have yet to train my instincts to provide the necessary movements that can replace it, all of the time. The conscious understanding is a big guide to the process I am going through to fix these issues, but it's not enough to know that you need never brace. The reason you never brace, is because you ALREADY have a good feel for necessary movements that replace the need for it. For myself, it's not enough to know that bracing serves no purpose. Unless I get enough movement at the fingers, my unconscious will necessarily instigate bracing to compensate. I am increasingly thinking that the easiest way to develop these things is to spend considerable time stepping back from the final musical intentions. The more I think of the final intent, the LESS I apply the necessary positive movements- which leaves my unconscious with no choice but to involve the bracing actions.

Because they: 1) consume, while it is not the task of a performer to consume; suffer while it is not the task of a performer to suffer, etc. In such circumstances they forget that good music making requires a certain emotional distance to be able to evaluate the effect of what you're doing 2) are eaten up by worries around the performance that have nothing to do with the music itself There is no objective reason to collapse that which stands very well in other circumstances, and certainly not any intended sound result. Paul But is it an objective issue? It's not a case of deciding not to. You must first be able to feel how to avoid collapse in general and secondly be able to feel how to avoid it while striving for any conceivable musical context. It doesn't matter if you're feeling emotions or not- it's still VERY difficult to avoid the collapse when you have a musical intention to fulfill. That is, it's very difficult, unless you have acquired the specific style of movement in which it's easy. Until that is in place, it's not about whether there's an objective reason to collapse, but about how the specific means of not doing so has not been adequately learned. It's something that just happens, not something that the student decides to do out of any rationale. Emotions can make it harder, but ultimately it's striving for a sound image that is what makes it difficult to keep good movement. For me, this exactly why the student might play the one chord fine yet collapse their hand when they play the music. It's not a sign of inadequate musical conception, but a sign of not being able to adapt the basic movements to FIT the musical conception. Without the matching movement, it's logically clear that musical intention is exactly what makes them collapse in musical context, yet not in isolated context. Personally, I struggled greatly with the arch concept for a long time after knowing about it. Until I made my goal to actively extend out the fingers, I just wasn't using the right action to make it happen effectively.

I think we are basically talking about the same thing. The only difference is that your background is different. The amount of time you have spent to get it all right is neglible compared to the amount of time you have spent doing everything not so effectively. I have never been far away off in any respect. In general, though, I like the idea of simplicity and it's one that opens doors where pure movement practice alone just takes too long or doesn't provide the right solutions. I also like the idea of taking something to the extreme as soon as I get how something should be solved. The arch is no longer an issue since, as you already know, I can do a finger handstand without collapsing. Besides, I'm selectively lazy by nature, so my fingers do only what they have to do to get the desired effect, nothing more. But I solved these problems mainly away from the piano. Paul

I think we are basically talking about the same thing. The only difference is that your background is different. The amount of time you have spent to get it all right is neglible compared to the amount of time you have spent doing everything not so effectively. I have never been far away off in any respect. I take your point- but I think it's very important to base it on the many who don't naturally get it right with ease. Simplicity can only be the result of knowing the right basic intention, in many cases. Just wanting it to be simple can ironically leave people doing all kinds of weird complexities- out of nothing more than not knowing an easier way to move. What comes across as "musical talent" is in my opinion related greatly to the ability to chance upon the right style of movement. However, I think that "untalented" people can do very well if you point them in the right direction. I also like the idea of taking something to the extreme as soon as I get how something should be solved. The arch is no longer an issue since, as you already know, I can do a finger handstand without collapsing. Besides, I'm selectively lazy by nature, so my fingers do only what they have to do to get the desired effect, nothing more. But I solved these problems mainly away from the piano. Is it possible to do more still though? With the Liszt, I was more troubled by what I saw when I filmed myself than the sound, in many ways. Obviously, many things can be much better musically, but I could see just how many holes in efficiency were occurring. When I practised with pure movement issues in mind, I discovered that the bits I though were working best have room for plenty of improvement too. I can make a far more defined and richer sound in places that seemed pretty good before. Sometimes exploring more intensity of movement still (rather than aiming simply for enough) can make a world of difference- without the basic conception being notably changed. There's always room to exaggerate a particular contrast a little extra, to make the softer playing a little softer still or the loudest playing a little richer. Sometimes the best way to do that is not to immediately to intend more musically, but to explore the movement issues that make it easier to exaggerate further. If my technique had started out more secure, would I be better off- or would I simply have settled for results which might have been improved on by exploring pure physical issues?

It's hard to tell from here, but chances are that with a good teacher from the very beginning, you might have gotten the basics in a year or two and your search might have involved completely different things than the ones you are persuing now. Without the intention of sounding like a music critic: What I see in all your films is craft, rather complicated craft with rather surprisingly good results at times because you don't simply move for the sake of movement (the mistake of many), but you are trying to create a sound image with those movements. Sometimes, when you tend to forget about the mechanics and about yourself because there just isn't enough time, even great art peeps through; the music plays itself. In order to make it art everywhere, you will have to let go at a certain point and find ways to simplify things. This will take both time and great courage. Paul

It's hard to tell from here, but chances are that with a good teacher from the very beginning, you might have gotten the basics in a year or two and your search might have involved completely different things than the ones you are persuing now. Without the intention of sounding like a music critic: What I see in all your films is craft, rather complicated craft with rather surprisingly good results at times because you don't simply move for the sake of movement (the mistake of many), but you are trying to create a sound image with those movements. Sometimes, when you tend to forget about the mechanics and about yourself because there just isn't enough time, even great art peeps through; the music plays itself. In order to make it art everywhere, you will have to let go at a certain point and find ways to simplify things. This will take both time and great courage. Paul I wouldn't necessarily dispute what you say- but my honest feeling is that I need to learn more control first, so I can let go more easily. In my videos, I'm rarely especially happy with the results- or feeling greatly in control. My older style of playing (seen in my earlier videos) was based on not caring about anything other than what I was trying to sound like. Quite honestly, I don't tend to go too far from that now, when in a performing mindset. However, if I completely let go, it's the control over sound that quickly suffers. If I were to upload some Haydn say, you'd here why I can't put the movement issues altogether to one side. There isn't enough basic control over the sound or flow of movement to do so. When I forget about everything, the very first thing that happens is that my right wrist goes into a terrible alignment and fingers end up in a position where they have no control at all over the sound they are producing. At the moment, the very least I have to do is notice when this is happening and make adjustments to get things back on track- although it's very hard to recover when playing through rather than being in a position to stop briefly. I suppose in short- the whole problem is that if I just forget about everything simplicity of movement is exactly what fails to happen. I think it takes a lot of training before a simple mindset leads to a simple and effective movement. Presently, the more time I spend in performance mode, the further I get from a simple means of technique.

I suppose in short- the whole problem is that if I just forget about everything simplicity of movement is exactly what fails to happen. Performance itself is a craft that has its own rules and needs separate practice. The sound image/atmosphere/mood of the piece itself should dictate EVERYTHING you do on the stage, not control over your finger movements or the form of your hand while pressing a key. I think mental practice can help you out here. Sit on the sofa or in your armchair. Imagine/play just one phrase in your head (not more), go to your piano and play it without interfering, exactly as you heard it in your head, focusing only on the sound image you want to project, not on your fingers. Close your eyes if necessary. Remember: don't correct anything, because you are not supposed to do so during real performance. If it wasn't what you expected, so sorry; try again next time, because you don't have a second chance right now. Now go back to your armchair and repeat or take another, not-too-long section. Record the process for yourself. P.S.: Also, if the sound is really, really good, who cares about how your hand looks in the video clip? The main thing is that it should be as comfortable as playing the central c on your piano. Like Heifetz said: "Practice like it means everything in the world to you. Perform like you don’t give a damn." Paul

What an interesting discussion. Some remarks: The piano is tempered so even though the "topography" of triads are the same the intervals differ slightly relativly speaking.So the brain feels it has to "correct". I do beleive many students simply don't know what they are playing.Ask somebody to play a simpel invention in another tonality and you'll see. I don't mean it's a good practicemethod but it shows how little musiscians they really are (myself included).No technique in the world can compensate for this flaw. Gieseking claimed to be able to play directly after his "armchairmemorizing". I don't beleive him but I think the combination is indespensable. Cziffra did learn all he could in his armchair before touching the piano a procedure of maybe a few weeks. And than he practised very slowly phrase by phrase in fact he mixed up a whole program like two mesures Scarlatti than a phrase of Chopin etc. One of the tests was to play only odd pages and than only even pages. Etc. This extreme knowledge of the material is probably the key to speed. Why I like Cziffra as an example is that he had no time to waste as he was way behind (due to his harsh livingconditions in the past) regarding repertoire and had to catch up quickly.Like Liszt he also played on silent actions which is very good for many things among others to increase the control of emotions. I don't know but it's hard for me to beleive that playing without any stifness is possible. The problem is to deal with it when it occurs nowadays if I get to stiff I change the interpretation imediately I forget the plan and violate the score like making a diminuendo instead of crescendo, tempi etc. I do think many of Horowitz's so called interpretations sometimes are "recovery shots". He was good at that his Japan consert (where he was more or less deleted by drugs) is a funny example he does some incredible recoveries here. Last the instrument. One of my big mistakes was to try to get something out of really bad pianos. Most of them are crap even new Steinways Consert Grands can be crappy. So you try to dig out a nice sound and your technique braks down and you get stiff as a heyfork. You have to realize that the instrument will limit you and accept that some of your interpretations you had in mind are impossible.The performance will be crappy and as good as it gets. Onversely if you've practiced on a lousy piano for to long then confronting a supreme piano will be like changing from a crappy old ford to a formula 1 racing car-also a disaster.

If your technique is based more upon proprioception than on aural feedback (which it should be for high-rank professional performance), then this will hardly be the case. I don't think that the ability to tranpose pieces into other keys on command helps very much in being a good performer. It is nice for purely practical music theory purposes, of course, but in practice it doesn't improve your playing. I believe there is a recording by Gieseking in which he plays whole segments of certain pieces out of key and doesn't seem to notice. In the end, it's not your ears or your knowledge that saves your performance, but pure finger/hand memory + black-and-white structures of the keyboard. My favorite way to confront my students with themselves. A silent keyboard is a must for anybody who takes performance seriously. I think this deserves a separate topic. It is possible to play with complete comfort in any circumstances and on any instrument provided you know the material you want to play thoroughly and provided you have developed the Heifetz approach in yourself of not caring too much about how it will go during actual performance. This does not mean that the performance will be low-quality; on the contrary. It may just be different for yourself, but the audience won't know and will still perceive it as first-class provided you practised for quality. I don't know. It may be a matter of training for particular situations. Sviatoslav Richter had a weird habit of canceling official paid concerts and playing them for free somewhere in people's homes deep in Siberia instead. Of course, he met with "impossible" instruments, but he didn't seem to care and played them without even warming up, always leaving people flabbergasted with the quality he got out of those instruments. I've even witnessed him playing in a situation where there was frost in the room (!) This didn't seem to bother him in the least. Paul

Thanks for taking time with my post! Lots of artists play on whatever, I liked the story of Richter I guess any healthy person gets fed up with the situations around conserts and it's people. But Richter and others surely do practise at times on very fine instruments and when it comes to real showtime I guess most get fanatic about the instrument. Richter had a custom made Yamaha (which I heard in a recital in Helsinki once) and the exquisite subtilities he did on that instrument spoke fore itself. I'm personally interested in the instrument and I just love playing on restored Erards etc. The old Hammarklaviers that Mozart used (and to some degree Beethoven) are very helpful in understanding the music. And playing on a Clavicord does miracles with the touch. Stiffness:well you give me some hope here I did play some passages where stiffness seemed inevitable with the only thought to avoid stiffness. It did really feel as the quality went way south but then I turned on the recorder and you're maybe right -it's not so obvious anybody would notice. Yes start a thread with silent pianos. They're good for memorizing,the internal ear, keeping muscles in shape and trains you not to get the body too emotionally involved when producing emotional material. I use a digital nowadays but I miss the silent grandpiano action I had long time ago.