Beethoven

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.24.0840 CDT)]

Dear Wang,

Yes, where was the feedback loop. What was setting references for as little as
finger movements and what was setting references for the piece of music at a
whole.

Then, what was the environment of those control systems?

I would have to say sight and tactile, with perhaps the very slightest sense of
the sounds through the body itself.

How deaf is deaf? :slight_smile:

How does a deaf person today do things related to sound? There are
compensations (reorganization), just as in the chip instead of the joystick for
controlling a chair.

Best,

--Bryan
Chicago, IL
Quoting Bo Wang <frank_bbbw@YAHOO.COM.CN>:

路路路

Little question:

How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?

Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling sound any more?

Bo

2

[from Tracy Harms (2006.10.24,09:20)]

...

How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?

Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling
sound any more?

Bo

This seems no more mysterious than how I can type with
my eyes closed. If you, too, are a touch-typer,
perhaps you can use that activity as a subjective
"laboratory" as to what goes on, subjectively, in such
a process. That won't answer all the interesting
questions, but it should be enough to clear away the
assumption that hearing sound is crucial to piano
performance. (Mind you, I suppose that being able to
hear what you play helps a lot. My guess is that
Beethoven was a whole lot better on piano than violin
after the deafness had become serious.)

Tracy

路路路

Bo Wang <frank_bbbw@YAHOO.COM.CN> wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

3

[From Rick Marken (2006.10.24.1120)]

Bo Wang writes:

Little question:

How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?

Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling sound any more?

Hi Bo.

First let me say that I used Beethoven's 9th in my "Personal Control" course description as an example of exceptionally skilled controlling. Ludwig was one heck of a controller of music at all levels of perception. He sure knew how to produce exactly the sensations, configurations (chords), transitions, relationships, sequences (themes), events (phrases), programs (movements), principles (regarding changes from tonic to dominant and all that stuff) and system concepts (all done in the service of the enlightenment concept of a merit based society).

I forgot (how could I forget?!?) that some of Beethoven's most skillful controlling was done later in his life when he was deaf. Although he was not totally deaf, he certainly couldn't perceive his most astounding creations (the 5th Piano Concerto comes to mind) the way I can (even when played on original instruments). So a large component of the perceptions Beethoven was controlling were imaginations. Certainly the lower level perceptual aspects of those creations were imagined.

So I unintentionally gave an example of skillful controlling where many of the perceptions controlled were imaginations. Fortunately, the perceptible side effects of that controlling -- the aspect of his compositions that others like myself can perceive as well -- turn out to be astoundingly wonderful.

Skillful controlling of imagination doesn't always work out that well in terms of the perceptual side effects produced for others -- witness the controlling done by George W. Bush. That guy is one skillful imaginer -- with horrific consequences for millions of people. But, then, that's also what my seminar is about -- how skillful controlling leads to our greatest human achievements (such as Beethoven's 9th) and worst human failures (like war).

Best regards

Rick

路路路

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

4

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.25.0840 CDT)]

Rick,

Now you have done it. You have disturbed my perceptions, and I am controlling
for hearing a good performance of both the 9th and the 7th symphonies, as well
as the 4th and 5th piano concertos by Ludwig.

Dang, why do you disturb my perceptions? I was humming along with Green Day,
and now.... I want more!!! :smiley:

--Bry

路路路

[Rick Marken (2006.10.24.1120)]

Bo Wang writes:

> Little question:
>
> How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?
>
> Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling sound any more?

Hi Bo.

First let me say that I used Beethoven's 9th in my "Personal Control"
course description as an example of exceptionally skilled controlling.
Ludwig was one heck of a controller of music at all levels of
perception. He sure knew how to produce exactly the sensations,
configurations (chords), transitions, relationships, sequences
(themes), events (phrases), programs (movements), principles (regarding
changes from tonic to dominant and all that stuff) and system concepts
(all done in the service of the enlightenment concept of a merit based
society).

I forgot (how could I forget?!?) that some of Beethoven's most skillful
controlling was done later in his life when he was deaf. Although he
was not totally deaf, he certainly couldn't perceive his most
astounding creations (the 5th Piano Concerto comes to mind) the way I
can (even when played on original instruments). So a large component of
the perceptions Beethoven was controlling were imaginations. Certainly
the lower level perceptual aspects of those creations were imagined.

So I unintentionally gave an example of skillful controlling where many
of the perceptions controlled were imaginations. Fortunately, the
perceptible side effects of that controlling -- the aspect of his
compositions that others like myself can perceive as well -- turn out
to be astoundingly wonderful.

Skillful controlling of imagination doesn't always work out that well
in terms of the perceptual side effects produced for others -- witness
the controlling done by George W. Bush. That guy is one skillful
imaginer -- with horrific consequences for millions of people. But,
then, that's also what my seminar is about -- how skillful controlling
leads to our greatest human achievements (such as Beethoven's 9th) and
worst human failures (like war).

Best regards

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.26.1140 CDT)]

Yes, of course, but in addition Beethoven did it with nature-imposed earplugs.
Anyway, yes, I have seen some newsreels of Helen Keller giving a speech, and
her control of speech sounds and so on was very good. That and the fact that as
a child of 12 her control of speech was virtually nil says something for Helen
Keller's stature as someone who succeeded in spite of everything and for people
like us who complain of having to wear eyeglasses and asking people to repeat
what they said (in native languages as well as second languages, too).

Reorganization is the key here, I would say, regardless of disability, and the
control at the system level. :smiley:

--Bryan

路路路

Pianists always show off their skill with blindfolds.
Mozart did this at the age of 7(or even younger).

To Bryan and Rick:

Helen Keller grew up to a great writer though she became blind and deaf when
she was 19 months old. She was able to write, and even speak. She developed
sensitive touch which supply a gap. She listened to the radio, listened to
piano
playing by put her hands on them.

Other perceptions take the place of it. Or not taking place of it, they
existed in
this behavior and associated with sound. However, the lose of sound don't
affect
them a lot.

-----
To Bill:

Socrates, Roger that : )
Thoughtful questions

-----
To Tracy:

Yes, I admit that it's similar to typing with eyes closed. Though playing
instrument is far more complicated than typing(typing don't need controlling
rhythm), there's something similar.

-----

What if a controller loses its input? This is the common problem Beethoven
and
Helen had. The biggest difference between them is one lost his ability after
learning well while the other lost her ability before learning.

The most tricky mechanism behind is manipulating the memory or imagination as
Rick mentioned.

Thanks a lot : D

Best regards,

Bo

6

[Bruce Nevin (2006.10.26 13:01 EDT)]

Any composer of orchestral music (or any music requiring more than one
instrument to be played concurrently) must control the music in
imagination while composing. Likewise composing for various instruments
while seated at the piano, or humming, etc.

聽聽/BN

7

[From Rick Marken (2006.10.26.1520)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.26.1140 CDT)--

Reorganization is the key here, I would say, regardless of disability, and the
control at the system level. :smiley:

Yes, reorganization is essential. Bo was asking how people can control what they can't perceive. And, of course, the answer is that they can't. There is no control when there is not perception of the variable(s) controlled. A person who cannot perceive anything _at all_ cannot control anything at all. Beethoven and Helen Keller could not perceive _some things_ but they could perceive others. Beethoven could not hear sounds in a large part of the audible spectrum but he could hear some things and he could apparently see just fine. Helen Keller could not see or hear but she could feel. As long as a person can perceive some variables (and Beethoven and Helen Keller could perceive many variables even though they could not perceive many others that normal people can perceive) he or he can control things.

Through reorganization perceptually handicapped people can learn to control many variables that allow them to produce observable behaviors that are very similar to the behavior produced by people who are not thus handicapped. So Beethoven, though deaf, was able to produce music by controlling haptic perceptions (like the feel of the fingers on keys); Helen Keller was able to produce speech by controlling haptic and proprioceptive perceptions (feelings in the throat and mouth). But no matter how good one gets at controlling these "substitute" perceptions, the behavior of the perceptually handicapped person is just not the same as the behavior of the person who can actually control the relevant perceptions. Once Beethoven became deaf, his piano playing and conducting was just not what it was when he could still hear (or so I'm told; there is an anecdote about him conducting the debut of the 9th symphony and having to be turned around at the end of the piece because the orchestra had finished before he did and the audience was already clapping).

I think the situation is similar to that of deafferented monkeys. These are monkeys who have had their spinal afferents severed to see if they could still use their arms and legs even though they could no longer sense them (it probably feels like what your leg feels like after you've been sitting on it for a while). In fact, these monkeys could still use their arms and legs to walk and climb, which supported the belief of "motor program" theorists that perception was not important for behavior. What these theorists failed to mention was that the deafferented monkeys did not walk and climb like normal monkeys. They were basically throwing their limbs about; not moving them in a nice _controlled_ way. The monkeys learned to control the perceptions they still had -- like the visual perception of the location of an arm or leg -- by twisting or wriggling their bodies to throw the limb where they wanted it visually. Also, it took quite some time for the deafferented monkeys to learn (reorganize) so that they could produce behaviors that were even somewhat like the behaviors they could produce skillfully when they were able to control the lower order (spinal efferent) perceptions that normally produce these behaviors.

So perception is essential for control. But it is not always obvious what perceptions are being controlled when we see people behaving in certain ways. Beethoven is not necessarily controlling sound when he is producing music; Helen Keller is not necessarily controlling sounds when she talks. To find out what people -- perceptually handicapped or not -- are controlling when we see them behaving we have to do the test for the controlled variable(s), which is what PCT is all about.

Best

Rick

路路路

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

8

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.26.2000 CDT)]

Rick,

I think you have it all wrapped up perfectly. Given a formerly wide range of
controlled perceptions, there is a critical mass that may still remain after a
person becomes deaf, blind, or otherwise sense deprived. So Keller really did
perceive and control a lot more than her parents gave her credit for and that
Annie Sullivan knew could be disturbed. Likewise Beethoven a musical genius,
while deaf, still had a myriad of controlled perceptions that informed him of
the music he was creating.

So maybe the problem about this topic is that the storytellers of Keller and
Beethoven disabilities went with an all or nothing perspective. Keller was
certainly sight- and hearing-deprived, but she was not totally blind or deaf,
since she could use tactile inputs to inform her about those she had lost. As a
kid, she probbly didn't know what she had lost, but after the cues of water and
the symbol for it started her on her path, she gradually was able to reorganize
her tactile inputs to control for sights and sounds. With Beethoven, he did the
same thing, but could have done better with a modern day teacher such as Annie
Sullivan who could facilitate the reorganization.

And yes, neither of them could really perceive through their other senses the
exact perceptions they had lost. But just as when I have to squint and nod that
something looks good, when I really can't see it, or when I nod and say, sure,
when someone asks me if I want to take a flying leap, but I didn't hear, I do my
best to demonstrate that I can portray appropriate observable behaviors, since
those are my controlled perceptions (or at least I think they are).

--Bry

路路路

[Rick Marken (2006.10.26.1520)]

> Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.26.1140 CDT)--
>
> Reorganization is the key here, I would say, regardless of disability,
> and the
> control at the system level. :smiley:

Yes, reorganization is essential. Bo was asking how people can control
what they can't perceive. And, of course, the answer is that they
can't. There is no control when there is not perception of the
variable(s) controlled. A person who cannot perceive anything _at all_
cannot control anything at all. Beethoven and Helen Keller could not
perceive _some things_ but they could perceive others. Beethoven could
not hear sounds in a large part of the audible spectrum but he could
hear some things and he could apparently see just fine. Helen Keller
could not see or hear but she could feel. As long as a person can
perceive some variables (and Beethoven and Helen Keller could perceive
many variables even though they could not perceive many others that
normal people can perceive) he or he can control things.

Through reorganization perceptually handicapped people can learn to
control many variables that allow them to produce observable behaviors
that are very similar to the behavior produced by people who are not
thus handicapped. So Beethoven, though deaf, was able to produce
music by controlling haptic perceptions (like the feel of the fingers
on keys); Helen Keller was able to produce speech by controlling
haptic and proprioceptive perceptions (feelings in the throat and
mouth). But no matter how good one gets at controlling these
"substitute" perceptions, the behavior of the perceptually handicapped
person is just not the same as the behavior of the person who can
actually control the relevant perceptions. Once Beethoven became deaf,
his piano playing and conducting was just not what it was when he could
still hear (or so I'm told; there is an anecdote about him conducting
the debut of the 9th symphony and having to be turned around at the end
of the piece because the orchestra had finished before he did and the
audience was already clapping).

I think the situation is similar to that of deafferented monkeys. These
are monkeys who have had their spinal afferents severed to see if they
could still use their arms and legs even though they could no longer
sense them (it probably feels like what your leg feels like after
you've been sitting on it for a while). In fact, these monkeys could
still use their arms and legs to walk and climb, which supported the
belief of "motor program" theorists that perception was not important
for behavior. What these theorists failed to mention was that the
deafferented monkeys did not walk and climb like normal monkeys. They
were basically throwing their limbs about; not moving them in a nice
_controlled_ way. The monkeys learned to control the perceptions they
still had -- like the visual perception of the location of an arm or
leg -- by twisting or wriggling their bodies to throw the limb where
they wanted it visually. Also, it took quite some time for the
deafferented monkeys to learn (reorganize) so that they could produce
behaviors that were even somewhat like the behaviors they could produce
skillfully when they were able to control the lower order (spinal
efferent) perceptions that normally produce these behaviors.

So perception is essential for control. But it is not always obvious
what perceptions are being controlled when we see people behaving in
certain ways. Beethoven is not necessarily controlling sound when he is
producing music; Helen Keller is not necessarily controlling sounds
when she talks. To find out what people -- perceptually handicapped or
not -- are controlling when we see them behaving we have to do the test
for the controlled variable(s), which is what PCT is all about.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

9

[From Bill Powers (2006.10.26.1838 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2006.10.26.1520)--

Yes, reorganization is essential. Bo was asking how people can control what they can't perceive. And, of course, the answer is that they can't.

.............

A very nice discussion. The basic fact, as you point out, is that one can control only perceptions. If there is something in the outside world that is linked closely to a controlled perception, it will appear to someone else to be controlled even though one can think of ways to prove there is no control.

I play the piano but I am not a musician as you are. I missed my chance to do that. It's been only recently, when I have been spending more time at the piano, that I realized one difference between me and a real musician: I have not actually been controlling the sounds of the piano. What I learned were primarily finger movements in relation to the keyboard, with an almost incidental side-effect that they produced the music I wanted to hear.

Once I realized that, I decided to focus more on the sounds, and to try to control them directly instead of as side-effects. My playing became much less mechanical and (others have remarked) better-sounding. If I had gone totally deaf, I could still have played boogie-woogie because I knew how to make the movement patterns that cause pianos to play that sort of thing. But it would have sounded mechanical, because that's what it was.

As I hinted to Bo Wang, my old technique would not have worked if I had played the violin, for two main reasons. One is that the violin has no frets; the only way to make fine adjustments of the sounds is to hear the sounds. And the other reason is that violins have to be tuned frequently; a deaf person can't do that without electronic aid. With a properly-tuned piano, if you can hit the key, the right sound for that key comes out, no pitch adjustments necessary. In fact, if you can read music and translate the score into the right key-presses, you can play the piano even if you're totally deaf. But if you have an electronic piano, you may have to be reminded to turn it on.

Good examples in there for your teaching, and your post, tweaked a little, might make a nice handout for your classes.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[Martin Taylor 1006.10.29.1.07]

[Bo Wng, apparently Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:08:17 +0800]

Little question:

How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?

My understanding is that he couldn't. He tried, but apparently he ruined his piano by banging it, breaking strings, and so forth. What he did when deaf was compose brilliantly, and that, as others have noted, is control in imagination for skilled composers, whether they can hear or not.

Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling sound any more?

I think that's exactly what they are controlling for, as Bill P. noted.

Martin

11

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.29.1235 CST)]

Martin,

Yes, this is important, we all kinda made a mistake, defending, analyzing and
explaining something that might not have really happened and was part of a
legend. So we need to go back to the basics, thank you.

But just as Dennett and the rest of evolutionists get caught up in 0/1
explantions when 0/1 (from nothing to something) doesn't exist in the data, we
have to return to what was happening to Beethoven.

I will start with an example. My hearing was and still is pretty sharp, but some
nasty things started happening a few years ago. First, one night, after watching
a Frontline show, and then clicking the TV off, I started thinking about the
topic, that is the way that the illegal and unsupported Iraq war has really
screwed this nation. As I was listening to the crickets, I started to hear
something very different, a ringing that welled up on my left side. It was the
outbreak of tinnitus. I am still ok, but in times of tension, that tinnitus
starts welling up and I have to ignore it. There are studies that show that
tinnitus is often associated with the onset of deafness, sometimes just mild,
other times profound. It probably has a lot of factors I won't go into.

Likewise for Beethoven, there may have been a day he could hear perfectly and
then there was a moment when he started to suffer the onset of deafness. One
day, he may have realized he was incapable of hearing simple sounds such as a
coin dropping on a table or on the floor, a snap of a finger and an increasing
number of notes at an increasing number of octaves. During that transformation,
Beethoven did what we do all the time, reoganize and randomize outputs to
control perceptions. Then, when it finally was getting clear that he was almost
deaf, he may have had one of those days, and broke the fricking piano. What do
you bet? Even after getting it fixed, he may still have tried, and finally
retreated (reorganizing all the way) into what he knew, composition, with a
possible final few proofs at the piano, to check the real sounds. After that,
the piano may have gathered dust.

We do need to analyze the realities not the myths, but this was a great question
from Wang, since it re-ignited the discussion forum. But we don't have to linger
with Beethoven, bless his soul for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies, or
the piano concertos, especially the 4th and 5th. Mmmmm-boy!!! We can however,
look at some case studies, and perhaps a suggestion for further research would
be a study of the Self as a Control System in light of the emergence of a
disability that affects behavioral outputs for control systems all the way down
from System Image, to Principles, to Programs, to Sequence, to Category, to
Relationship, to Event, to Transition, to Configuration and especially to
Sensation and Intensity.

So, my bottom line here is: Let's throw the gauntlet down to our Chinese
audience and partners. Do some background research, turn back to Dick Robertson
et al.'s study of the Self as a Control system, and let's see what we can say
about this through science. :slight_smile:

Best,

--Bryan

路路路

[Martin Taylor 1006.10.29.1.07]

>[Bo Wng, apparently Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:08:17 +0800]
>
>Little question:
>
>How Beethoven played piano when he was totally deaf?

My understanding is that he couldn't. He tried, but apparently he
ruined his piano by banging it, breaking strings, and so forth. What
he did when deaf was compose brilliantly, and that, as others have
noted, is control in imagination for skilled composers, whether they
can hear or not.

>Or practiced/talented pianists are not controlling sound any more?

I think that's exactly what they are controlling for, as Bill P. noted.

Martin

12

[From Rick Marken (2006.10.29.1340)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.29.1235 CST)

Martin,

Yes, this is important, we all kinda made a mistake, defending, analyzing and
explaining something that might not have really happened and was part of a
legend. So we need to go back to the basics, thank you.

Not to be defensive but I don't think any mistakes were made, really. Deaf people can produce music. The fact that Beethoven banged on the piano when he was deaf doesn't mean he couldn't play. I would bet that Beethoven playing the piano deaf was orders of magnitude better than me playing with all ears chugging away.

The basic point, which Bill (as usual) summarized succinctly, is that people can't control variables they can't perceive, period, amen. But if they can control variables they can perceive that are related to variables they can't, then they can appear to be controlling what they can't perceive. I know of a completely deaf woman who is a super drummer for some orchestra. Of course, what she controls is the pressure variations she senses in her body and on her skin. She says that's what she controls. But a normal hearing person listening to her would be sure she was controlling the sounds.

You can't tell what people are doing (controlling) by just looking at what they are doing (your perceptions of the results of their actions). Ya gotta test for controlled variables.

Best

Rick

路路路

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

13

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.29.1650 CST)]

Well, actually, not really a mistake, but assumptions, I guess.

But what you say below is what I mean, Beethoven did play, and he did break the
piano for whatever reason (you can't be sure, that is right). But what I would
imagine is that anyone in Beethoven's situation would do is start to find other
variables that might appear to satisfy the ones formerly of sound.

Like Bill or you said before, to control for the appearance of being able to
play or conduct music. But the discrepancy between what the actor knows is right
and what they can only control might create some chronic error. So that might
result in random behaviors being directed at the piano, no? :slight_smile:

--Bry

路路路

[Rick Marken (2006.10.29.1340)]

> Bryan Thalhammer (2006.10.29.1235 CST)
>
> Martin,
>
> Yes, this is important, we all kinda made a mistake, defending,
> analyzing and
> explaining something that might not have really happened and was part
> of a
> legend. So we need to go back to the basics, thank you.

Not to be defensive but I don't think any mistakes were made, really.
Deaf people can produce music. The fact that Beethoven banged on the
piano when he was deaf doesn't mean he couldn't play. I would bet that
Beethoven playing the piano deaf was orders of magnitude better than me
playing with all ears chugging away.

The basic point, which Bill (as usual) summarized succinctly, is that
people can't control variables they can't perceive, period, amen. But
if they can control variables they can perceive that are related to
variables they can't, then they can appear to be controlling what they
can't perceive. I know of a completely deaf woman who is a super
drummer for some orchestra. Of course, what she controls is the
pressure variations she senses in her body and on her skin. She says
that's what she controls. But a normal hearing person listening to her
would be sure she was controlling the sounds.

You can't tell what people are doing (controlling) by just looking at
what they are doing (your perceptions of the results of their actions).
  Ya gotta test for controlled variables.

Best

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

14

This is Phil Runkel to Rick Marken in re his comments to Bo Wang.

I'm glad to hear that you want to tell your students that controlling does not guarantee the nature of the reference signals.

That thought provides a comment on academic freedom, too. Many people claim that academic freedom leads to a better world (at one time, this was part of the idea of "progress").

Not necessarily. It DOES lead to expansion of knowledge. But there is no telling whether that knowledge will be used for good or evil.

Somebody should come up with a really good idea about what actions one can take now (that a million of us can take now) that will make it easier for people in the future to take actions that will make the world a happier place. My own ideas do not satisfy me.

--Phil R.

15

[Martin Taylor 2006.10.30.01.12]

This is Phil Runkel to Rick Marken in re his comments to Bo Wang.

That thought provides a comment on academic freedom, too. Many people claim that academic freedom leads to a better world (at one time, this was part of the idea of "progress").

Not necessarily. It DOES lead to expansion of knowledge. But there is no telling whether that knowledge will be used for good or evil.

Could you tell after the fact, apart from whether the effects created disturbances to your own high-level controlled perceptions? As we are all too aware from the news every day, what is good in the eyes of one person may well seem evil to another.

Martin

16

This is Phil Runkel replying to Martin Taylor's of 2006.10.30.01.12:

I will let Marken's reply of 2006.10.30.09.30, which I enjoyed and which no doubt you have already read, serve as my reply to you. --P

17

[From Bill Powers (2006.11.03.1909 MST)]

Mike Acree (2006.11.03.1625 PST)--

when I'm learning anything difficult
(most of what I like to play), I have to spend a long time controlling
finger movements, gradually shifting over to controlling sounds. It may
help that I'm self-taught; I wouldn't be surprised if piano teachers
focused more on finger placement than the music.

This connects with some comments Bruce Nevin has contributed about controlling articulations versus controlling sounds in speech. Lindamood's "Hooked on Phonics" does a lot of concentrating on articulations as a way of facilitating language learning -- she claims she can teach an adult to speak without a foreign accent. The articulations are the output that is used to control sounds, so practicing them may be what allows the sounds to be authentic. Piano fingering is important -- it may be like learning articulations of speech. Interesting because control of hand-keyboard relationships isn't necessarily at a lower level than controlling sounds, is it? It's more like coordination of systems at the same level, with both branches involving several lower levels.

Best,

Bill P.

路路路

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.26/516 - Release Date: 11/3/2006 2:20 PM

18

[From Bruce Nevin (2006.11.05.2137 EST)]

Bill,

I'm sorry to be so much absent. I try to follow threads with at least
half an eye at least half the time. One's name does grab both eyes,
though (ah, the mystery of attention again).

That's a nice parallel that you've drawn between the linking of hand
articulations with music sounds and the linking of oral articulations
with speech sounds. Separate branches working in parallel through a
number of levels. How are they correlated? Is it that at some higher
level sound and movement are both input to a single perception? Or is
there some other perception of correlations? Or something yet other?

  /Bruce

Bill Powers (2006.11.03.1909 MST) --

Mike Acree (2006.11.03.1625 PST)--

when I'm learning anything difficult
(most of what I like to play), I have to spend a long time controlling
finger movements, gradually shifting over to controlling sounds. It
may help that I'm self-taught; I wouldn't be surprised if piano
teachers focused more on finger placement than the music.

This connects with some comments Bruce Nevin has contributed about
controlling articulations versus controlling sounds in speech.
Lindamood's "Hooked on Phonics" does a lot of concentrating on
articulations as a way of facilitating language learning -- she claims
she can teach an adult to speak without a foreign accent. The
articulations are the output that is used to control sounds, so
practicing them may be what allows the sounds to be authentic. Piano
fingering is important -- it may be like learning articulations of
speech. Interesting because control of hand-keyboard relationships isn't
necessarily at a lower level than controlling sounds, is it?
It's more like coordination of systems at the same level, with both
branches involving several lower levels.

Best,

Bill P.

路路路

-----Original Message-----