Here are the demonstrations I reference in the film, where finger and thumb are poked into the keys from an arm that is very poorly responsive to the finger action. ruclips.net/user/shortsk9NMdHE3oro?si=1wlmObKdNrxGWqcO ruclips.net/user/shortsp9guE-Sv3go?si=1L_P1LG6-MDTtpWP In this video we see some particularly juddering reactions to the finger movements at 3.35- due to the seemingly absent understanding of a hand/arm relationship, as a means of absorption. ruclips.net/video/NGkbM3Cnlyg/видео.htmlsi=naUMnmrMAQzQkB8d He doesn't let us hear the sound produced by the jerky poking from a braced arm, and I can imagine why not. This is also the only film I have yet seen in the series which includes ANY sideways movements while moving the keys. However, even here they are still wholly missing almost all of the time. Mikuli said Chopin used "constant" sideways motion in scales. Not erratic stop-start sideways movements. He didn't say Chopin only moved briefly for the sake of getting the arm to a new group of notes. He didn't say Chopin would then slam on the brakes- so the fingers could poke again from a braced/juddering arm. Even where the poster achieves minor similarity to the evidence, the execution is still a poor reflection of what we know. Stop-start arm movement opposes the continuity Chopin advised for very good reason. A bad demonstration should not be afforded false status beyond its worth, via the sham claim that this is the way of Chopin. It's definably not. In summary, "The Chopin Method" might have been useful if the evidence were simply reported to us. Instead, we are bombarded with demonstrations showing a grossly skewed misunderstanding of both the source material and biomechanics in general. Details are unduly stressed without a context against vital corresponding factors. Amongst all the narrow fixation on position there is seemingly no grasp at all of how smooth sideways carriage of the hand contributes towards a supple piano technique. No, this is not "Chopin's Method" but one individual's distorted misapprehension of Chopin's method.
Yes, self taught players need more than anyone to understand how to link notes into smooth arm movements. I'll be uploading plenty more films just going directly into various fundamentals. For those who are self taught, it's very easy to be misled by things involving finger movements without a role for the arm, but also by face value portrayals of arm weight as a replacement for finger motion. I try give explanations that are as accurate as possible as a description of what really takes place, rather than distorted exaggerations stressing only part of the picture.
And here's a pianist who *actually* understands what Chopin left us. Not as an abstract intellectualised concept but as something that can be used meaningfully within real playing. ruclips.net/video/IHW0x2G9USs/видео.htmlsi=FvM_lxxhpUU_cKm4 As well as matching well to the ideas of hand position we hear from Chopin, there is the constant lateral movement that makes the finger movements safe- hence the easy absorption of reactions and none of the clumsy juddering we see from Chopin's self-appointed spokesman. Continuous arm movements can be reduced to being concise while retaining fluidity and suppleness. However, remove the continuity of arm motion that binds notes into groups, and you also eliminate *everything* of value. Chopin is never about poking fingers from a static arm. He didn't teach this and neither is it effective. "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." George Orwell We can't be thankful enough for the fact we can watch the demonstrations of truly successful pianists, to counter the failings of "intellectuals".
I actually found the thumb articulation thing to be helpful for me. I relied too much on arm movements and now that I've combined both it's helped. I found Browning's video, Neuhaus book, Lhevinne, and Hofmann's to be very great but it's abstract and hard to apply everything on your own even despite multiple reads. What happens is one day I will just be doing something or practice and finally realize what they mean. I think a big principle for me is the arm movement you say yes, but, also elbows low, and low wrist for most stuff is usually very good. Everything changes there is no dogmas for piano technique, but, I find for most situations having low wrist/low elbows/and making sure you drop DOWN on the keys and RELEASE them. Also have strong acive fingers that walk thru notes with legato is some of my principle. I have some footage of a recent recital where you can see my hands a bit to see maybe my principles more.
Oh, I agree entirely. It frustrates me so much because there is a good principle in there, but which gets butchered! What he shows as good vs bad is two bad versions. Practise both however, and you can a good thumb articulation into a nicely connected arm which doesn't need to drop. The only way to get this for sure is understand the need for the arm to actually respond to the thumb action. You can't just hold the arm static and expect to connect them up. It takes a blend of relaxing down into it and standing back up out of the key. This isn't the same as poking the thumb out while the arm keeps still.
@@cziffra1980 yeah!! Well said with the thumb. Tbh what I take from Neuhaus is he would maybe recommend something like. Practicing octaves with NO ARM MOVEMENT just fingers. Practicing octaves with tons of arm movement and freedom no fingers really. Then synthesize what works best from these approaches. I notice with the thumb theres a very subtle movement that aligns with what you say about standing up. It’s definitely super connected to the arm but if you neglect the thumb articulation you will have this clumsy thumb that only can drop.
@@pablobear4241 it's better to use the fingers from overly sunk to standing. A finger movement that the arm can't even respond to is dysfunctional, as a finger movement. The arm still needs to respond rather than fail to move. Strip away the need to drop the arm when practising finger motions but don't try to stop the arm responding to the reactions. That can only cause more problems.
Interesting criticism. I think what you are teaching is compatible with what The Chopin Method is teaching. He seems to analyze in great detail every biomechanical facet of piano playing, from posture to the stroke of a single key. I'm assuming he will eventually explain arm movement and its importance in Chopin's technique, for as you say, without this aspect the technique is incomplete. I'm also anticipating a demonstration of how these principles apply to the study of the etudes, which is where any "chopin technique method" inevitably must be applied and where they shall either succeed brilliantly or fail spectacularly.
I really hope it will improve with time. Unfortunately the recent shorts are actually getting worse. Check out of the one of a diminished 7th chord with really clunky jarring movements. Unfortunately I think real improvement is growing increasingly unlikely. The irony is that parts of what he reports in words actually involve the need for the arm to be responsive. The physical demonstrations show that he just doesn't understand what it actually means to do this within real practice. He thinks he's ALREADY reflecting this, which is why I have little hope. If he's secretly a very fine player then at this point I'd be incredibly surprised. If he is, he has inappropriately intellectualised the demonstrations to the point where they have no relationship at all to the real issues that make a technique work.
In short, you can't just do what he shows and then add arm movements around that as the next step. The foundational ingredients are completely compromised by the locked up arm. Anyone who wants to learn good finger movements should build the foundations in association to an already responsive arm. It's not simply an incomplete ingredient with missing context to add later. It's a completely broken foundation.
The poster of these videos claimed in a comment thread, that Chopin's innovation was to use the fingers to provide the energy of moving the keys. I find it astonishing that anyone could suppose an idea as old as time was invented by Chopin, after years of methodology that advocated movement from nowhere but the fingers. Chopin's actual innovation was to COMBINE finger movements with a truly complementary role of the arm- that finally made finger movements reliably safe to perform, without impact or jamming up. These very arm movements (described as "constant" in scales, by his student Mikuli) are almost wholly overlooked in the Chopin Method series. No finger technique can be meaningfully or safely understood, when casually divorced from the role of smooth sideways arm movement. No, Chopin didn't simply take us back to the dark ages of moving fingers from a completely unresponsive arm. He really did come up with an innovation. One that involves the fingers producing the sound, but which cannot be understood without reference to the smooth sideways carriage of the hand, via the arm.
You should review John Browning's video. It has took me 2 years to realize most of the principles in the video, and still need to work on them. Haven't learned my scales in sixths but learned some in thirds, this stuff really helped me.
Ah, I remember. Yeah, there are a lot of similar principles there. One thing I'd add though is that it's easy to get elbow in wrong. I have issues that mean I tend to end up with my spine somewhat twisted and I've also had limited ability to externally rotate my right arm. If I try to hold my elbow in that tends to put me into severe internal rotation in my right shoulder and it can make my back in general collapse awkwardly on that side. A good trick can be to think of the hand leading when moving it out to the extremes, far more than of actually holding the elbow in. Depending on your position, it's easy to start using the wrong muscles to hold the elbow in, particularly if you've had any rotator cuff issues. Taking the hand out lets the elbow in more passively without the same risk of triggering the wrong muscles to engage. Also when going across the body, that's probably the time to think of holding the elbow out. I used to get badly jammed up when reaching my right arm past my torso, like there simply wasn't room. It made me tend to collapse that side to make space.
@@cziffra1980 yeah I notice my elbows move out when I go to the sides but I think my friend saying low elbows over and over helped me the most. Thinking low elbows for me made me understand more when to play with elbows in. I do think though there should be a better demonstration of two principles: octaves with books in arms, and the dome. I can get a very similar dome using flatter finger and support my structure of the hand well. Curved I think the dome automatically exists but I’m unsure
@@pablobear4241that's a good way of framing it I think. Literally trying to hold my right elbow in was quite harmful at times. I like the idea of just drifting it sideways but not lifting it up when doing so. Something I found though is that pulling my left elbow in more (the side where I never had to worry about it) actually helps my right side, that tends to flare out too much. Pulling the right elbow in makes the whole right side feel sunk and collapsed. However if I do a bit of the same action on my left side it actually helps the right side open up and leaves room for the elbow to drift closer in a simpler and more passive way. It may be to do with the lats in the back, I suspect. I think I tend to engage them too much on the right side and not enough on the left.
Yes, both directly and indirectly. Few methods would use that expression (which is applied almost entirely in the context of criticism), but old fashioned methods that are still sometimes applied today will literally encourage moving fingers from an intentionally static arm. Indirect methods don't say to keep the arm still, but simply fail to offer any word of advice on what to do with it instead. Without the intention of a particular role for the arm there is as good as no difference. The guy on the Chopin method channel is very badly guilty of this. As I say in the film, nothing meaningful distinguishes his demonstrations from methods where you're actively encouraged to lock the arm.
I found a video "Pianist Byron Janis explains Chopin's five-finger position & exercises" just a few minutes ago. Very interesting, completely different to what this other "Chopin Method" guy is suggesting. But neither of them do really convince me. It's so sad we cannot ask Chopin himself how his technique worked. We can ask or watch pianists of today how they are playing, like Argerich or Zimerman.
Yes, I'm not a hundred percent convinced by Janis' version. He was a fine player but I couldn't pretend that his arthritis issues were likely to have been separate from his style of moving. Not the most souplesse approach to the keyboard there either. He did have a strong tendency to bear down on this hand with the arm to needless excess, rather than stand freely back out of the keybeds, to absorb the impact. However, I still find it infinitely superior to the static arm of the Chopin method guy, as a functional technique, even if it differs from how Chopin taught the movements. There's far more responsiveness to Janis, if he's maybe not an outright ideal for moving with freedom. There's also a Hungarian guy showing the exercise in the context of arm weight ideas. It's not my personal cup of tea, but at least he gets his arm moving and adjusts it around the finger contacts. Far easier to adapt this starter point into a final fluidity of motion, than all the finger poking from a static and utterly unresponsive arm.
Again, the overall whole is much more important than surface issues. The Chopin method guy fulfils the narrow criteria he is obsessed with and misses basic functionality due to what he ignores. Janis and the arm weight guy's version involve ignoring the surface parts of Chopin's instructions outright, while more meaningfully attending to the need for arm freedom and responsiveness. I'd take either of these any day, over old school finger isolation portrayed as Chopin's Method.
@@cziffra1980 Yes, of course we are only talking about the technical aspect of Chopins supposed way of playing. The quality of any piano playing is way beyond technical aspects. It's the understanding of the music, what is the background of the music and how to transport it to the audience. There's no way to reduce this to technical instructions.
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik well, sort of. But I also suspect that the guy who gives these demonstrations is unlikely to go especially musically far beyond the quality of his movements, whatever he thinks musically. If he does play well, it will be because of completely different technique to that which he shows in those films. You can only go past your physical means up to a point. The basic concept of fluidity and ability to group notes into uninterrupted arm motions is a huge part of technique. Check out the link to Rebecca Penney's etudes linked in a comment. I don't think that level is possible without a particular hand arm relationship to build the musicianship around.
Probably not much conscious awareness of the technicality of anatomy, but he did seem to have very good instincts in terms of how to work in sync with the natural possibilities.
What you say (and demonstrate) about suppleness and lateral movement in actual Chopin technique is convincing. But I think you are misinterpreting the author of "The Chopin Method" as he is very slowly building up a detailed biomechanical picture of the component movements. He hasn't got to Op 10 No 1 yet, but is still (at Lesson 8) looking at things like the vertical distance the hand has to accommodate when playing adjacent black and white notes in a scale, and the interplay between muscle groups as the hand makes its lateral motions (so this aspect is not left out). Thus, in Lesson 8, he is going through the biomechanical implications of the fingerings shown in Chopin's manuscript exercise sheet, as shown. I don't think he claims to be giving a "how-to-do-it" demonstration. Looking at a scale in such slow motion (actually slow, rather than movements at normal speed being shown slowly) misses the dynamic fluidity of hand and arm that is involved in rapid scales like the one played at the end of Lesson 8 by the aged Backhaus. But I would guess that this element is going to come later, and will indeed turn out to be biomechanically analysed quite differently.
It cannot work that way, due to biomechanics. It would be like learning tennis via an isolated wrist action first, without the rest of the arm taking any part. You can't slowly add more around a problematic motion. The smallest ingredient must at least be functional, to then add more around it. The minimum ingredient is a finger action from an arm that responds (not with the sharp juddering movements but with a much simpler sense of effortless absorption). As I say in the video, if the forearm and wrist is locked, the tendons jam and cannot perform their most basic task properly. While I might similarly question holistic approaches that start by piling arm energy through the hand, you cannot meaningfully learn finger movement without a free arm. The minimum is to have subtle vertical or rotational responses around the grounded key, but it's actually easier to integrate meaningful finger action into a subtle sideways drift. An intrinsically flawed understanding of how to move the fingers is not something that will mix well later in the process. It's better to get it correct from the outset.
There are ways to do individual finger actions in a healthy way before combining groups of notes into a smooth arm motion. What he shows on single notes is simply bad technique though, not a useful fundamental waiting for a meaningful context. The only way to practise a single note well is to have some sense of subtle arm response in terms of action and reaction. If you lock up or judder, the finger will never operate with the kind of freedom required for real playing.
After all, who would be so pretentious as to want to show us the "biomechanics" of something that is nothing close to a workable product? Do people animate bad golf swings based on rigid hips, or animate a skeleton kicking a football while keeping everything immobile except from the leg down? To use the word biomechanics regarding a model for duff foundations is not a thing I've ever seen elsewhere. It's supposed to relate to modelling real functions, not ultra-theoretical simplifications that can't even exist in a practical reality. It might be forgiveable to show a few rather dodgy slow movements in a normal video, without all the x-ray style animations. However, by including the pretentious talk of biomechanics (without a clue about something so simple as the fact fingers can't move freely when the arm is unresponsively static), shows that the whole thing is built around insufficient understanding, not a thoughtfully planned organic process for steady development. It's intellectualism with major oversights, not the start of a well paced method.
@@cziffra1980 The earlier parts of this series, dealing with aspects that are in fact more static, like where and how to sit, had seemed more successful. As the series moved on into matters requiring understanding of fluid movement, I had been coming to share your view that the centipede didn't learn to run by considering each leg. But the mechanics still require the leg-movements to take place, and this remains something to explore. It nevertheless seemed to me somewhat unfair of you to characterise this as a recommendation of finger-isolation methods. I do agree with you that a more sophisticated study approach, starting from such data as ultra-slow motion photography of successful playing of Op10 No1 (especially by a pianist with not the largest hand) would probably be more enlightening. And better biomechanics, no doubt.
@@zugzwang2007 yes, real biomechanics starts with successful movements and then looks at both the whole and ingredients within it. To theorise about isolated finger movement without even considering passive responses is simply pseudoscience, not biomechanics. I agree that a lot of it is rather good, which is what makes it so frustrating that his demonstration of finger action is simply abysmal. It masks how valuable Chopin's approach could be. It shouldn't be devalued to a wide audience by such poor representation. Again though, I stress the issue is not necessarily that we shouldn't look at single finger movements. I believe very much that we should. He just does a terrible job of showing what these should look like, in order for the ingredients to be meaningful. I'll make some videos sometime showing the difference between a passively connected arm vs a locked one.
Here are the demonstrations I reference in the film, where finger and thumb are poked into the keys from an arm that is very poorly responsive to the finger action.
ruclips.net/user/shortsk9NMdHE3oro?si=1wlmObKdNrxGWqcO
ruclips.net/user/shortsp9guE-Sv3go?si=1L_P1LG6-MDTtpWP
In this video we see some particularly juddering reactions to the finger movements at 3.35- due to the seemingly absent understanding of a hand/arm relationship, as a means of absorption.
ruclips.net/video/NGkbM3Cnlyg/видео.htmlsi=naUMnmrMAQzQkB8d
He doesn't let us hear the sound produced by the jerky poking from a braced arm, and I can imagine why not. This is also the only film I have yet seen in the series which includes ANY sideways movements while moving the keys. However, even here they are still wholly missing almost all of the time.
Mikuli said Chopin used "constant" sideways motion in scales. Not erratic stop-start sideways movements. He didn't say Chopin only moved briefly for the sake of getting the arm to a new group of notes. He didn't say Chopin would then slam on the brakes- so the fingers could poke again from a braced/juddering arm. Even where the poster achieves minor similarity to the evidence, the execution is still a poor reflection of what we know. Stop-start arm movement opposes the continuity Chopin advised for very good reason. A bad demonstration should not be afforded false status beyond its worth, via the sham claim that this is the way of Chopin. It's definably not.
In summary, "The Chopin Method" might have been useful if the evidence were simply reported to us. Instead, we are bombarded with demonstrations showing a grossly skewed misunderstanding of both the source material and biomechanics in general. Details are unduly stressed without a context against vital corresponding factors. Amongst all the narrow fixation on position there is seemingly no grasp at all of how smooth sideways carriage of the hand contributes towards a supple piano technique. No, this is not "Chopin's Method" but one individual's distorted misapprehension of Chopin's method.
This is really good for a self-taught pianist like me. Thanks. Subbed
Yes, self taught players need more than anyone to understand how to link notes into smooth arm movements. I'll be uploading plenty more films just going directly into various fundamentals.
For those who are self taught, it's very easy to be misled by things involving finger movements without a role for the arm, but also by face value portrayals of arm weight as a replacement for finger motion. I try give explanations that are as accurate as possible as a description of what really takes place, rather than distorted exaggerations stressing only part of the picture.
And here's a pianist who *actually* understands what Chopin left us. Not as an abstract intellectualised concept but as something that can be used meaningfully within real playing.
ruclips.net/video/IHW0x2G9USs/видео.htmlsi=FvM_lxxhpUU_cKm4
As well as matching well to the ideas of hand position we hear from Chopin, there is the constant lateral movement that makes the finger movements safe- hence the easy absorption of reactions and none of the clumsy juddering we see from Chopin's self-appointed spokesman.
Continuous arm movements can be reduced to being concise while retaining fluidity and suppleness. However, remove the continuity of arm motion that binds notes into groups, and you also eliminate *everything* of value. Chopin is never about poking fingers from a static arm. He didn't teach this and neither is it effective.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
George Orwell
We can't be thankful enough for the fact we can watch the demonstrations of truly successful pianists, to counter the failings of "intellectuals".
I actually found the thumb articulation thing to be helpful for me. I relied too much on arm movements and now that I've combined both it's helped.
I found Browning's video, Neuhaus book, Lhevinne, and Hofmann's to be very great but it's abstract and hard to apply everything on your own even despite multiple reads. What happens is one day I will just be doing something or practice and finally realize what they mean.
I think a big principle for me is the arm movement you say yes, but, also elbows low, and low wrist for most stuff is usually very good. Everything changes there is no dogmas for piano technique, but, I find for most situations having low wrist/low elbows/and making sure you drop DOWN on the keys and RELEASE them. Also have strong acive fingers that walk thru notes with legato is some of my principle.
I have some footage of a recent recital where you can see my hands a bit to see maybe my principles more.
Oh, I agree entirely. It frustrates me so much because there is a good principle in there, but which gets butchered!
What he shows as good vs bad is two bad versions. Practise both however, and you can a good thumb articulation into a nicely connected arm which doesn't need to drop. The only way to get this for sure is understand the need for the arm to actually respond to the thumb action. You can't just hold the arm static and expect to connect them up. It takes a blend of relaxing down into it and standing back up out of the key. This isn't the same as poking the thumb out while the arm keeps still.
@@cziffra1980 yeah!! Well said with the thumb.
Tbh what I take from Neuhaus is he would maybe recommend something like.
Practicing octaves with NO ARM MOVEMENT just fingers.
Practicing octaves with tons of arm movement and freedom no fingers really.
Then synthesize what works best from these approaches.
I notice with the thumb theres a very subtle movement that aligns with what you say about standing up. It’s definitely super connected to the arm but if you neglect the thumb articulation you will have this clumsy thumb that only can drop.
@@pablobear4241 it's better to use the fingers from overly sunk to standing. A finger movement that the arm can't even respond to is dysfunctional, as a finger movement. The arm still needs to respond rather than fail to move.
Strip away the need to drop the arm when practising finger motions but don't try to stop the arm responding to the reactions. That can only cause more problems.
Interesting criticism. I think what you are teaching is compatible with what The Chopin Method is teaching. He seems to analyze in great detail every biomechanical facet of piano playing, from posture to the stroke of a single key. I'm assuming he will eventually explain arm movement and its importance in Chopin's technique, for as you say, without this aspect the technique is incomplete. I'm also anticipating a demonstration of how these principles apply to the study of the etudes, which is where any "chopin technique method" inevitably must be applied and where they shall either succeed brilliantly or fail spectacularly.
I really hope it will improve with time. Unfortunately the recent shorts are actually getting worse. Check out of the one of a diminished 7th chord with really clunky jarring movements. Unfortunately I think real improvement is growing increasingly unlikely.
The irony is that parts of what he reports in words actually involve the need for the arm to be responsive. The physical demonstrations show that he just doesn't understand what it actually means to do this within real practice. He thinks he's ALREADY reflecting this, which is why I have little hope.
If he's secretly a very fine player then at this point I'd be incredibly surprised. If he is, he has inappropriately intellectualised the demonstrations to the point where they have no relationship at all to the real issues that make a technique work.
In short, you can't just do what he shows and then add arm movements around that as the next step. The foundational ingredients are completely compromised by the locked up arm. Anyone who wants to learn good finger movements should build the foundations in association to an already responsive arm. It's not simply an incomplete ingredient with missing context to add later. It's a completely broken foundation.
your channel is a gem :33
Cheers!
The poster of these videos claimed in a comment thread, that Chopin's innovation was to use the fingers to provide the energy of moving the keys.
I find it astonishing that anyone could suppose an idea as old as time was invented by Chopin, after years of methodology that advocated movement from nowhere but the fingers.
Chopin's actual innovation was to COMBINE finger movements with a truly complementary role of the arm- that finally made finger movements reliably safe to perform, without impact or jamming up. These very arm movements (described as "constant" in scales, by his student Mikuli) are almost wholly overlooked in the Chopin Method series. No finger technique can be meaningfully or safely understood, when casually divorced from the role of smooth sideways arm movement.
No, Chopin didn't simply take us back to the dark ages of moving fingers from a completely unresponsive arm. He really did come up with an innovation. One that involves the fingers producing the sound, but which cannot be understood without reference to the smooth sideways carriage of the hand, via the arm.
You should review John Browning's video.
It has took me 2 years to realize most of the principles in the video, and still need to work on them.
Haven't learned my scales in sixths but learned some in thirds, this stuff really helped me.
Ah, I remember. Yeah, there are a lot of similar principles there.
One thing I'd add though is that it's easy to get elbow in wrong. I have issues that mean I tend to end up with my spine somewhat twisted and I've also had limited ability to externally rotate my right arm.
If I try to hold my elbow in that tends to put me into severe internal rotation in my right shoulder and it can make my back in general collapse awkwardly on that side. A good trick can be to think of the hand leading when moving it out to the extremes, far more than of actually holding the elbow in. Depending on your position, it's easy to start using the wrong muscles to hold the elbow in, particularly if you've had any rotator cuff issues. Taking the hand out lets the elbow in more passively without the same risk of triggering the wrong muscles to engage.
Also when going across the body, that's probably the time to think of holding the elbow out. I used to get badly jammed up when reaching my right arm past my torso, like there simply wasn't room. It made me tend to collapse that side to make space.
@@cziffra1980 yeah I notice my elbows move out when I go to the sides but I think my friend saying low elbows over and over helped me the most. Thinking low elbows for me made me understand more when to play with elbows in.
I do think though there should be a better demonstration of two principles: octaves with books in arms, and the dome. I can get a very similar dome using flatter finger and support my structure of the hand well. Curved I think the dome automatically exists but I’m unsure
@@pablobear4241that's a good way of framing it I think. Literally trying to hold my right elbow in was quite harmful at times. I like the idea of just drifting it sideways but not lifting it up when doing so.
Something I found though is that pulling my left elbow in more (the side where I never had to worry about it) actually helps my right side, that tends to flare out too much. Pulling the right elbow in makes the whole right side feel sunk and collapsed. However if I do a bit of the same action on my left side it actually helps the right side open up and leaves room for the elbow to drift closer in a simpler and more passive way. It may be to do with the lats in the back, I suspect. I think I tend to engage them too much on the right side and not enough on the left.
is finger isolation a school of thought on piano playing?
Yes, both directly and indirectly. Few methods would use that expression (which is applied almost entirely in the context of criticism), but old fashioned methods that are still sometimes applied today will literally encourage moving fingers from an intentionally static arm.
Indirect methods don't say to keep the arm still, but simply fail to offer any word of advice on what to do with it instead. Without the intention of a particular role for the arm there is as good as no difference. The guy on the Chopin method channel is very badly guilty of this. As I say in the film, nothing meaningful distinguishes his demonstrations from methods where you're actively encouraged to lock the arm.
Excellent video
I found a video "Pianist Byron Janis explains Chopin's five-finger position & exercises" just a few minutes ago. Very interesting, completely different to what this other "Chopin Method" guy is suggesting. But neither of them do really convince me. It's so sad we cannot ask Chopin himself how his technique worked. We can ask or watch pianists of today how they are playing, like Argerich or Zimerman.
Yes, I'm not a hundred percent convinced by Janis' version. He was a fine player but I couldn't pretend that his arthritis issues were likely to have been separate from his style of moving. Not the most souplesse approach to the keyboard there either. He did have a strong tendency to bear down on this hand with the arm to needless excess, rather than stand freely back out of the keybeds, to absorb the impact. However, I still find it infinitely superior to the static arm of the Chopin method guy, as a functional technique, even if it differs from how Chopin taught the movements. There's far more responsiveness to Janis, if he's maybe not an outright ideal for moving with freedom.
There's also a Hungarian guy showing the exercise in the context of arm weight ideas. It's not my personal cup of tea, but at least he gets his arm moving and adjusts it around the finger contacts. Far easier to adapt this starter point into a final fluidity of motion, than all the finger poking from a static and utterly unresponsive arm.
Again, the overall whole is much more important than surface issues. The Chopin method guy fulfils the narrow criteria he is obsessed with and misses basic functionality due to what he ignores. Janis and the arm weight guy's version involve ignoring the surface parts of Chopin's instructions outright, while more meaningfully attending to the need for arm freedom and responsiveness. I'd take either of these any day, over old school finger isolation portrayed as Chopin's Method.
@@cziffra1980 Yes, of course we are only talking about the technical aspect of Chopins supposed way of playing. The quality of any piano playing is way beyond technical aspects. It's the understanding of the music, what is the background of the music and how to transport it to the audience. There's no way to reduce this to technical instructions.
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik well, sort of. But I also suspect that the guy who gives these demonstrations is unlikely to go especially musically far beyond the quality of his movements, whatever he thinks musically. If he does play well, it will be because of completely different technique to that which he shows in those films. You can only go past your physical means up to a point.
The basic concept of fluidity and ability to group notes into uninterrupted arm motions is a huge part of technique. Check out the link to Rebecca Penney's etudes linked in a comment. I don't think that level is possible without a particular hand arm relationship to build the musicianship around.
i dont think chopin knew about biomecanics or the muscles of the hand and such
Probably not much conscious awareness of the technicality of anatomy, but he did seem to have very good instincts in terms of how to work in sync with the natural possibilities.
Yeah
Credibility
You get delegated to what you look like
That’s the world dude
Eh?
What you say (and demonstrate) about suppleness and lateral movement in actual Chopin technique is convincing. But I think you are misinterpreting the author of "The Chopin Method" as he is very slowly building up a detailed biomechanical picture of the component movements. He hasn't got to Op 10 No 1 yet, but is still (at Lesson 8) looking at things like the vertical distance the hand has to accommodate when playing adjacent black and white notes in a scale, and the interplay between muscle groups as the hand makes its lateral motions (so this aspect is not left out). Thus, in Lesson 8, he is going through the biomechanical implications of the fingerings shown in Chopin's manuscript exercise sheet, as shown. I don't think he claims to be giving a "how-to-do-it" demonstration. Looking at a scale in such slow motion (actually slow, rather than movements at normal speed being shown slowly) misses the dynamic fluidity of hand and arm that is involved in rapid scales like the one played at the end of Lesson 8 by the aged Backhaus. But I would guess that this element is going to come later, and will indeed turn out to be biomechanically analysed quite differently.
It cannot work that way, due to biomechanics. It would be like learning tennis via an isolated wrist action first, without the rest of the arm taking any part. You can't slowly add more around a problematic motion. The smallest ingredient must at least be functional, to then add more around it.
The minimum ingredient is a finger action from an arm that responds (not with the sharp juddering movements but with a much simpler sense of effortless absorption).
As I say in the video, if the forearm and wrist is locked, the tendons jam and cannot perform their most basic task properly. While I might similarly question holistic approaches that start by piling arm energy through the hand, you cannot meaningfully learn finger movement without a free arm. The minimum is to have subtle vertical or rotational responses around the grounded key, but it's actually easier to integrate meaningful finger action into a subtle sideways drift. An intrinsically flawed understanding of how to move the fingers is not something that will mix well later in the process. It's better to get it correct from the outset.
There are ways to do individual finger actions in a healthy way before combining groups of notes into a smooth arm motion. What he shows on single notes is simply bad technique though, not a useful fundamental waiting for a meaningful context.
The only way to practise a single note well is to have some sense of subtle arm response in terms of action and reaction. If you lock up or judder, the finger will never operate with the kind of freedom required for real playing.
After all, who would be so pretentious as to want to show us the "biomechanics" of something that is nothing close to a workable product? Do people animate bad golf swings based on rigid hips, or animate a skeleton kicking a football while keeping everything immobile except from the leg down? To use the word biomechanics regarding a model for duff foundations is not a thing I've ever seen elsewhere. It's supposed to relate to modelling real functions, not ultra-theoretical simplifications that can't even exist in a practical reality.
It might be forgiveable to show a few rather dodgy slow movements in a normal video, without all the x-ray style animations. However, by including the pretentious talk of biomechanics (without a clue about something so simple as the fact fingers can't move freely when the arm is unresponsively static), shows that the whole thing is built around insufficient understanding, not a thoughtfully planned organic process for steady development. It's intellectualism with major oversights, not the start of a well paced method.
@@cziffra1980 The earlier parts of this series, dealing with aspects that are in fact more static, like where and how to sit, had seemed more successful. As the series moved on into matters requiring understanding of fluid movement, I had been coming to share your view that the centipede didn't learn to run by considering each leg. But the mechanics still require the leg-movements to take place, and this remains something to explore. It nevertheless seemed to me somewhat unfair of you to characterise this as a recommendation of finger-isolation methods. I do agree with you that a more sophisticated study approach, starting from such data as ultra-slow motion photography of successful playing of Op10 No1 (especially by a pianist with not the largest hand) would probably be more enlightening. And better biomechanics, no doubt.
@@zugzwang2007 yes, real biomechanics starts with successful movements and then looks at both the whole and ingredients within it. To theorise about isolated finger movement without even considering passive responses is simply pseudoscience, not biomechanics.
I agree that a lot of it is rather good, which is what makes it so frustrating that his demonstration of finger action is simply abysmal. It masks how valuable Chopin's approach could be. It shouldn't be devalued to a wide audience by such poor representation.
Again though, I stress the issue is not necessarily that we shouldn't look at single finger movements. I believe very much that we should. He just does a terrible job of showing what these should look like, in order for the ingredients to be meaningful. I'll make some videos sometime showing the difference between a passively connected arm vs a locked one.