Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Any lefties?

Are there any left-handed pianists here? What was it like learning to play? And do you feel like it has held you back in any way?

Yes. I didn't notice anything different. You have to learn to use both hands either way.

Lefty here. Well, fairly ambidextrous, but I prefer to write with my left hand.

I don't think it's held me back in any way. If anything, I think it might be beneficial: the right hand naturally gets so much training that maybe it's nice that things come easier to my left anyway. Might keep things more balanced!

Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it!

I will say that this year, in which I returned to piano, I had a LOT of tension to work out as you might imagine. The fluidity came back to my left arm pretty quickly but I'm fighting with my right. It's not that it isn't working at all, but the whole arm movement and wrist suppleness is coming more slowly. Without intense concentration, I paste my elbow to my side and get quite stiff in my wrist and shoulder. Even when it would be obvious to do something different, I don't do it. That was true of both arms in the first few months, but now, coming up on a year of a lot of work and teacher correction, the left now finds its way without me having to think too hard about it anymore.

There's just a difference in overall fluidity, and the left ended up being more "teachable" than the right. My left arm naturally absorbs corrections easier. What's helping is concentrating really hard to get my right arm to learn from my left now that the left is moving nicely. It's coming along, but the difference is visible. My teacher often comments on how the left arm has gained back its freedom of movement but the right arm seems to be struggling.

Anyway, I think it's a good thing that the right hand just naturally got more overall exposure to everything when I was growing up. If it were the other way around, I suspect there would be a larger problem.

Most left-handed people have to learn to deal with living in a right-handed world anyway, and piano is fairly benign compared to other things (like the fact that nearly all scissors are right-handed).

Other than when playing works for LH alone, of which there are several, many commissioned by Paul Wittgenstein (- I don't know of any piano works for RH only, which surely can't be PC ), I don't think that being a southpaw makes much difference. Though I believe there have been pianos made with reversed keyboard, just like guitars, specifically for lefties who prefer playing tunes with LH......

However, being ambidextrous might be useful when playing the music of the ambidextrous Gabriel Fauré, whose unique writing style (where melody, counter-melody and accompanimental figuration frequently passes back & forth between the hands) seems to show his lack of hand preference.

We are absolutely at a disadvantage as far as acquiring and performing with the right hand. We simply cannot process as much information in the right hand, and we have less control over it. Not only is the ability in our right hand maximally limited, but it's also more difficult to make things we already know malleable.

Luckily, we also have a slight advantage with acquiring and performing with the left hand (obviously); the only problem is that the right hand is usually responsible for more demanding play.

I don't think being a lefty has put me "at a disadvantage". In fact, my right hand technique is better than my left hand technique.

Whether you "think" so or not doesn't have any bearing on its truth. Having a left hand that is dominant over your right means you (we) have a right hand that cannot perform at the same ability as the left hand.


There are several reasons why you might think this. If it actually does happen to be true, you may not actually be left-handed, but instead mixed-handed (which is apart from being ambidextrous). It may imply mixed-handedness, but doesn't guarantee it.

I don't merely think so. I have experience on it (see below). Having a dominant left hand might mean that naturally the right hand couldn't perform at the same level as the left hand. However, the right hand gets trained more than the left hand which can make the right hand stronger compared to the left hand.




I've certainly had difficulties in certain passages where the hands have to play parallel runs, and the weaker hand in these passages certainly was the left hand. Whether that's mixed-handedness, I don't know. I do consider myself left-handed.

+1.

As a lefty myself, I have never even thought twice about it.

I couldn't imagine playing passages from, say, Chopin 54 with my left hand. Yikes.

I'd really be interested in why you think this. Did you just 'hear it somewhere', or do you have some research or something real?

I don't just "think" it; it's a fact. A person cannot process as much information coming from and going to their non-dominant hand as they can with their dominant hand.

Anyone thinking that they are not affected by it are lying to themselves, partly because they don't know what it's like to be right-dominant and therefore don't know what that would feel like.

It doesn't matter if you "don't feel affected" by being a lefty; it does affect you.

What does handedness mean to you then, Atrys? Bear in mind that definitions differ; I've, in the past, known someone who wrote with their left hand but used their right, primarily, for everything else...I mean, um, some here would define that as left-handedness, some would define it as a mix, some, even, would class it as being ambidextrous. It doesn't matter what the technical definition is, people's opinions *of* that definition will vary. If left-handedness were more common, one would say being right-handed does affect you...um...the fact of the matter is that everything affects everything; you wouldn't say the emotions you have affect you, or your genetic structure affects you, because it'd be redundant. Sorry...that's just how I feel...
Xxx

It means to me what the definition of handedness says.


It does matter what the "technical" definition is. A person assuming their own definition of the term is not reflective of reality. Opinions are apart from objective truth; to operate as if one's uneducated opinion is the objective truth is unequivocally ignorance in its finest form.

An unfounded belief in some conclusion does not warrant any amount of truth, and should not be taken seriously. Thankfully and fortunately, that's not how science works.

I agree with everything you said, Atrys. Unfortunately, ignorance is endemic and unavoidable. If one were to operate as if ignorance was something to be deplored one would be deluding oneself as to one's own ignorance. Um...the technical definition of words has changed over the years; as such, *all* notions of information and intelligence based on lexical semantics is relative to the time *and* locale in which it is said...by which, obviously, that one believes a word to mean X, when it is agreed globally to mean Y, does *not* mean that one's belief is wrong. I mean, um, in short; you may not like the notion of relativity, but it applies...I think Oh, and science "works" on inductive logic. Induction is a form of guesswork. There is a half-life of information which applies to each genre of information. For instance, the half-life of surgical information is about 45 years; that is to say, these medical facts, scientific "facts", are 50% likely to be incorrect in 45 years. Once again, um, I don't mind that that's how it is, it's useful to get by on, but to come to the conclusion that science can tell the truth of any matter is short-sighted and, frankly, as ignorant, though not as unintelligent, as understanding nothing at all; neither reveal truth. Um...in my opinion. You'll disagree, of course, but that's okay too ^_^
Xxx

What? No one here is claiming that science has an answer to everything. The claim is that science reflects our current state of knowledge and explanation of our world. Beliefs held that are outside of this body must be proven.

You don't really seem to have a point, and I'm afraid this is deviating (and getting quite meta) from the OP.

FSO, we all know what we mean by handedness and you know it.

Right right, so how do you know this fact?

A 2xx-level psychology course that I took last year.