| LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Finger strength | |
| Peek -- 04/05/2005, 00:44:40 -- #12477 | |
| Hi, I practice on an electric organ and its keys are completely unweighted. When I do get a chance to play on a piano, my fingers don't seem to want to play as fast as they do on the organ. I am wondering if anyone has any advice for strengthing my fingers without a piano. thanks | |
| 7 -- 04/05/2005, 02:10:32 -- #12478 | |
| I can tell you this DO NOT USE one of the "finger strengtheners" that they sell to guitarists. You're just asking for carpal tunnel. Those things ought to be illegal! Probably the best way is to find a real piano that you can fiddle with every now and then. That's the most logical way to strengthen exeactly the muscles you use. my 2¢ | |
| Dr. Whack -- 04/05/2005, 10:40:23 -- #12486 | |
| Yep...if you can't get a piano, ya gotta get a weighted keyboard | |
| Scot -- 04/05/2005, 14:10:04 -- #12494 | |
| Most finger exercise devices sold to musicians will be damaging to you, as 7 mentions. However if you go to your local climbing store or outdoor gear store, you might be able to find some exercise devices intended for rock climbing that might help finger strength. However, this is definitely NOT the way to go. Piano playing does not rely on finger strength, it relies on your technique and how you use your arms, wrists, hands, and fingers. Your problem is most likely due to poor keyboard technique instead of a lack of strength. Most people who are primarily organ players tend to slap at the keys because they can- as you say, they are lighter than feathers. So your problem probably lies in the fact that you are playing the piano like you play the organ, and no amount of strength is going to help. Buy a book on piano technique or take a few lessons from a good piano teacher just so you can see what the difference is and maybe try to utilize it in your organ playing as well. | |
| jazzwanabee -- 04/05/2005, 16:57:17 -- #12499 | |
| I started with the Hannon book and that helped me. But I don't do it that much because it fatigues my hands to much. I am also a programmer so my fingers and at a keyboard all day. I figure the best way to gain the strength to play the piano is to play the piano. | |
| CynBad -- 04/05/2005, 17:16:04 -- #12501 | |
| I agree with jazzwanabee about Hanon being helpful to build finger strength. When I was a serious classical-piano student, I would play through a large part of Hanon every day, on a piano with a fairly stiff action. I actually had noticeable muscular development in my hands in those days -- the little muscles on the palm below each finger, and also the muscles on the pinky side of the hand. Don't overdo it with the stiff action, though, especially on the pinkies! The main thing is to practice on a weighted keyboard or a real piano with a medium to stiff action. You probably will never need to develop that fine-tuned classical technique to play jazz. It's a whole different ballgame. | |
| Peek -- 04/05/2005, 18:11:45 -- #12502 | |
| Thanks for all the responses and advice! This site is really awesome. I used to take classical lessons, and learned all about technique, hanon and stuff. Unfortunately, all I can and have been playing on for a while now is a cheezy two three octave organ. I like it, but the awkward stretching and the difficulty in seeing/hearing what octave I'm in might be causing my technique to suffer. Oh well, it's certainly better than nothing. Thanks again | |
| Scot -- 04/05/2005, 20:28:05 -- #12508 | |
| You probably will never need to develop that fine-tuned classical technique to play jazz. It's a whole different ballgame. This is only true if you're not going to be a professional. A professional musican needs to be able to play anything on their instrument, regardless of key or style (jazz, classical, rock, etc). | |
| CynBad -- 04/11/2005, 14:39:22 -- #12708 | |
| I hear a lot of professional musicians who do not have that fine-tuned classical technique at all. Professionals merely need to please their audience. | |
| Scot -- 04/11/2005, 15:07:03 -- #12709 | |
| Merely need to please their audience? It's a shallow way of looking at it, but you're right if all a musician wants to do is make money. Please the audience and put the check in the wallet. But I've never done it for the audience. I do it for myself and the audience gathers around to listen. For myself I need to have my technique at the highest possible level so I can play everything my ear can hear. I think there's a difference between getting paid to do a gig and being a professional. The difference is attitude. I know a lot of hacks who play music for a living, but I don't consider them "professional". They know how to do what they do very well. They don't practice much, they don't really care if they get better, and their technique is less than stellar 99% of the time. A real professional, in my eyes, is a player that can do any job that comes along. Studio musicians can do it all- they have huge ears, play classical, jazz, rock, are excellent at sight reading, and have a handle on everything else in that world. Players that can get hired by the local blue grass band one night and accompany a classical violinist the next. Any player who wants to be at the top of their game should strive for that fine-tuned classical technique. All the great players have/had monster technique- Chick, Monty, Herbie, Jarrett, Hornsby, Hyman, Tatum, Mays, Cables, Harris, etc etc... You'll notice that there aren't that many top list players without monster technique out there. I suppose it boils down to personal adgenda. I can't walk away from a technical challenge on the piano, be it Chopin or Bird or some insanity by Billy Childs. Anyway, I'm rambling. For any aspiring jazz pianist out there, I would err on the side of technical brilliance than otherwise. It can only help. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 04/11/2005, 16:08:53 -- #12710 | |
| and it's the least you can do:) It's the one thing that is attainable by all. Why not be on top of your game? Sure, having great chops might not get you the gig, but no one's ever lost a gig because they have great chops (unless they are obsessed with showing them off:) I have great chops, but I play the same simple lick on all chords, and I think it sounds pretty good:) hehe - sorry - too much coffee - plus I was up close and personal with Steve Gadd last night - still kinda floatin around:) | |
| CynBad -- 04/11/2005, 18:40:05 -- #12717 | |
| It's just a different KIND of technique, Scot, that's all I'm saying. Why spend 20 hours a week honing your technique for classical music when you want to play jazz? There are very few who can play equally well as professional jazz and classical musicians. One of those few is Wynton Marsalis. I would also agree with Bill Mays and Keith Jarrett. McCoy Tyner does not have fine-tuned classical technique, yet I love him, and he's certainly no "hack". It's just apples and oranges. The majority of great jazz pianists cannot play classical piano truly well, and the majority of great classical pianists cannot play jazz WHATSOEVER. I think to become a "great" at either genre requires almost a total dedication of your life. It's possible to do both, but rare. | |
| Jazz+ -- 04/12/2005, 11:07:39 -- #12737 | |
| I agree with CynBad. I thought of McCoy right away, he for example does not have the fine tuned techniqure of a classical pianist. Sure he has speed and power but not nearly the nuance, finess or dynamic control of an Andre Watts. And then there's Monk who had a technique far from that of a fine-tuned classical pianist. Perhaps Mal Waldron is the best example of a successful jazz pianist with outright poor technique. | |
| ziggysane -- 04/12/2005, 11:52:22 -- #12738 | |
| I think there's a difference between being happy with your level of playing and being content to let it stagnate. While there's no point in practicing virtuosity for virtuosity's sake (because there's always someone faster, a motto George and Ringo took to heart) I don't see any reason why a player who strives to be a complete pianist shouldn't seek to make themselves as well rounded and assimilate as many styles and techniques as possible into their playing, even if it's just for their own benefit. Gotta go to class now. Even if you'll never be THE BEST, why not be the best you can be? (Cliche but true.) | |
| paddyallen -- 04/14/2005, 17:36:55 -- #12849 | |
| Well I certainly do have plenty of strength in my fingers but have never thought that it was the required feature in playing a piano. I had a heavy action Steinway for 40 odd years but now have a lighter action Pleyel. Fantastic! and being brand new is a dream to play. I can articulate my fingers as best as my brain can send the message through the nervous system. Isn't it the reaction time and fine response that we use to cox the music from the keys? Dread of arthritus is my big concern. I look at other pianists fingers as much as possible to give me inspiration and wish I had slender longer ones as some people have. I have done a lot of mechanical work on motor-vehicles for my work, quite a contrast in use. However I have a very fine ability to be sensitive with small intricate mechanisms too. Like I said, my fingers are very strong but that is a negative in my book. Never tried a Keyboard thingy. Alan | |
| Scot -- 04/15/2005, 03:16:22 -- #12861 | |
| A couple of my very favorite pianists have stocky fingers. I always kind of wished my fingers were more stocky and muscular like theirs :) As for the technique discussion, I'm not talking about being a great classical pianist- that definitely is a lifelong dedication and almost harder than jazz because you gotta get something out of music that's already written out! I never really got the point in classical where I could coax much more than a few drops of inspiration out of the written score. The only point I really wanted to make was that there's nothing wrong with having the technique of a great classical pianist and applying it to jazz. Like Dr. Whack said, no one ever got fired for having good chops (unless they were cocky about it) | |
| Dr. Whack -- 04/15/2005, 09:19:56 -- #12871 | |
| I had one teacher who's fingers looked like cigars, and he played his ass off:) Another one who had short little fingers and she played her ass off. Mine are somewhere in the middle and I suck - because I don't practice as much as they did:) | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 10:26:29 -- #12872 | |
| i think voice is more important than chops...Jazz is heading towards an almost classical type style anyways, everybody tries to learn the hardest licks and the most complex changes, but they forget that they are the ones making the music- dont get me wrong, I have enormous respect for the virtuosos of their instruments, but without innovation all that practice is sort of a waste of time. Monk had a voice... As for a dude with serious chops and a serious innovater ill bring up John Medeski. Miles said in his autobiography that Herbie came after Powell and Monk, but nobody really stepped up Herbies sound...I think personnaly feel like Medeski is the next step in keyboards. anyone agree? | |
| Dr. Whack -- 04/15/2005, 11:02:28 -- #12873 | |
| I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Medeski. In fact there are a lot of guys I haven't heard. But I agree I haven't really heard anything new since Herbie - that doesn't mean it isn't there, I just haven't heard anything. Most people will not have a particulary unique and individual sound or voice that is going to change the world. That is very hard to attain. What is easy to attain is chops, so why not? I don't consider it a waste of time:) | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 11:43:41 -- #12876 | |
| thats a good point I suppose, but what im really trying to say is that you should never let technique get ahead of your passion for music...And regardless of its worldwide impact everybody has their own voice, the key is not to lose it along the way...I agree about practicing and chops though, i wish I could put in 8 hours a day. You should really check out John Medeski, he plays in Medeski Martin Wood, which is kind of jazzy fusion hip hop stuff, where he plays a whole bunch of different keyboards (clav B3 sythn piano etc.) but hes mean in straight ahead and just about any other type of music. A drummer friend of mine told me that his drum teacher just recorded a free jazz album with Medeski thats off the hook. Are you a fan of Cecil Taylor? | |
| Scot -- 04/15/2005, 13:07:07 -- #12882 | |
| Medeski isn't a very good example of good chops, actually, he plays a lot of riffs and such, but his chops are pretty basic when it comes to pro jazzers. You're right about not letting technique get in the way of music, though. The bottom line is that great technique should allow you to play the music you hear easier. If there's a difficult line you're trying to get out, obviously it's going to come out cleaner and easier if you have stellar technique than if you don't. Brad Meldau (sp) is a good example of strong technique allowing a playing to get out the sound he wants. He plays some tough stuff, but not for him because he's developed a very strong technical side to his playing that allows him to get those sounds he hears out. Without that technique, I'm sure he'd still be a good player, but he wouldn't be close to the player he is now. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 04/15/2005, 13:22:13 -- #12887 | |
| Brad Meldau was in town last night. One of my students canceled to go see him. I proably should have gone. I haven't heard him either. | |
| Jazz+ -- 04/15/2005, 14:11:16 -- #12893 | |
| I enjoy Brad Meldau, but you can have Medeski. I actually walked out of one his concerts because I felt bored by the noisy display of chops on stage. | |
| Jazz+ -- 04/15/2005, 14:12:10 -- #12894 | |
| The surrounding cloud of pot smoke was another reason for leaving, lol. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 14:29:05 -- #12896 | |
| Medeski would bust any of you cats to peices...he plays riffs because hes making lots of cash on the jam band scene. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 15:02:58 -- #12898 | |
| Jazz+, your pot smoke comment is just another example in my jazz becoming classical thesis. Do you think Charlie Parker would have cared if a place smelled like reefer. Hell no, hed be way to smacked up to give a damn...Music has to be a reflection of the times, thats why I think Medeski is the man. He plays that heavy industrial crunchy shit because it represents the state of the world(and hes playing music that hasn't been around for 50 years) I love jazz but seriously lets get back to the goddanm soul. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 15:11:24 -- #12899 | |
| Jazz+, your pot smoke comment is just another example in my jazz becoming classical thesis. Do you think Charlie Parker would have cared if a place smelled like reefer. Hell no, hed be way to smacked up to give a damn...Music has to be a reflection of the times, thats why I think Medeski is the man. He plays that heavy industrial crunchy shit because it represents the state of the world(and hes playing music that hasn't been around for 50 years) I love jazz but seriously lets get back to the goddanm soul. | |
| Scot -- 04/15/2005, 15:28:47 -- #12900 | |
| I saw several MMW concerts back in '97 and '98 and didn't really get a feeling that he had great chops. I mean, playing a bunch of fast notes isn't a very good indication of chops. If his lines also included larger intervals rather than just scale style runs, I'd be more impressed, and his left hand is always just doing chords instead of playing lines with, or counterpoint, to his right hand. If you want a good example of amazing chops, check out Walter Norris' solo piano Maybeck Recital Hall CD from Concord Jazz. It literally sounds like he has three hands. Plus it's clean, harmonically very cool, and his lines mix scale patterns, larger intervalic patterns, harmonized melodies, and of course, that damn three handed style (internal moving counterpoint while the left hand does it's thing and the right hand does it's thing). Walter Norris led me to develop the idea of "one hand". That is, don't treat your hands as two seperate things, treat them as one big ten fingered hand and allow the melody to flow from the right to the left and vice-versa. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 04/15/2005, 15:36:46 -- #12902 | |
| Yeah man thats definetly what piano player should strive for, the one hand idea. Cecil Taylor sometimes plays 2 tottaly independent lines with each hand. Medeski definetly plays lead with both hands. As I said before MMW is a pretty big band so they have to accomadate their audience with "jamming". They are all very talented and students of music. Check out tonic (the acoustic version) or go see a live show where medeski is in a more jazz oriented setting. A sideproject possibly. Where would you place Jason Moran in the chops spectrum? | |
| Copyright © 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved. | |
| Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements. | |