17 ms·

I find the most compelling argument for smaller keyboards to be the gender disparity in high level piano competitions: http://smallpianokeyboards.org/competitio

I find the most compelling argument for smaller keyboards to be the gender disparity in high level piano competitions: http://smallpianokeyboards.org/competition-results/ http://smallpianokeyboards.org/competition-results/. The short version: more women play the piano at the collegiate level and beyond than men, but they are woefully underrepresented among the winners of international piano competitions. Why? Because their hands are too small to play demanding repertoire – certain pieces are literally "out of reach" due to the large chords involved. For violin competitions, where reach is a less significant factor, there is no such gender discrepancy. For the long version, please read the link.

onlyreply 6y ago
Please, kys
jberryman 6y ago
Are these competitions behind a screen? I'm only somewhat familiar with the Can Cliburn competition, and it seemed as though it was in the open on a stage. If they aren't blind then I'd expect gender bias is a more obvious explanation (obvious because the effect that blind auditions have had in the gender make up of orchestras is obvious and dramatic)
- saulrh 6y ago
  I went looking for other data that might let us make conclusions about the situation. Here's what I found: Cayea, Danelle, and Ralph A. Manchester. "Instrument-specific rates of upper-extremity injuries in music students." Organ 26.362 (1998): 11-14. The high-injury-rate instruments (12.0 to 18.0) included the piano, guitar, and harp. Women had a higher overall injury rate thanmen (8.9 vs 5.9). Small sample sizes for some instruments (e.g. only ~20 female trumpet players) make me doubt the solidity of the results, but it looks like bigger instruments are vastly more dangerous for women to play. The piano and organ are both pretty bad, with about 10% of women reporting injuries compared to about 7.5% of men. The double bass has the largest difference in the study, with 17% women reporting injuries compared to 8% of men. I have no idea how harps compare because there were exactly zero male harpists in the sample, but female harp was tied with female double bass as highest-injury sampled instrument at 17%. Note that, as the studied population was "the students at a single institution's music major", an RSI injury this early might indicate the beginning of a chronic, career-limiting problem. I can't find any competitions for the double bass that I might be able to use to confirm the correlation between injury rate and under-representation in high-level competition. TL;DR I find it quite plausible that some instruments are objectively difficult for women to play as indicated by a higher level of upper-body injury. edit: I read some more of the site and found http://smallpianokeyboards.org/pain-injury-and-performance-quality/ http://smallpianokeyboards.org/pain-injury-and-performance-q..., which agrees with the research I did above.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  The single study behind that blind audition story is far less conclusive than we've been told: https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02 https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jancsika 6y ago
> Because their hands are too small to play demanding repertoire – certain pieces are literally "out of reach" due to the large chords involved. There is an unspoken assumption here from the word "literally": pieces of classical music are written in stone and are not allowed to be transcribed to fit the player's hand. That assumption is about as coherent as anything you'd read in a Qanon Facebook group because: 1. Transcriptions from dead composers like Busoni are allowed in competitions. So if you're dead and gone, your transcription is a "work". If you're alive and playing in a competition it's not allowed, unless the student is making emendations to an already transcribed piece. So Liszt-Busoni-student transcription, perhaps ok. Beethoven-student transcription, definitely not ok. 2. The above exception is probably rationalized on the basis that these transcriptions generally add another dimension to the music. But composers like Schumann were constantly voicing chords in their own music to comfortably fit their own hands, often at the expense of more complex or compelling voicing. Yet these composers' pieces are to be played exactly as written in the competitions. 3. Hell, Beethoven was known as a goddamned master improviser. Just throwing that in there... 4. At least for tonal music, the tones of most chords can be found within a single octave. Additionally, there's a perceptual phenomenon where one can leave out a doubled note in a widely spaced chord and the listener will perceive it nonetheless. 5. It turns out that human creatures are little analytical machines that can interpret the function of chords, voicings, phrases, etc. Outside of some very famous voicings of some very famous pieces, these humans can often leverage their ingenuity to find perfectly valid, functionally equivalent voicings that both fit their own hands and the character of the music. The piano competition world essentially says to its students to learn all these things as part of a well-rounded musical education. But then it forces them to ignore them and adhere to a set of arbitrary strictures shared by most competitions. That might make sense if the strictures were necessary to judge all the performances on a more or less objective or at least normalized basis. But competitions rely on the taste, deliberation, and fairness of judges who generally hear different pieces from each student. So you get a vicious cycle of students who are rarely forced to think critically about how to transcribe pieces for competitions, and some them later become judges who lack those same skills and thus default to perpetuating the same unquestioned strictures of competitions. Anyway, if you changed that stale culture, there wouldn't be any need to change the size of the pianos because adapting the music to one's hand would be common practice. And if one thinks of how resistant the current culture would be to changing any of those strictures to help students exercise such an important skill, what makes one think they'd be any more open to changing something as fundamental as the size of the piano keys?
jimbob45 6y ago
You’re full of shit. Anyone whose hands can reach an octave (read: everyone) can become the greatest pianist of all time. The assumption that large hands are needed for great piano play is one made by those who have never heard La Campanella or Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody. My piano teacher could scarcely reach an octave and one additional note and was still able to play any piece she wished to nearly perfectly. Edit: y’all wanna see the real sexism of today? It’s comments like this that make women feel like they can’t reach the skill ceiling of a given activity.
- edanm 6y ago
  There's really no reason to be so negative in the opening of your comment, it would read much differently without it and probably wouldn't be flagged. That said, you're probably wrong in the same way that saying "anyone can be a great basketball player even if they're short, here's [insert example player who was short], if he can do it anyone can". That's wrong in a few ways: 1. It's only talking about whether someone "can" be a great player, not how hard it is (much much harder for someone short). 2. It ignores the fact that there are probably other genetic advantages that a short player has, and that "make up" for the height, but are still rare in combination. 3. Even with that, I highly doubt someone can be the greatest basketball player of all time while being relatively short. It's just not possible today. The situation with piano is the same, except it seems that, unlike in basketball, there's actually something to be done about this. What's the downside?
  - tpoacher 6y ago
    we could totally mandate official ball size tiers and lower baskets that are slamdunkable by anyone.
    - edanm 6y ago
      Well yes, I suppose that's true. Wait actually, we do do that - for kids, there are lower baskets, and smaller balls! This makes it easier for kids to learn, because they have smaller hands, and we want them to actually learn! In any case though, the main difference is that at some point, if you want a competition that is between people, you have to pick an actual size that people compete on, and whatever you choose, different genetic characteristics will give some people benefits over others. Piano playing, on the other hand, is a solo activity - so there is no reason why people shouldn't have individualized instruments, even for "competitions" (except for practical purposes).
drewm1980 6y ago
Large handed composers will start composing works with intervals you need large hands AND a small piano to reach. It's probably already happening on mini digital keyboards.
- veridies 6y ago
  In that case, there is another benefit: more ambitious compositions. And while you may be right, there are still numerous older compositions to play.
- thih9 6y ago
  Not if these composers use a large keyboard and players with small hands use a small keyboard, as suggested in the article. The classical guitar has been available in multiple sizes for many years now. I don’t think the situation you’re describing has become a widespread problem there.
  - Heliosmaster 6y ago
    The point of GP was that, if smaller keyboards are introduced, nothing stops composers with large hands from using them, resulting in even bigger chords. Hence in competitions you could end up with just smaller keyboards for everybody, unless you "regulate" the size based on hand size.
    - yarcob 6y ago
      If the small keyboard was better for everyone then presumably we would already have them. But my guess is that a keyboard that's too small is just as bad as a keyboard that's too large, so the current size is a compromise based on the average hand size of pianists in the 19th century.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        That's why they want 3 sizes. Humans haven't changed -that- much since then, just a bit taller and no doubt on average a little bit more finger reach. This will help solve that issue. I think it's a good thing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
atomack 6y ago
One solution is make sure more women can compose music for piano
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Nothing quite like having to make up a 300 year cultural headstart to ensure equality.
anjc 6y ago
> Why? Because their hands are too small to play demanding repertoire The link does not and can not conclude this. It can not because it makes a confusing sleight of hand, with an inference between competitions, repertoire, and an implied necessary hand size which is incorrect. It is incorrect because some of these competitions require repertoire from specific composers (e.g. Mozart or Bach competitions) whereas some do not. Entrants to the Rubenstein competitions may have the same repertoire as those to the Mozart and Bach competitions. Yet it compares winners of Rubenstein to Bach and Mozart. >The short version: more women play the piano at the collegiate level and beyond than men Such small numbers of people will reach a level of getting first prize in elite competitions, that these people are essentially irrelevant. In absolute terms, it sounds like males are massively excluded from piano up to elite levels. Perhaps piano sizes should be increased?
jakecodes 6y ago
I've been playing piano for 30 years, have a degree in piano performance and have played in many competitions. There are many type of competitions. There's the Chopin International Competition where only Chopin must be played. Also the Liszt, and others. There are also Bach competitions, which don't require large hands. Then there's the Rubinstein and Van Cliburn where you have to adhere to a set of music. Like one sonata from the romantic period etc. Many different competitions and opportunities to play many different pieces with many different requirements. I've also watched tons of competitions and know tons of pianists. I think a smaller keyboard would make it easier for people with smaller hands, but a lot of these "big chords" that composers write, are not playable by anyone, and were never meant to be played as one chord. Rachmaninoff has chords that regularly stretch 3 octaves. No one has hands like that. I've also met a ton of concert pianists (name dropping here, but for a reason). I never met Alicia de Larrocha but she was 4 ft 9 and she played tons of very large pieces like Liszt. I've have met Helen Grimaud, Evgeny Kissin, Lang Lang, Jean-Yves Thibaudet, Andre Watts, Daniel Barenboim and a bunch of others. I know Lang Lang has largish hands, but the rest have hands very similar to mine, and I'm perfectly average. Except Andre Watts, who had super thick hands and regular length fingers. I remember that Helen Grimaud was small, but had the strongest handshake. All of them can play all the great pieces. Also in conservatories you'll often see a these kids that can play crazy pieces. Do large hands help. Yes. But like anything, we adapt, and you learn your own technique. I don't think it's the same as having long legs in running. The biggest difference would be for people who can't reach an octave comfortably. After that, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th. You're in the same camp as the rest of us. Some I've seen can reach a 10th comfortably. But I can play a 10th, if I stretch, but I don't because that stretching will injure my hand over time. I play it as a quick roll. I've also analyzed the technique of many of the greats in slow motion. Go watch Evgeny Kissin at 1/4 speed on YouTube. He isn't using his hand size to make the difference, he's just very efficient in his movement. He's the same height as me, but maybe with his fro slightly taller. Look up Dorothy Taubman, and Edna Golandsky. I studied the Taubman techinique for years. What she did is (in the 70's) rented slow motion cameras and recorded great pianists and not so great pianists, and she realized, it wasn't so much the hand size but they way they used their hands. Great pianists had a natural rotations between notes. They were very naturally efficient. They made large jumps by moving quickly to the notes and then playing vs flying blindly. They move their hands and fingers to play notes vs just playing notes with finger movt. Many large discoveries, She turned it into a whole technique which Edna Golandsky later took over and made the technique her own. I had a lesson with Edna, and it was life changing. It was the realization that it doesn't matter what your hand size is but how you use your fingers, hands, arms and body together. I've been playing wrong for years. Because no one teaches you how to move. There's the "Russian technique" which will give you tendonitis. The movement hasn't been studied as much as it should be. I learned 10 or so major concepts and swore off all other music for the summer and retrained everything. I studied that technique for a few years, and now I am able to play the Liszt's and Rachmaninoff's, given enough practice. It was that I was playing incorrectly. I didn't know how to move my body. It's an efficiency thing, that some discover naturally. My biggest handicap is my learning speed. I personally think that the real thing that makes the greats great is their ability to naturally sight read. Think about it. If you can sight read very quickly you have solved all other problems with movement. Watch Daniel Barenboim and Vladimir Ashkenazy on YouTube sight reading together as 20 somethings. This is something they are very naturally talented at. Anyways, key size is only one tiny piece that I think will have diminishing returns.
Jaxan 6y ago
Why is this compelling? Are competitions important in a pianists career? Shouldn’t be, IMO
Johanx64 6y ago
I don't find it at all compelling. Frankly the whole argument is sexist, unnecessarily so. What's ultimately underrepresented are people with small hands, PERIOD. As if it's fine that men with small hands can't compete (very common too btw), but oh-boy, since it's especially affects women, now it's a super big wrong that has to be corrected. No, it's wrong on a more fundamental level - there's no good reason to exclude small handed people at all from reaching the highest level, regardless of sex or anything in between.
- hagmonk 6y ago
  Found Jordan Peterson’s sockpuppet account.
- kyanne 6y ago
  No one has made the claim that it would be fine if only men with small hands were negatively affected. The focus is on women in this instance for one reason: the data gathered and referred to in the comment you so disingenuously took offense to shows that women are disproportionately affected by this issue. Are men with small hands also affected? Yes, but that is not an identity half of the people on this planet identify with. I'd hazard to guess there are not a great deal of people who feel defined by the size of their hands (or discriminated against systematically). Fortunately breaking down this barrier benefits everyone, regardless of sex. Feminism benefits all.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    I have sympathy for the feminist movement, and the GPs post was needlessly hostile, but in their defense I'd like to phrase the argument a different way: If we imagine a world where men and women hand-sizes were statistically equal, ought we be interested that some people have smaller hands and are under-represented in Piano competitions? If so, shouldn't a study that looks purely at hand-span as the variable, without regarding gender or ethnicity, ought to be equally useful as as impetus for change in both contexts?
    - spekcular 6y ago

onlyreply 6y ago

Please, kys

jberryman 6y ago

Are these competitions behind a screen? I'm only somewhat familiar with the Can Cliburn competition, and it seemed as though it was in the open on a stage. If they aren't blind then I'd expect gender bias is a more obvious explanation (obvious because the effect that blind auditions have had in the gender make up of orchestras is obvious and dramatic)

saulrh 6y ago
I went looking for other data that might let us make conclusions about the situation. Here's what I found: Cayea, Danelle, and Ralph A. Manchester. "Instrument-specific rates of upper-extremity injuries in music students." Organ 26.362 (1998): 11-14. The high-injury-rate instruments (12.0 to 18.0) included the piano, guitar, and harp. Women had a higher overall injury rate thanmen (8.9 vs 5.9). Small sample sizes for some instruments (e.g. only ~20 female trumpet players) make me doubt the solidity of the results, but it looks like bigger instruments are vastly more dangerous for women to play. The piano and organ are both pretty bad, with about 10% of women reporting injuries compared to about 7.5% of men. The double bass has the largest difference in the study, with 17% women reporting injuries compared to 8% of men. I have no idea how harps compare because there were exactly zero male harpists in the sample, but female harp was tied with female double bass as highest-injury sampled instrument at 17%. Note that, as the studied population was "the students at a single institution's music major", an RSI injury this early might indicate the beginning of a chronic, career-limiting problem. I can't find any competitions for the double bass that I might be able to use to confirm the correlation between injury rate and under-representation in high-level competition. TL;DR I find it quite plausible that some instruments are objectively difficult for women to play as indicated by a higher level of upper-body injury. edit: I read some more of the site and found http://smallpianokeyboards.org/pain-injury-and-performance-quality/ http://smallpianokeyboards.org/pain-injury-and-performance-q..., which agrees with the research I did above.
BurningFrog 6y ago
The single study behind that blind audition story is far less conclusive than we've been told: https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02 https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jancsika 6y ago

> Because their hands are too small to play demanding repertoire – certain pieces are literally "out of reach" due to the large chords involved. There is an unspoken assumption here from the word "literally": pieces of classical music are written in stone and are not allowed to be transcribed to fit the player's hand. That assumption is about as coherent as anything you'd read in a Qanon Facebook group because: 1. Transcriptions from dead composers like Busoni are allowed in competitions. So if you're dead and gone, your transcription is a "work". If you're alive and playing in a competition it's not allowed, unless the student is making emendations to an already transcribed piece. So Liszt-Busoni-student transcription, perhaps ok. Beethoven-student transcription, definitely not ok. 2. The above exception is probably rationalized on the basis that these transcriptions generally add another dimension to the music. But composers like Schumann were constantly voicing chords in their own music to comfortably fit their own hands, often at the expense of more complex or compelling voicing. Yet these composers' pieces are to be played exactly as written in the competitions. 3. Hell, Beethoven was known as a goddamned master improviser. Just throwing that in there... 4. At least for tonal music, the tones of most chords can be found within a single octave. Additionally, there's a perceptual phenomenon where one can leave out a doubled note in a widely spaced chord and the listener will perceive it nonetheless. 5. It turns out that human creatures are little analytical machines that can interpret the function of chords, voicings, phrases, etc. Outside of some very famous voicings of some very famous pieces, these humans can often leverage their ingenuity to find perfectly valid, functionally equivalent voicings that both fit their own hands and the character of the music. The piano competition world essentially says to its students to learn all these things as part of a well-rounded musical education. But then it forces them to ignore them and adhere to a set of arbitrary strictures shared by most competitions. That might make sense if the strictures were necessary to judge all the performances on a more or less objective or at least normalized basis. But competitions rely on the taste, deliberation, and fairness of judges who generally hear different pieces from each student. So you get a vicious cycle of students who are rarely forced to think critically about how to transcribe pieces for competitions, and some them later become judges who lack those same skills and thus default to perpetuating the same unquestioned strictures of competitions. Anyway, if you changed that stale culture, there wouldn't be any need to change the size of the pianos because adapting the music to one's hand would be common practice. And if one thinks of how resistant the current culture would be to changing any of those strictures to help students exercise such an important skill, what makes one think they'd be any more open to changing something as fundamental as the size of the piano keys?

jimbob45 6y ago

You’re full of shit. Anyone whose hands can reach an octave (read: everyone) can become the greatest pianist of all time. The assumption that large hands are needed for great piano play is one made by those who have never heard La Campanella or Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody. My piano teacher could scarcely reach an octave and one additional note and was still able to play any piece she wished to nearly perfectly. Edit: y’all wanna see the real sexism of today? It’s comments like this that make women feel like they can’t reach the skill ceiling of a given activity.

edanm 6y ago
There's really no reason to be so negative in the opening of your comment, it would read much differently without it and probably wouldn't be flagged. That said, you're probably wrong in the same way that saying "anyone can be a great basketball player even if they're short, here's [insert example player who was short], if he can do it anyone can". That's wrong in a few ways: 1. It's only talking about whether someone "can" be a great player, not how hard it is (much much harder for someone short). 2. It ignores the fact that there are probably other genetic advantages that a short player has, and that "make up" for the height, but are still rare in combination. 3. Even with that, I highly doubt someone can be the greatest basketball player of all time while being relatively short. It's just not possible today. The situation with piano is the same, except it seems that, unlike in basketball, there's actually something to be done about this. What's the downside?
- tpoacher 6y ago
  we could totally mandate official ball size tiers and lower baskets that are slamdunkable by anyone.
  - edanm 6y ago
    Well yes, I suppose that's true. Wait actually, we do do that - for kids, there are lower baskets, and smaller balls! This makes it easier for kids to learn, because they have smaller hands, and we want them to actually learn! In any case though, the main difference is that at some point, if you want a competition that is between people, you have to pick an actual size that people compete on, and whatever you choose, different genetic characteristics will give some people benefits over others. Piano playing, on the other hand, is a solo activity - so there is no reason why people shouldn't have individualized instruments, even for "competitions" (except for practical purposes).

drewm1980 6y ago

Large handed composers will start composing works with intervals you need large hands AND a small piano to reach. It's probably already happening on mini digital keyboards.

veridies 6y ago
In that case, there is another benefit: more ambitious compositions. And while you may be right, there are still numerous older compositions to play.
thih9 6y ago
Not if these composers use a large keyboard and players with small hands use a small keyboard, as suggested in the article. The classical guitar has been available in multiple sizes for many years now. I don’t think the situation you’re describing has become a widespread problem there.
- Heliosmaster 6y ago
  The point of GP was that, if smaller keyboards are introduced, nothing stops composers with large hands from using them, resulting in even bigger chords. Hence in competitions you could end up with just smaller keyboards for everybody, unless you "regulate" the size based on hand size.
  - yarcob 6y ago
    If the small keyboard was better for everyone then presumably we would already have them. But my guess is that a keyboard that's too small is just as bad as a keyboard that's too large, so the current size is a compromise based on the average hand size of pianists in the 19th century.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      That's why they want 3 sizes. Humans haven't changed -that- much since then, just a bit taller and no doubt on average a little bit more finger reach. This will help solve that issue. I think it's a good thing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

atomack 6y ago

One solution is make sure more women can compose music for piano

VBprogrammer 6y ago
Nothing quite like having to make up a 300 year cultural headstart to ensure equality.

anjc 6y ago

> Why? Because their hands are too small to play demanding repertoire The link does not and can not conclude this. It can not because it makes a confusing sleight of hand, with an inference between competitions, repertoire, and an implied necessary hand size which is incorrect. It is incorrect because some of these competitions require repertoire from specific composers (e.g. Mozart or Bach competitions) whereas some do not. Entrants to the Rubenstein competitions may have the same repertoire as those to the Mozart and Bach competitions. Yet it compares winners of Rubenstein to Bach and Mozart. >The short version: more women play the piano at the collegiate level and beyond than men Such small numbers of people will reach a level of getting first prize in elite competitions, that these people are essentially irrelevant. In absolute terms, it sounds like males are massively excluded from piano up to elite levels. Perhaps piano sizes should be increased?

jakecodes 6y ago

I've been playing piano for 30 years, have a degree in piano performance and have played in many competitions. There are many type of competitions. There's the Chopin International Competition where only Chopin must be played. Also the Liszt, and others. There are also Bach competitions, which don't require large hands. Then there's the Rubinstein and Van Cliburn where you have to adhere to a set of music. Like one sonata from the romantic period etc. Many different competitions and opportunities to play many different pieces with many different requirements. I've also watched tons of competitions and know tons of pianists. I think a smaller keyboard would make it easier for people with smaller hands, but a lot of these "big chords" that composers write, are not playable by anyone, and were never meant to be played as one chord. Rachmaninoff has chords that regularly stretch 3 octaves. No one has hands like that. I've also met a ton of concert pianists (name dropping here, but for a reason). I never met Alicia de Larrocha but she was 4 ft 9 and she played tons of very large pieces like Liszt. I've have met Helen Grimaud, Evgeny Kissin, Lang Lang, Jean-Yves Thibaudet, Andre Watts, Daniel Barenboim and a bunch of others. I know Lang Lang has largish hands, but the rest have hands very similar to mine, and I'm perfectly average. Except Andre Watts, who had super thick hands and regular length fingers. I remember that Helen Grimaud was small, but had the strongest handshake. All of them can play all the great pieces. Also in conservatories you'll often see a these kids that can play crazy pieces. Do large hands help. Yes. But like anything, we adapt, and you learn your own technique. I don't think it's the same as having long legs in running. The biggest difference would be for people who can't reach an octave comfortably. After that, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th. You're in the same camp as the rest of us. Some I've seen can reach a 10th comfortably. But I can play a 10th, if I stretch, but I don't because that stretching will injure my hand over time. I play it as a quick roll. I've also analyzed the technique of many of the greats in slow motion. Go watch Evgeny Kissin at 1/4 speed on YouTube. He isn't using his hand size to make the difference, he's just very efficient in his movement. He's the same height as me, but maybe with his fro slightly taller. Look up Dorothy Taubman, and Edna Golandsky. I studied the Taubman techinique for years. What she did is (in the 70's) rented slow motion cameras and recorded great pianists and not so great pianists, and she realized, it wasn't so much the hand size but they way they used their hands. Great pianists had a natural rotations between notes. They were very naturally efficient. They made large jumps by moving quickly to the notes and then playing vs flying blindly. They move their hands and fingers to play notes vs just playing notes with finger movt. Many large discoveries, She turned it into a whole technique which Edna Golandsky later took over and made the technique her own. I had a lesson with Edna, and it was life changing. It was the realization that it doesn't matter what your hand size is but how you use your fingers, hands, arms and body together. I've been playing wrong for years. Because no one teaches you how to move. There's the "Russian technique" which will give you tendonitis. The movement hasn't been studied as much as it should be. I learned 10 or so major concepts and swore off all other music for the summer and retrained everything. I studied that technique for a few years, and now I am able to play the Liszt's and Rachmaninoff's, given enough practice. It was that I was playing incorrectly. I didn't know how to move my body. It's an efficiency thing, that some discover naturally. My biggest handicap is my learning speed. I personally think that the real thing that makes the greats great is their ability to naturally sight read. Think about it. If you can sight read very quickly you have solved all other problems with movement. Watch Daniel Barenboim and Vladimir Ashkenazy on YouTube sight reading together as 20 somethings. This is something they are very naturally talented at. Anyways, key size is only one tiny piece that I think will have diminishing returns.

Jaxan 6y ago

Why is this compelling? Are competitions important in a pianists career? Shouldn’t be, IMO

Johanx64 6y ago

I don't find it at all compelling. Frankly the whole argument is sexist, unnecessarily so. What's ultimately underrepresented are people with small hands, PERIOD. As if it's fine that men with small hands can't compete (very common too btw), but oh-boy, since it's especially affects women, now it's a super big wrong that has to be corrected. No, it's wrong on a more fundamental level - there's no good reason to exclude small handed people at all from reaching the highest level, regardless of sex or anything in between.

hagmonk 6y ago
Found Jordan Peterson’s sockpuppet account.
kyanne 6y ago
No one has made the claim that it would be fine if only men with small hands were negatively affected. The focus is on women in this instance for one reason: the data gathered and referred to in the comment you so disingenuously took offense to shows that women are disproportionately affected by this issue. Are men with small hands also affected? Yes, but that is not an identity half of the people on this planet identify with. I'd hazard to guess there are not a great deal of people who feel defined by the size of their hands (or discriminated against systematically). Fortunately breaking down this barrier benefits everyone, regardless of sex. Feminism benefits all.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  I have sympathy for the feminist movement, and the GPs post was needlessly hostile, but in their defense I'd like to phrase the argument a different way: If we imagine a world where men and women hand-sizes were statistically equal, ought we be interested that some people have smaller hands and are under-represented in Piano competitions? If so, shouldn't a study that looks purely at hand-span as the variable, without regarding gender or ethnicity, ought to be equally useful as as impetus for change in both contexts?
  - spekcular 6y ago