One Finger Practice

1. There are a WHOLE LOT of musical passages where one finger manages the musical line. So it is entirely worthwhile to develop the musicality of an individual finger. PERIOD. 2. I said that you could isolate the multi-finger lines out of more complex textures as well. One Finger is a POINT OF DEPARTURE. It is also common ENOUGH that it gives benefits in and of itself. 3. Electronic pianos hardly produce beautiful sound. That precise ALIGNMENT of tones happens when you play on a good acoustic piano and even out the volume and duration. Then you get a really magical sound conception. 4. You still haven't understood my response about physical context. This is the last time I am going to try. If you do not agree or more likely do not understand, DROP IT. My idea is analogous to playing hands separate, except the work of the fingers is being sorted out. Hamelin can handle multiple musical lines with his left hand alone because the fingers have sorted out their roles and he can move his arm and wrist to align the fingers just right. 5. I think we might as well drop this discussion and avoid any future discussions. Neither of us are gaining anything from this debate.

"There are a WHOLE LOT of musical passages where one finger manages the musical line. So it is entirely worthwhile to develop the musicality of an individual finger. PERIOD." But what about those where it doesn't stay in the same finger? Would it be essential to use the exact fingering when extracting a line that features many fingers? It's not exactly a matter of life and death, but I just don't really see much reason to worry about using the specific fingers for this style of practise- whether it's one, two or all five. Unless you're actually involving the surrounding notes as well as the implied line, I can't see that the fingering used to play the line has any notable significance. A person could master the voicing of the 5th finger line solely by viewing it in context, without ever stopping to practise the 5th alone. However, a person could practise their 5th alone for hours, yet not necessarily gain any greater access to the movement required to control it within the whole. "Electronic pianos hardly produce beautiful sound." ? They produce a sample of a real piano sound. It's neither beautiful nor ugly. The point is that when all dynamic inflections are removed, this reveals just how dead an "even" sound really is. I refer to a digital simply because there's no switch on a real piano to do the equivalent (although MIDI files played through player pianos reveal that they sound equally horrific when truly even) I don't see why any musical ideal would involve complete evenness or why the sound of one finger attempting a long line would be the type of evenness to aspire to. "My idea is analogous to playing hands separate, except the work of the fingers is being sorted out." Not really. Having the right hand playing a note has minimal effect on how the left hand moves, outside of coordination issues. Conversely, the difference between playing a physical legato connection between two notes in one hand, compared to playing a single finger from nothing, is substantial. It seems to me like the idea of trying to practice thumb passing by playing all of the thumb notes in a scale and nothing else. Without playing the preceding finger, it doesn't train anything much to do with the context of how the thumb would get there during an actual scale. In most cases, you need at least one prior note, if there's to be any sense of context to the movement. Similarly, a person could play every note of flight of the bumblebee with the correct finger, one at a time. But unless they are learning how to play chains of at least two or three notes, they will never get anywhere towards playing the piece. There are enormous interrelations between the movements for successive notes. It's very hard to acquire any context, unless you include a note to precede that which is being practised. Otherwise it's just a different movement altogether. The physical difficulty in piano playing is not to move an individual finger in the way that produces the desired level, but rather to do so in the context of what other fingers are also having to do.

OK I don't have time to read every word of this thread so I will go back to the first two posts. Andrew, the reason you're skeptical is because you don't understand the technique Kannan is describing. Remember the German body builder who played a beautiful legato line with a pencil in that film (whose name I can't remember) that I mention in . He proved that you can play a beautiful legato with one finger (or one pencil) and it is interesting to consider just how he managed it. 1) When you play a melody with one finger, the action of the finger is more likely to be exactly the same, you attend to making it so. i.e. if you do the exercise with physical and aural sensitivity. 2) Because it is such an unusual exercise, it gets you out of your habits (which for you especially would not be a bad thing). 3) Because the same finger plays each note, it becomes totally necessary to move your arm from one note to the next all the time. Thus the of the melody is forced to be brought physically into being. 4) You are skeptical because you think that by playing each note with the same finger, the vertical component of each note will be brought to the fore. This is a valid fear, but if the exercise is done consciously you can override your tendency to let the vertical predominate and consciously cultivate the horizontal aspects of the musical phenomenon. This brings us to one more advantage: we often play too vertically - i.e. we let the vertical action of depressing a key take precedence over the horizontal action of connecting melodic tones - . This exercise helps us become aware of what we may have been doing unawares. AFF

"1) When you play a melody with one finger, the action of the finger is more likely to be exactly the same, you attend to making it so. i.e. if you do the exercise with physical and aural sensitivity. 2) Because it is such an unusual exercise, it gets you out of your habits (which for you especially would not be a bad thing). " I think much of my skepticism is rather specific to the idea of using the fifth finger for this. If anything, I think there would be quite a big risk of inconsistency. I regularly experiment with one finger practise with the thumb. My point is that, while I strive to do it musically, it wouldn't be any kind of long-term ideal for sound that I would expect to emerge. I think there are easier ways to acquire such an ideal- typically involving whatever fingering affords the most control. If anything, I'd see it as making it more challenging to execute a genuinely long line. I think that challenge can be interesting, but my skepticism is specifically about whether this is a very easy way to provide a musical ideal to aspire to and how much it contributes to the physical ability to distinguish that line- once the other notes are returned. Quite often in these cases, I think the biggest hindrance to bringing out implied lines lies within the smaller notes.

Thank You Prof. Fraser for the fresh and clear perspective. A couple of points. If you read only one point, make it the 3rd. 1. There are many situations where the fifth finger alone carries a line. It would be worthwhile then to isolate and practice that line only with the fifth finger. But there is another reason. When you keep one variable constant and that variable happens to be the sensitive fifth finger, you can learn a lot of tactile distinctions. Especially with a pianissimo line. 2. You (CZIFFRA) seem to miss the distinction that I have repeatedly made between the sense of musical coherence and line that comes from reducing passages down to their frames, and the final sound image when you put everything together. I am not talking about highlighting voices. I mean the basic arc of a musical phrase. They are separate things. 3. By the way, Earl Wild actually did advise his students to practice CANTABILE lines with one finger (either 3rd or 5th) and to precisely the sounds with the ear. This helps you focus on precise dynamic shading and pedaling. He played the theme of the Op.109 Variations movement with only the fifth finger! 4. One finger practice is not a panacea. It IS a powerful and simple PROBLEM SOLVING/ANALYTICAL technique as well as an AURAL EDUCATOR.

"4. One finger practice is not a panacea. It IS a powerful and simple PROBLEM SOLVING/ANALYTICAL technique as well as an AURAL EDUCATOR." This is where I fundamentally disagree. I think that the greatest aural educator is to practise with whatever fingering makes for the greatest control of sound- to grow accustomed to the most ideal sound possible. This type of practise might involve two hands or even using a different hand altogether. But I don't think a lone 5th would ever provide maximal tonal control, compared to alternatives. Practising with one finger strikes me as a way to test the ability of the finger to produce sounds that correspond with a sound image (albeit from a cold start, rather than in the context that which occurs when there are other notes to play). Unless you already have a clear intent in mind, I cannot fathom how playing with one finger is going to do anything to produce sophisticated intentions (except with regard to the physical perception of distance in intervals). In the example you give of the Waldstein, personally I would play the implied musical line with a fully legato fingering and grow accustomed to the sound from that. Then I'd work directly on shaping that line in a comparable way when playing it within the surrounding notes (but going slowly enough to be able to clearly distinguish between the line and surrounding notes, both physically and musically). Actually, I might also use two hands for that step first. Playing it with the fifth alone just strikes me as a less useful way of training an optimal sound image and unlikely to contribute much to the physical means of shaping a line that exists among other notes. Of course, a good pianist ought to be able to do anything and I'm not saying nothing could ever be learned from attempting this. However, it just strikes me that the same benefits can be achieved more easily and directly with other methods.

I give up. This is threatening to become a serious waste of time. I just want to point out one very poor argument you made regarding mental practice. 1. You countered my point that this note-by note thinking is "rote work/mental torture" by arguing that its purpose is to counteract the usual rote habits. That doesn't say anything. You can fight injustice with injustice. You can counter bad arguments with bad arguments. You can counter bad habits with bad habits. High level performance happens when all the detail has been synthesized and you can focus on getting the precise EFFECT you want. This is completely different from focusing ON THE NOTES. The kind of thing you propose doesn't lead to a synthesis. Sebok put it perfectly when he said he doesn't want to play the notes, he wants to play the BEFORE THE NOTES. Musicians with superior intuitions, like Kleiber/Furtwangler/Haskil/Sebok can do this. 2. I think most people do not take to mental practice because of this agonizing note-by note thing you describe. People do not visualize mathematical concepts by picturing every single detail of an argument. The same is true with music. 3. Real mental practice happens when you think of one fragment and then note its resemblance to another. Or when you discover the underlying frames and symmetries and inner voices and expressive nuances. Then you form a clear CONCEPTION of how you want the piece to go. That's what musical thinking is about.

OK now we are getting down to brass tacks. If you are skeptical about it because of using particularly the 5th finger, that means you are oriented towards a perceived weakness of a particular finger rather than the structural-functional potential of any finger. I am finally beginning to realize why you don't progress more despite all the information input from me. You keep wanting to deal with problems instead of solutions. You are comfortable in a world that consists of struggling against physical inadequacies far more than you would be comfortable in a world of using a functional physical mechanism to solve musical problems. I allow myself to be so caustic with you because I had a very similar conversation with Kemal years ago but then I was on the receiving end. Respectfully submitted, AFF

OK now we are getting down to brass tacks. If you are skeptical about it because of using particularly the 5th finger, that means you are oriented towards a perceived weakness of a particular finger rather than the structural-functional potential of any finger. Yes, I see what you mean here. It certainly makes sense that every finger ought to be able to perform a task as consistently as the thumbs. I think I might try practising a few scales with the 5th and see how even they can go, and then try more exaggerated shapes by playing some standard melodic lines with the fifth. My skepticism is largely about the idea that this would be the most optimal way to develop the musical intentions for a specific 5th finger line or physical specifics to that passage itself. However, it makes a lot of sense as an exercise in controlling the most basic performance of the finger in general.

"High level performance happens when all the detail has been synthesized and you can focus on getting the precise EFFECT you want." Of course. But if you cannot play any individual musical line from memory with one finger, has it been "synthesised"? Or have physical movements been learned as a replacement for actually knowing the internal workings of the music? I think you present a false dichotomy- as if knowing individual notes would somehow prevent musical hierarchy? Surely the better you know each note, the more understanding you have from which to select a hierarchy? I've said nothing that implies replacement of any other important factors. The more ways you can look at something, the better. "2. I think most people do not take to mental practice because of this agonizing note-by note thing you describe. People do not visualize mathematical concepts by picturing every single detail of an argument. The same is true with music. " But does a performer really know what he is doing- unless he understands the fine details as well as the big picture? In recent years, I've been realising that I went way to far with the concept of foreground and background- without exploring enough detail within the background. Take the G flat Impromptu of Schubert. I've heard people like Brendel bang the hell out of the accompaniment and had formerly tended to go so far as to think almost solely about melody and harmony. However, that's just another bad extreme. The accompaniment still needs it's own internal life. No matter how much softer it is played than the melody, every individual note should be internally grasped- it's not purely a background blur. While I put much detail into my foreground, my background frequently descended into a series of "empty" sounds- rather than a shaped ppp figuration. This is the sort of passage where I've found one finger practise very useful. By very slowly playing the accompaniment with one finger, it brings it beyond a mere background blur that occurs purely physically. It raises physical awareness of every individual detail and brings an understanding of the internal energy that ought to be present- no matter how softly it is to be played. It would not represent my ideal for the final execution, but it would bring to the forefront the sense that the line has its own characteristics. It's not just dead notes to shove as far in the background as possible. This is only a simple example. When you look at a Beethoven sonata, (or particularly a fugue) rarely a single note or line is mere filler. No matter how far in the background you go, every note has some form of significance and even the least singificant lines have their own ups and downs. While there's an initial hierarchy between voices, there's also a hierarchy between individual notes of even the least significant accompaniments. The most evolved hierarchy surely comes from knowing every note and its individual place in the both smaller and bigger pictures? Surely it's not from thinking merely of foreground (which is known well) and background (which consists of mere physical habit, rather than musical lines that are known individually)? Knowing details can only make it easier to make judgements about comparative levels. When accompaniments occur simply from physical memory (rather than actually knowing every individual note and its own particular place), it's not a very sophisticated heirarchy. This is why you hear stories of teachers saying "just play the bass line- no, not the left hand. The bass line." etc. Thinking about these things makes me realise that there's scarcely a single piece in my whole repertoire that I can honestly say I truly know from the inside. Way too many of the hierarchies are purely the stuff of physical habit- not something that stems from internal wisdom. It's a rather frightening thought (and I may never reach the stage of truly understanding even a single pieces from the inside outwards)- but I'm increasingly realising that it needs to be confronted. "3. Real mental practice happens when you think of one fragment and then note its resemblance to another. Or when you discover the underlying frames and symmetries and inner voices and expressive nuances. " Again, you speak as if you assume I would refute such practise. I don't. I believe in looking at music in as many different levels and from as many perspectives as possible. Sometimes that involves every individual note (preferably not banged out like Brendel's Impromptu!). Sometimes that involves stepping back and looking at melody plus harmony. Balance of perspectives is everything.