Transferring

 

[Note: It is helpful to read the previous post, It's All (Neuro)Logical, before reading this one.]

In my teaching and in my own practicing, I use a concept called "transferring." It simply means that after you do one physical movement, followed by a second one, some aspects of what you did the first time transfer over to the second time. Perhaps this is because the nerve impulses travel along the same neural pathways. Another way of putting it is: "The body wants to do what it just did." Although I am not a brain scientist, I know from my many decades of playing and teaching that this is the case. The second time you execute a physical movement will be very similar to the first time, the third time will be even more similar, and so on. Clearly, this is how "muscle memory" works. 

Muscle memory will happen regardless and it is certainly a good thing this is so; otherwise we'd have to learn how to do a given movement every time. Muscle memory may be acquired more or less quickly in different individuals, but it will happen. Notice how you brush your teeth or comb your hair; you likely do it almost identically every time.

Because the "body wants to do what it just did," it behooves us to be very mindful of what we just did! (Remember that when I say "body" I am really referring to the brain -- largely the motor cortex -- where it all happens, as I describe in my previous post.) If you make a physical movement that is tense, stiff, or awkward, the body is likely to repeat that. Naturally, you are not going to make those awkward movements on purpose, but nevertheless it happens, and now you have the likelihood of it happening again. This is how we develop habits, and we all know how hard habits are to change once they are ingrained. (See my post "Everything you do has the potential to become habit.") Likewise, smooth, fluid movements are also likely to be repeated. You probably think I am stating the obvious here. If we could just change our habits at the piano by just wanting to do so, we'd all be virtuosos by now. But when it comes to things that are physical, it takes more than just the desire to change how our bodies move. To make a change to the physical will require something physical.

If you've been reading this blog, you've heard me say it dozens of times: "fixing" wrong notes as you play doesn't work. This is because the so-called "fix" is interpreted by the brain as part of the process, and will therefore likely be repeated again the next time. If you play the "wrong note/right note" sequence, the brain assumes this was intended and will do it again. Haven't we all had that experience?

Another example is playing with incorrect rhythm. Many beginning (and not-so beginning) piano students often will play a passage "just to learn the notes," but with incorrect rhythm. They assume there is no problem with this. But the brain will pick up the incorrect rhythm and likely do it again. I have seen this over and over again. You can't outsmart your brain, oddly enough. It will want to do "what it just did."

I have discussed how to "fix" wrong notes and other errors in previous posts. But here I want to talk about how we can use this feature of our brains for our benefit. This is where "transferring" comes into play.

Let's say you are playing a fast ascending scale in your right hand. You don't feel it is fast enough, or fluid enough, or legato enough. You can play it over and over, trying to get it better, but it just stays the same, or maybe improves, but just slightly. Try this: play an ascending glissando. Since there is no finger action involved in a glissando, it is all about the smooth sweep of the arm. Play the glissando and then the scale normally immediately after. Does it feel and sound better? It is because the sensation of the sweep of the arm transferred to the scale. The body automatically copied an aspect of the first movement when doing the second movement. Specifically, it triggered the body to use few finger movements and more arm, which is more efficient -- and therefore faster -- and creates more evenness. (This also works for an arpeggio.)  This can be done for either hand and for either direction, of course.

There are even things you can do that don't involve playing the actual keys that will transfer to playing. Suppose you have a very fast leap that spans a large number of notes. You do it over and over but consistently miss. This may be largely due to fear of hitting the target. Let's say the leap is from a high note in the treble, played with your thumb, to a note a few octaves lower, played with the third finger. Play the first note and then, as fast as you can, flip the arm towards your chest and touch your chest with the third finger. There is no fear associated with this since it is a larger target and there is no chance you will miss it. Do this once or twice and then play the actual notes. I can almost guarantee you will have better accuracy and speed because the body transferred the quick fearless movement to the actual notes.

Almost anything can be used as a transfer. If there is some piece you play that you feel you play very well, play a few measures of that piece and then go immediately to something else you are working on that you want to improve. Some aspect of how your body moves will transfer over. I have dozens, if not hundreds, of processes I use as transfers, and am inventing new ones all the time. 

Please understand that these "transfers" do not mean that the next day or the next week the problem you were having will have disappeared. Doing a transfer once is probably not a permanent fix. But consistently applied, they WILL improve your technique and the new ways of using your body will become your new, more desirable, habits. You are using the power of "the body wanting to do what it just did" for your own desired ends, not just what it does automatically.

It's All (Neuro)Logical

 

When people are learning to play an instrument and attempting to learn music and master techniques, they are generally focused on the physical aspects. Pianists are concerned with hands, arms, fingers. It seems like an obvious fact that this is "where things happen." But nothing happens in the physical body without happening in the brain first. 

When beginning piano students complain about how hard it is to play hands together, for example, I remind them that their brains don't yet have what I call the "wiring" for it. It is not a personal failing! The brain is working on developing the wiring to do two different things in the two hands at the same time. But until that wiring is substantial, it will still be difficult. This is true every time you learn a new technique or skill. The brain has to develop all the neurological connections before the hands can execute it. When you've been playing the piano for many years, you basically have the wiring you need to quickly acquire new skills so the whole process is much quicker. 

Of course, the only way to develop the brain wiring is to do the physical work. It will be awkward and perhaps unsuccessful for a while, but you need to be patient. Your brain is saying to you "I'm working on it!" The good news is that once this "wiring" is acquired, it is often permanent.

This is why it is usually advantageous to learn when you are a child. The wiring is acquired more easily when your brain is still in development. It still can be done as an adult, albeit more slowly.

You might think, therefore, that to build this wiring, you should just do as many repetitions of the new technique as possible. I call this the "brute force" method. In fact, this has been the generally accepted view for many years. But the brain is more subtle and, in my experience, does not respond as well to endless repetition as it does to smaller amounts of extremely focused work. There are ways which you can stimulate your brain to work harder and build connections in less time. Here are some examples.

The most powerful tool in my toolbox is transposing. You might be skeptical how this helps with the physical challenges of the piano, but again, it's neurological. When you take a passage in a piece you are working on, or the whole piece, and transpose it to another key, your brain is working overtime to accomplish this. You will undoubtedly go quite slowly when you are new at this, but the challenge for the brain of moving the entire passage to new notes causes it to learn the music more quickly and at a much deeper level because you have just developed new "wiring." Whenever I am having a difficulty in a piece that I think is "technical," I transpose it, and often, voila, it is much improved. Even though transposing is, in itself, a challenge, it is less time-consuming than dozens of repetitions, and more fun. More importantly, you just can't transpose without being 100% focused, and focus is what you want. It is possible to do repetitions with the brain "turned off" or thinking about something else. This will not help develop the wiring as well.

Another incredible tool is playing hands crossed. My students look at me as if I'm crazy when I ask them to do this. Again, you will go slowly, but you play the right's hand's part with the left hand and vice versa. The brain has gotten so accustomed to the normal way that it really has to work hard to do this. You will find you inadvertently keep trying to go back to the original way, but if you keep at it, you will be able to do it. You can almost feel your brain working. Play a passage with hands crossed and then do it normally immediately afterwards; you will feel an immediate difference. Your hands didn't practice a new technique, but your brain has new wiring. 

Playing with eyes closed (once you have a piece memorized, or are playing by ear) is a powerful tool on many levels. Without the ability to look at the keys, the brain is working harder in the auditory and motor cortexes. Do this whenever you can.

Classical musicians rarely improvise, if at all. If you feel that your playing of a particular passage is stiff, un-musical, or just not how you want it to sound, try this: improvise a few phrases with a similar texture as the passage. For example, if it's a melody with chords in the left hand, improvise something like that. If it's polyphonic, do that. Try not to "judge" your improvisation. If you've never done it, you may think it's pretty bad, but it doesn't matter. What we are attempting here is to get the brain to develop new neurological pathways. To make up something on the spot is a real challenge for the brain. After the brief improvisation, immediately play the passage you were working on, and see if it doesn't sound "fresher," more spontaneous. It's because you now have more wiring for that.

There are many other tools I use, but because of their physical or improvisatory nature, they are difficult to fully describe here. Basically, if you are struggling with a particular skill or passage in the music, rather than use the "brute force" method, find of way of doing something similar, but on different notes. Find a similar passage in another piece that you play with ease, and use that as a "transfer." By playing the easier one first and then the more challenging one, the brain has shifted somehow and the passage improves. The skill of "transferring" is a powerful one, and I will discuss this in more detail in a future post.

So when you are practicing, always remember: it's all neurological.

Scales: Part II

 

If you've read my previous post on scales, you'll see that I do not recommend students practice them in the ways that are often prescribed by most teachers of piano. (It is best if you read the previous post before reading this one.)

I also depart from commonly-held beliefs about scale fingering. For hundreds of years (since the beginnings of keyboard instruments), it was believed that the fingering for all scales beginning on a white key is 1-2-3-1-2-3-4-5 (this refers to the ascending scale in the right hand and the descending scale in the left hand), with the exception of F major, which would be 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4 for the right hand. All scales beginning on a black key start with the second finger. The reason for this, as you probably are aware, is to avoid having the thumb fall on a black key. Presumably, the thumb, being shorter, had a harder time playing the black keys, which is further in (towards the fallboard). However, the are multitudes of situations when you must have thumb on a black key, such as playing chords which have a black key as the lowest note (or highest, for the left hand). The hand must adjust for this, but it is still entirely comfortable and natural for the hand to do this. So why not for scales?

In the Baroque and pre-Baroque era, most music written for keyboard (harpsichord, primarily) were in keys with very few sharps or flats, in other words, very few black keys. One reason for this had to do with how the instrument was tuned. In those times, C-sharp and D-flat, for example, were not tuned the same, even though they are physically the same note on the keyboard. Therefore, if a piece were to be played in a key with sharps, and the following piece had flats, the keyboard would need to be retuned in between. They avoided this by using a limited number of different keys (tonalities). As composers and musicians wanted to have more range of possibilities, this became a significant obstacle, and the idea of "equal temperament" was born. Now C-sharp and D-flat would be tuned the same. Bach celebrated this new normal by writing his two books of "The Well-tempered Clavier," each of which has one prelude and one fugue in every one of the major and minor keys. One could play them all in succession without the need for retuning.

Before the advent of equal temperament, since most of the keys used for compositions were on primarily white keys, the idea of the traditional scale fingering seemed to make sense; there weren't many situations where you'd need anything else. (Look at the complete list of Scarlatti sonatas; about 80% are in keys using fewer than one sharp or flat,  about 10% use two, and about 10% use three or four.) And although the pieces written for keyboard were not without technical challenges, they did not require the lightning speed and acrobatics of later music, such as Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt and Brahms. There are many places in the compositions of these composers (and many others) where one needs more tools in their toolbox, so to speak, than just the traditional scale fingering.

The traditional fingering involves what is known as "thumb under," where you pass the thumb under the hand in order to move it to the next hand placement. Every early student of the piano is taught this technique. The goal of this is that there is a smooth (legato) connection. However, when done badly, there can be a "clunk" when the thumb plays. Even when the technique is done well, it is inefficient for extremely fast scales. In addition, there is the possibility of injury. I have met people who injured their thumb joints from too much scale work using the thumb-under method.

It is known that Chopin, and possibly Liszt as well, taught a method they called "thumb over." It is, of course, not possible to pass your thumb over your hand. Many people have tried to figure out what Chopin meant by this. If you do an internet search on this you will find quite a few explanations of what people believe Chopin meant. Some of these are truly bizarre and most are just not really do-able.

The approach I use for scales (and arpeggios), and what I believe Chopin meant, is a very quick "flick" of the arm to the new hand position. I do not pass the thumb under but instead quickly flip the hand to the new place. Like any technique, it needs to be worked at until you master it. But for fast scales, it is the quickest, most efficient, and has the least possibility for strain or injury.  Because you are using the arm (and wrist), you can "flick" to any key, white or black. It is equally easy for both situations. Therefore, I can play any scale that starts on a black key with the same fingering I would use for a white key, with equal ease, speed, and legato. Or I can use 1-2-3-4-5 and then flick, whereas you could never really pass your thumb under the pinky. Depending on the particular scale passage in the piece, I can used the traditional fingering (which still works the best in some situations), or something different. 

I would like to mention that many jazz pianists, who did not have classical training, often employ non-traditional fingerings, and they have lightning speed and agility. This is proof there is always more than one way to do things. We all have hands of different sizes and, to a degree, shapes. Different methods work for different people.

I once had a student whose previous teacher, and older man, once had a melt-down and tore up her music in a rage right in the middle of her lesson when she dared to use a scale fingering other than the traditional. This is absurd (and borderline criminal?). 

If you've been reading this blog from the beginning, you know that I diverge from most traditional beliefs about piano technique and interpretation. Scales are no exception. If you are a student of the piano, make sure you find a teacher who is knowledgeable about, or at least open to, many approaches.

Scales

 

Just about everyone who has ever heard anything about learning to play the piano has heard about scales. The quintessential image of the young piano student is of her dutifully practicing her scales. For hundreds of years, scales have been a mainstay of piano pedagogy. For the beginner, scales are routinely given as an "exercise" and often comprise a substantial part of the early piano education.

But, as with so many things, it is high time to question old beliefs and assumptions. Are scales necessary to acquire good technique at the piano? If so, how much, and in what way should they be practiced?

Yes, it is necessary to learn to play a scale passage smoothly, efficiently, and, eventually, with speed. The aspect that people hardly ever mention, however, is that it should also be musical.

Scales, however, are just one piece of piano technique. There are also chords (well over a hundred different chords), both blocked and arpeggiated; there are octaves, trills, and many more. If you intend to play mostly the music of Mozart and Haydn, for example, you will encounter many scale-type passages, and so it would make sense to practice scales. If you also intend to play Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Rachmaninoff and others, you will encounter technical challenges that go far beyond scales. Chopin wrote two sets of etudes which are intended to expose you to many of the technical challenges of his compositions. They are also beautiful pieces which in no way just sound like exercises. Although the beginning student is light years away from playing Chopin Etudes, the concept of learning technique by playing beautiful music is one that I completely embrace and advocate.

If you are spending a large amount of time on scales and not much on other aspects of technique, you will be limited in what music you can eventually play. More importantly, if the teacher insists the student spend hours upon hours just on scales, that student will likely grow to hate it and eventually quit.

For the new beginner, I give some scale work, but not in the traditional way. I have them play scales using both hands, but just four fingers in each hand, omitting the thumb: do-re-mi-fa with the left hand, and sol-la-ti-do with the right hand. This method will work for every scale and there is no need to learn complicated fingering for the various scales. I want them to play all twelve major scales (over the course of a few weeks), largely using the ear, so this doubles as ear-training. However, I also show them the pattern of the major scale, with half steps occurring between mi-fa and ti-do, all others being whole steps. This way, if they have trouble doing it solely by ear, they have the "formula" to find the notes for each scale. With this method, they begin to become familiar with all the scales upon which the pieces they play will be based. (We also do minor scales this way a little later on.) In my opinion, having a beginner learn to play scales the traditional way is actually far too complex, and their technique will likely be very jerky and un-musical. In addition -- I can't stress this enough -- they should not be using a book to learn scales, where they are just reading notes and fingering. If you take away the book, they may not be able to play them. It is essential that the student internalize the knowledge of the scales, over time, of course, because this will also be internalizing the understanding of tonality, upon which our music is built. This is how they begin to learn music theory in an applied way. Scale work comprises maybe 5% of their practice time. The bulk of their time should be spent playing actual music, either by ear or reading.

Another significant problem with scale work as it is traditionally given is that it stresses "finger technique." I talk about this in previous posts. Although it was (and, unfortunately still is, to a great degree) believed that technique is all about the fingers, this is simply not true. A brilliant technique incorporates and integrates the arm, hand, and fingers. When music is played solely with a finger-based technique, it WILL sound stiff and mechanical. Sadly, this is how many people are taught. If you spend hours and hours practicing scales with this type of technique, you are really learning to play un-musically. You can't think that somehow when you encounter a scale-type passage in, say, Mozart, you will flip a switch and play musically.

The traditional approach to playing scales in another example of using old, outmoded ideas. Please see my post titled "Are you using 300-year-old ideas?" 

If you are someone who spends a great deal of time on scales and wonders why you aren't achieving the results you desire, I hope this will help.

Improvising

 

Many people may assume that improvising applies only to jazz and popular music. They do not necessarily see it in the context of classical music. Therefore, people who are studying mainly classical music do not see the need to learn to improvise.

In the Classical era, that is, during the times of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert and Beethoven, it was customary that the performer (often the composer himself) would improvise the cadenza of a concerto. This was a free-form section towards the end of the first movement of a concert (e.g. piano and orchestra) where the soloist had a chance to show off by improvising a dazzling display of their technique and musical skills. (Nowadays almost all soloists play cadenzas written out by the composer.) Composers such as Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt were known to be fabulous improvisors. It's such a shame we have no record of any of it. After that, the idea of improvisation within classical music began to die out.

If you are studying jazz you will no doubt want and need to learn to improvise. Most people who play primarily improv love it and couldn't imagine doing it any other way. There is a great feeling to just "making stuff up on the spot." 

People who play classical music can also find the joy of improvising. Even if you never intend to improvise the cadenza of a concerto, you can become proficient enough in improvising to enjoy doing it with other musicians, or just on your own. In addition, it can become a wonderful tool which will affect your playing in positive ways.

Students of the piano (and, I assume, other instruments) become obsessed with playing the "right notes." The prospect of playing wrong notes often paralyzes them, making the learning stiff and joyless. Jazz players don't regard any notes as "wrong" but rather incorporate the "unintended" note into their riff and the listener would have no idea whatsoever that it was unintended. (I recommend replacing the term "wrong" with "unintended" across the board -- it's much less judgmental.) That's what improvising is all about. The ability to do this gives you the confidence that you can get through any situation. 

Of course if you are performing a classical piece in front of an audience, you are going to do your utmost to play the right notes. But what if you have a minor slip, or worse, a memory lapse? Are you going to just stop and start over? That would be hugely embarrassing. If you know the piece well enough (I address this in other posts), you can learn to improvise for a measure or two and continue. Most average listeners might never even know you had the slip. In order to do this successfully, you must practice this skill. Ironically, just knowing you can do this will decrease the likelihood of major memory slips, because you will be less anxious when you play by memory.

For my beginning students, I have them do some improvising very early on. First they just play single line melodies in the treble while I play a bass part with them. I give them a few general guidelines but mostly they are just free to explore. The main goal is that when they hear a note that sounds "bad" (i.e. dissonant against what I am playing) they learn to use it as part of their theme. If you think about it, a note that sounds dissonant is always one note away (either half step or whole step) from one that will sounds consonant, so you can resolve the dissonant note into the consonant one as if you intended it that way. Then, after they have learned basic chords such as I, IV, and V, they can improvise the right hand part while playing the chords in the left hand. (They will start with the Key of C but then move on to do the same thing in other keys. Being able to improvise in any key is critical.) Later they will proceed to use more chords and more complicated chords. The rest of the process is too long to explain here, but I think you get the idea. Then, when they are playing their classical pieces and something starts to go awry, I say "make it up." I do mean literally just play what you can, without stopping and trying to "correct" the notes, until you get back on track. Obviously, you will need to go back afterwards, determine what caused your problem, and work on it. But stopping and trying to fix in the moment actually teaches you nothing. Improvising your way through the problem, on the other hand, will give you extremely useful skills. 

Some people, despite loving playing the piano, have a hard time getting themselves to sit down and do what is often the hard work of practicing. For those people I suggest they sit down and just improvise for a little while, with the only goal being to have fun. After this "warm-up" they will hopefully feel the desire to continue with their practicing.

If you have never improvised before, I hope you will give it a try. There are books which help walk you through the process, but very few of them start with the absolute basics for a true beginner. Try to just "noodle around," as I call it, on your own. If you find you really enjoy it and want to do more, you can try to find a teacher who can help you.

Lessons vs. Practicing

 

My students sometimes ask: "I didn't get to practice much this week; should I still come to my lesson?" Or prospective students ask: "I really want to improve my playing but don't have a lot of time to practice. Is it still worth it to take lessons?"  The answer to both questions is a resounding YES. However, in order for the answer to be yes, you must have the right teacher.

From years of traditional schooling, most of us have gotten used to the idea that you go to class, where the teacher imparts some information, and then you go home and study it. Or, the teacher assigns some work, such as a paper or essay, which you do at home and then return to the teacher for "correcting" and, hopefully, constructive criticism, and possibly grading. You rarely do these assignments in class itself. Therefore it is not surprising that people may think the same model applies to learning an instrument, such as the piano.

Over the years, I have spoken with many people about their lessons with previous teachers. I'm often told that the teacher basically assigned a new piece, maybe went through it a small amount, but instructed the student to "learn" it at home. Then, at the lesson, the teacher might correct "wrong notes" or other problems, and the student would again be sent home to practice with the new "corrections." However, the problem with this is: what if the student doesn't really know or understand how to "learn" the piece for optimal results? The teacher may not even cover this, just assuming that the student knows. There are many ways to approach a new piece. Some are mechanical and joy-killing, and others are a creative process. How to practice well is one of the most important aspects of learning that the teacher needs to address. But many don't, or give it minimal emphasis. In fact, this is why many teachers just do a 30-minute lesson: if you are just correcting errors you may be able to do it in that amount of time. But there is no time to go into any depth on technique, ear-training, musical expression and all the myriad of subtleties that playing the piano requires.

The model  of "assign in class and learn at home" doesn't work at all for a pursuit which is highly physical, such as playing an instrument. The student needs to acquire good technique at the lesson, with the teacher demonstrating and, through various means, manipulating the student's hands and arms until they sense the new technique. The student needs to "experience" the new technique at the lesson, so they can attempt to duplicate it at home. I never let the student leave the lesson until I see that they at least have the beginnings of acquiring the new skill. Technique is just one an example, but the same applies to all aspects of playing. 

Because of this model, students tend to feel that they must "perform" for the teacher at the lesson in order to show what they have accomplished during the week. Whether conscious or unconscious, this idea will likely cause them to have some nerves, and the playing will be worse than the student hopes. As an experienced teacher, I can always tell what is going on, how the student has practiced, and how they have progressed (or not) during the week. If the student can just be relaxed, their playing will probably be better. I continually emphasize that they are practicing to improve and become more skilled, not to perform for me at the lesson.

A better model for the piano lesson would be a session with a personal trainer. If you are seeing a trainer weekly in order to get more fit, and you don't get a chance to exercise during a given week, should you skip your session with the trainer? Of course not. It would be all the more imperative that you go to your session so you at least get one solid exercise session in for the week. When you are with a trainer, he/she shows you the technique and observes you doing it, correcting your form as necessary. This is the most essential benefit of training with a professional, that is, making sure you have the best technique or form before you go home to do it on your own. 

Likewise, I consider the piano lesson to be a supervised practice session. When they are with me at the lesson, the students are doing the highest quality "practicing," and this is what they should be doing at home. Unfortunately, despite my explaining and emphasizing this, I have had some students who go home and do something else entirely, and of course, their results, or lack of results, show it.

At the lesson, the work must be "compressed" in order to get it done in the time allotted. However, the practice session at home should be seen as an "expanded" version of the lesson. In summary, lessons and practicing are not exactly the same, but the student should, ideally, try to replicate what was done at the lesson... again, providing you have the right teacher. If you are currently studying piano with a teacher who uses the "assign and learn at home" model, it's time to find a new teacher.

Tone

 

Much has been said and written about tone quality. Most people would agree you want a beautiful tone at the piano. However, virtually no one can describe what makes a tone beautiful (or not beautiful), much less how to achieve it. As for what makes a tone beautiful, they would probably just say "you'll know it when you hear it" -- not very useful if you are a student of the piano. There are myriad ways that teachers of the piano will tell you how to achieve a beautiful tone, but, as with many other aspects of playing the piano, there is a lot of "hokum" out there, that is, ideas and beliefs that have been passed down from one teacher to the next, and so on, without having been actually investigated to see if those ideas can be substantiated.

Of course, a great deal of the tone quality will be determined by the instrument itself. Its workmanship, materials, overall condition and age will all be very large factors in the tone quality. However, a poor pianist will still not sound beautiful on a magnificent instrument, and a superb pianist can make a mediocre piano sound wonderful. Clearly, there is more to it than just the instrument itself.

On the violin, for example, your left hand is in direct contact with the string, which gives you some control over the sound. However, it is the bow drawing over the string which actually creates the sound, so you are still one step removed, so to speak, from the direct contact with the the string with the right hand, which draws the bow. (The hand on the string creates the vibrato, which is a major element of the sound.)

On the piano, however, neither hand is in direct contact with the strings. Your hands depress the key which triggers the hammer to strike the string. At first glance it might be hard to see how you can have much control at all as to how the hammer hits the string. It is fairly easy to recognize that if the hammer hits the string with more force the sound created will be louder, and softer if it is hit with less force. So the question is, besides dynamics (loud vs. soft), is there any other aspect of tone that we, as pianists, can control? 

Before I answer that, I'd like to tell you what one one my earlier teachers (who had been a famous pianist) told me about tone quality (which was told to him by his teacher, and so on down the line, back many generations). He said that to achieve a beautiful tone, you must depress the key all the way down to the key bed, meaning as far as it can go. It was assumed that going deep into the key translated to a "deep" sound. You can probably see one problem with this right away. How would you achieve the light effervescent sound required by much of Debussy and Ravel? That lighter-than-air, extremely delicate sound (such as in Jeux D'eau by Ravel, which is supposed to evoke the sound of a fountain), could not possibly be achieved by depressing the keys to the key bed. And yet, when well-played, you would certainly say the tone is beautiful.

The other problem with this theory is that the physics, or mechanics, of the piano don't support it. Press a key down slowly and you will feel a point of resistance; it is exactly at that point that the hammer is triggered. You can still depress the key a small amount past that point, but it doesn't do anything at all. So any depression of the key past the point where the hammer is triggered is pure waste. If you were wanting to play lightning fast, for example, you can't afford any waste.

Despite the obvious problems with this idea, it persists among teachers, and students continue to be given this misinformation.

Some people reading this might vehemently disagree with what I am about to say. But here it is: the only thing we pianists have to control the so-called tone are dynamics and timing.

Imagine a long line that you draw with a pen on paper. Now imagine that that line is actually comprised of thousands of tiny dots, or points. (Which it is, according to math!) If any dot on that line is too large, too small, or slightly out of place, you will notice it and the long arc of the line will be disturbed. 

Now imagine that the line is a long phrase in music, and the points are the notes. It is really the line you want to be aware of more than the individual points. This is  the paradox: although the notes make up the phrase, it is really the phrase that you find beautiful. One or two or three notes by themselves are not terribly interesting; you must have the phrase to have music. If, as you are playing a phrase of music, some of your notes are too loud or too soft they may be out of place and the phrase will be disturbed, or broken. When I say too loud or too soft, I mean relative to the notes around it.  Our ear picks up that something has "jumped out" of the line. In other words, the dynamics must be so well-controlled, whether the overall phrase is loud, soft, and moving between loud and soft, that nothing is out of place.

The other way a note (or notes) will be heard to be out of place is if they are out of rhythm, even if only by a fraction of a second. (It's amazing, but true, that our ears can hear this, especially if you are a trained musician.) I'm not speaking here of learning the rhythm incorrectly, but rather of a faulty technique which causes some notes to be a fraction "ahead" or "behind" of where they should fall on the line, again, relative to the notes around them. This is often the result of a technique based solely on fingers. The arm is necessary to create the long line of a phrase.  Whether the particular passage is fast, slow, speeding up or slowing down, timing must be exquisite if the music is to sound beautiful.

This is where masterful technique comes in to play -- creating phrase after phrase each of which has a "long line," with nothing jumping out to disrupt it. The phrase is like a wave which propels you forward in the music.

In summary, when you hear someone play and think they have created a beautiful tone, in fact what you are hearing is their beautiful phrasing. 

Practicing to Build Your Brain Power

 

Many of my adult students tell me that one of the reasons they want to play the piano is because they want to keep their brains young and ward off the dreaded dementia of old age. Most people seem to be aware that research clearly shows that certain activities help keep the brain "fit," and playing a musical instrument is high on that list. Playing the piano is said to be at the very top of the list. There are several reasons for this.

But this does not mean that any old way of playing the piano will do the trick. There are certain habits and skills that must be developed in order for the brain to get the most benefit. In this post I will cover the major ways to practice that will keep your brain young. Many of these topics have been covered in previous posts, but here I will highlight how they help the brain.

1. Play hands together as close to 100% of the time as you can. 

Using both hands simultaneously builds the corpus callosum, which is the area between the two hemispheres of the brain. Essentially it is a tightly packed network of connecting nerve fibers. Everyone has this area, but playing the piano causes more connections to be formed. I have read that when an autopsy is done and the brain examined, it can be determined immediately whether the person was a pianist, just by observing the highly developed corpus callosum. People may say "but it's so difficult to play hands together!" That is because the corpus callosum is not yet developed enough. That is why you must play hands together anyway -- so that you build the corpus callosum, which in turn will make it easier to play hands together. Even if you just play a simplified part in one hand -- just so long as one hand is not in your lap -- the corpus callosum will continue to grow.

If you are a more advanced player and want to take your brain skills to the next level, play with hands crossed. I don't mean a whole piece or a difficult piece at full speed. Just start by taking a short passage from the music you are playing and literally cross your hands, so the right hand plays the left hand's part and vice versa, and play as slowly as necessary to accomplish it. Then immediately go back to playing it normally and see if it doesn't feel amazingly easier! I can't explain the scientific reason (although there is some research on this), but I am 100% certain this helps build the brain's capabilities.

2. Develop the ear. 

Of course when we speak of the ear in music, we are talking about the auditory cortex in the brain. Again, the ear is being used and minimally developed even with the most basic playing. But if you want to really develop the ear, you have to challenge it (just like stressing muscles makes them stronger). This can be done by playing by ear and transposing. When I speak of transposing, I am referring to taking a piece of music and playing it in a different key. This can be done by eye (if using written music) or by ear, or a combination of both. Using the ear as much as possible is what will help build the ear. 

Another way to strengthen your ear is to sing! If you stop to think about it, you will recognize that the ear and vocal chords have a direct connection. You cannot see your vocal chords or direct them how to sing a given note; the brain just sends the signal and the vocal chords respond. Many people have trouble singing on key, but this is not a deficiency in their vocal chords -- it is a deficiency in the auditory cortex. So sing whenever possible and make every effort to sing on key. It helps to have a teacher to guide you through this if you find it difficult, but it can be done to some degree on your own. Make a habit of singing. (Hopefully it will also bring you joy!)

3. Memorize.

It is well known that one of the first things to go as most people age is their memory. If you want to keep your memory strong, you must use it! These days with all your phone numbers, birthdays, and much other information programmed into your phone or computer, there are far fewer opportunities to use your memory than there used to be. I recommend you try memorizing the phone numbers and birthdays of several people, just to make sure you can do it. Then expand to more quantity of information. It might seem like a hassle, but your brain will thank you for it.

Memorizing music is among the best ways to keep your memory strong. If you find it difficult to memorize, start with a very simple piece that you have learned and commit it to memory. Then keep going with progressively more complex music. There is a great deal to be said about how to memorize securely, too much for this post. Again, a really great teacher can help you. If you have learned the piece by ear, as opposed to from reading the written notes, then you automatically have it memorized. This proves that ear and memory are intimately connected. The more you build your ear the better your memory will be, and vice versa.

4. Recognize patterns.

Music is full of patterns. Repeating themes and motifs are what hold music together, so to speak. Without patterns it would just be rambling unrelated tones. Some patterns are obvious and some are more subtle. In any music you play, learn to identify the patterns. Pattern recognition is a part of many IQ and other cognitive tests, which shows it is an important skill for the brain. 

It is believed that playing an instrument such as the piano uses more parts of your brain simultaneously than any other activity. It uses the parts of the brain that control motor skills, auditory, visual (as in reading music), cognitive ability and emotions. (Don't forget about always playing with emotional involvement or you will miss out on that part!) So you can see why playing the piano is the ultimate brain-development hobby. No sport or other artistic endeavor can even come close. 

First Do No Harm

You are probably familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, the one that medical doctors take, which says "first do no harm." I also believe in this oath and take it very seriously when it comes to teaching the piano.

I will talk about two kinds of harm: physical and psychological.

Physical Harm

Pianists are prone to all sorts of injuries and chronic issues with their hands, wrists and arms -- IF they don't have proper technique. You can be an advanced player but still have pain if you haven't learned how to use your body ergonomically. The most common problems are tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome.
The first thing I cover at the lesson with a new student is how they sit at the piano. Sitting too low causes the wrists to sink below the hands, and puts a lot of strain on the wrist, which is a delicate joint. This can lead to carpal tunnel. Even when you type on a computer keyboard it is recommended you have a pad beneath your wrists so they can't sink. At the piano it is much more critical. You must sit high enough that there is a gentle downward slope from your upper arm to your hand. Sitting too high has different issues, but I find invariably people sit too low, not too high. If your piano came with a standard bench, it may not be the right height for you. Generally the benches are too low for people who are short, and they are absolutely too low for most children. Although I don't teach children anymore, I often am shown videos of kids playing at a recital, for example, and am always appalled at how they are sitting. Sometimes they are so low that there hands are reaching up almost to shoulder-level to get to the keys. Any teacher who allows this to happen, whether at the lesson, at home, or at a recital, is derelict in their duties.
Not only is sitting too low a potential source of injury, it also makes having great technique almost impossible. I say "almost" because there are a few cases of famous pianists who sat extremely low and still had big technique. But this is rare. (And for all we know, they may have had pain but they didn't like to talk about that.) You need the power of your upper arm for any kind of forte (loud) and powerful playing. (You also need it for extremely delicate playing, but it may not appear that way to the novice.) The power of the upper arm is "cut off" if the wrist is below the hand.

Another way that physical harm is done is too much repetition, usually of "exercises." These are often done in a way which emphasizes the small muscles, which can fatigue easily. Pushing through the pain is "supposed" to be the way you get better at it, but it is just a road to problems such as tendinitis, or even dystonia, which can be quite paralyzing. It is not the repetition itself, but the manner in which these exercises are taught which is wrong. Doing them even a little is not good, but doing them a lot is positively harmful. (See my earlier posts on exercises.)

Psychological Harm

Over my many years of teaching I have heard a great deal of what I call "piano horror stories." (I may put them all in a book one day!) That refers to the early years of piano lessons which, people tell me, were negative experiences and almost destroyed their love of the piano. Often, they hated the lessons and begged their parents to let them quit. Teachers would chalk it up to the child "not having enough talent" or "not willing to work hard enough." In fact, it was their psychologically damaging teaching methods that was the cause.
Too much emphasis on dull exercises and repetition (see above), focusing on "wrong notes," and insistence on playing the music the student does not like are just a few of the ways in which teachers harm their students. (See previous posts on these subjects.) They often forget about the "fun." Everyone wants it to be fun!! If the teacher is unable to make it fun, that teacher needs to find another profession. Fun is my top priority, even for the so-called "serious" student. Years after they leave lessons with me, I want them to have only the happiest memories of their time at the piano.

Shortcuts

In these times when many people are so busy, many products and services advertise themselves as "time-savers." In some cases it is true, and who wouldn't want to buy or use something that enables you to get somewhere or achieve something in less time? We often find ourselves looking for a shortcut....

Piano is no different. People who have always wanted to learn to play, but haven't had a lot of time to devote to it, may be looking for a shortcut, a way to play, at least at a basic level, without a huge investment of time (and money).

So it is no surprise that there would be those who try to capitalize on that desire. They offer books or online courses (even TV shows) that claim "Learn Piano in a Day!" or "Teach Yourself Piano!" They claim to have a method that bypasses all the supposed long hours of lessons and practice. Why would anyone choose the long, possibly difficult path, when there are "shortcuts" available?

Let's explore whether, in fact, there are shortcuts to learning to play the piano.

The shortcuts that you will find all basically boil down to one idea: you learn songs, which of course, being songs, are not originally written to be played on the piano. They are not "piano music." Nevertheless, songs are what a lot of people want to play, because they are familiar with them. You would first need to learn the melody of the songs, played with the right hand, and then you would need to learn chords, or the harmony, played with the left hand. (When people learn to play the guitar, they usually are singing the melody and playing chords on the guitar. It's totally possible and very common to learn to do this on the guitar, at least for simpler songs, providing you can, and want to, sing.)

Let's take each of those elements:
There would be three ways of learning to play the melody. The first is "by ear," which means you just figure it out, using your innate auditory ability, along with some trial and error. Some people can do this but many can't. The second way would be to learn to read music. Musical notation is quite complex, having to convey both the notes and the rhythm, at the very least. So if you can't quite manage to figure out your melodies by ear, you will need to learn to read. Just like when you learned to read English (or any language), you started with VERY simple material and gradually progressed to more complex. Most "shortcut" methods do not teach how to read music, because it takes time and there is really no shortcut. The third way is the "copy me" approach. If your course is online, you would watch the teacher's hands and try to copy exactly. Or, if your book or course has graphics, it may indicate where to place your fingers by means of a dot or other symbol on the key(s) you need to press. Even so, you would need to be quite familiar with the songs, since the dots cannot indicate the rhythm of the melody.
Next, you would want to learn to play chords to harmonize your melody. Again, there are a few ways you might do this. The easiest (or so it may seem) way is for the book or course to just show you which keys to depress for a given chord. Most shortcut approaches will start with three basic chords. There are thousands of songs which can be played with just three or four chords. Or, you could learn to read the chords in actual music notation, but again, reading is a skill that takes time. If you've learned the melody and you only need to use three chords, it seems pretty simple, right? Not necessarily. The two hands doing different things at the same time is the singular challenge of the piano, and you may not be able to master it just by copying someone else. The last method to learn chords -- the best way -- is to really learn the system, the theory, if you will, of chords, which will enable you to learn to construct any chord you want. But again, this takes some time and shortcut approaches wouldn't even try.

I also need to mention that all shortcut approaches will have you playing only in the Key of C, at least for a while, which means you will be playing on all white keys. These approaches will put all the songs you play in that key, which is fine. However, once your course is finished and you find music you want to play that is not in the Key of C,  you won't know the chords you will need and won't be able to figure out how to find them.

With shortcut methods, every time you learn a new song you are starting from scratch. You will always need the teacher or the graphics to show you exactly what to play. You won't have learned "the system" or the skills to do it on your own. As soon as the course is done, you may find it difficult, if not impossible, to continue on your own. You may not even be able to remember the songs you have already learned, unless you go back and watch the video again each time.

Another huge problem with all of the above is that no one is watching you, to see if your physical coordination needs help, or if you are doing things in a way which is awkward and prone to give you problems down the road.

It is a classic case of giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. The shortcut methods give you one fish at a time; they don't teach you the skill of fishing.

My approach to teaching beginners is different. I do stress learning to play melodies by ear, because it is fun, and helps develop your ear, which is essential. (See my post on The Importance of Playing by Ear.) If you are finding it difficult to play by ear, I help you improve that skill. I also teach chords, but I do it by teaching the structure or chords, so you will gradually, over time, be able to find any chord you need. I also teach how to read music. If you already understand chords, for example, it is much easier when you start to read them, because what you are reading will make sense to you.

Learning in this way does take time, dedication, and yes -- money. It is essential to find a highly skilled and intuitive teacher who has an interest in teaching beginners and guiding them through this long -- and rewarding -- process.

It's tempting to find shortcuts. But you may find your shortcut landed you at a brick wall or a dead end.