1. I think it is a big mistake to make a detail/big picture dichotomy. Coincidentally, Brendel has written on this in a tribute to Furtwangler. I am speaking of hierarchical . There are very detailed levels as well. The point is they form a coherent and intuitive picture. With detail, it is better to think of motivic units. Many perspectives are valid and necessary. But some perspectives add absolutely nothing. I can look at a Shakespeare play from many perspectives, some of which are purely structural, others dealing with historical influence. But if I look at things in isolation of the PATTERN they belong to, my perspective cannot elucidate the construction or meaning.
2. By analogy with literature, Nabokov often talks about savoring details, but he is referring to turns of phrase, imagery, gesture, surprising word choices. I might savor the alteration of symmetry in a tiny phrase of Mozart, but I do not really care what the note is, except in its relation to the overall pattern.
3. I am only criticizing what you are talking about and claiming that it is INCOMPATIBLE with what I believe to be real mental practice, because it encourages the wrong way of thinking.
4. The only use I can imagine for what you talk about is to check accuracy
"I think it is a big mistake to make a detail/big picture dichotomy. Coincidentally, Brendel has written on this in a tribute to Furtwangler. I am speaking of hierarchical . There are very detailed levels as well. The point is they form a coherent and intuitive picture. With detail, it is better to think of motivic units. Many perspectives are valid and necessary. But some perspectives add absolutely nothing. I can look at a Shakespeare play from many perspectives, some of which are purely structural, others dealing with historical influence. But if I look at things in isolation of the PATTERN they belong to, my perspective cannot elucidate the construction or meaning."
I see your point. But the question is, do you know the motivic units mentally or physically? Is it a hand gesture? Or is it a mental way of organising a pattern of individual details into something bigger? It's not about being able to say from memory what the 7th note is of bar 19, say. It's about knowing every detail that creates the bigger unit. If you truly know a motif, there's no reason why you wouldn't be able to play the notes of that unit with one finger- unless the learning has only been physical.
"I might savor the alteration of symmetry in a tiny phrase of Mozart, but I do not really care what the note is, except in its relation to the overall pattern."
A great test is whether you can play something by memory with one finger or the wrong hand. If you can't, the memory is physical, not motific. If the motif is truly known, it should be no problem to play it in a different way. This is why people used to have to transpose fugues and how Fiorentino could play any fugue with his hands the wrong way around. Do you actually know a motif- or merely a movement? Realising just how deep this runs has been a revelation for me. One finger practise is simply the tip of the iceberg- ie. that which has been exposing to me just how superficial my learning has been of many pieces. Also, I must stress that it's not about single notes but about intervals BETWEEN two notes. There's still context to the notes.
"I am only criticizing what you are talking about and claiming that it is INCOMPATIBLE with what I believe to be real mental practice, because it encourages the wrong way of thinking."
Mental practise can be just about anything. There are thousands of different types. To play with one finger is not 100% mental- but it does expose any holes in the mental conception, that pure mental practise may never expose.
"The only use I can imagine for what you talk about is to check accuracy you learn something. But it is not a good learning method. "
Why? It's a bit like singing something first and then having to play it from memory. If you can learn a piece this way, the learning is truly mental- not purely physical. It's like an elementary version of the same procedures by which some pianists can memorise a piece from a score, then play it flawlessly at first attempt. Sure, it's bloody hard! But it's an excellent thing to develop. The one finger approach is a very good entrance to this style of preparation. I find it very effective to get students to play every scale with a single finger, before I let them attempt the regular fingering. If they can't play it with one finger, it shows that they have not adequately visualised the scale. This is why so many students upon being asked a key signature play this scale FIRST and then tell you afterwards! Clearly this is the very reverse of what happens, when coming from a place of true understanding. Understanding should educate the movement. You shouldn't have to make a rote-learned movement to figure out what notes make up the unit. It's amazing how much more often they get the notes right when they finger the scale normally for the first time, if they've first done it accurately with one finger.
