On Piano Playing, by Gyorgy Sandor

[iratehamster]

I just started reading this book and I wanted to know what those of you that read it or know something about it think.  It looks like one of the most reputable and comprehensive books on piano technique out there.  I know I've seen it referenced in many places, including C. Chang's online book.  And despite my best efforts, I haven't been able to find a single critical remark about this book, so my post is (as far as I know) unprecedented.   

Well, not really.  Overall I'm impressed by it, but I did disagree with some details in the beginning of the book.  He starts by discussing the anatomy of the hand and forearm, and he talks about the major flexor and extensor tendons that run along the forearm and across the wrist, eventually attaching to the last phalanges of our fingers.  But he makes no mention of the muscles located in the hand itself, the interosseus muscles (what moves our fingers from side to side) and the lumbrical muscles (these muscles allow us to flex our finger at the base knuckle while allowing the middle and third knuckles to extend at the same time--Chang calls this the "pyramid" flat finger position--and it's absolutely necessary for virtuoso playing).  These muscles are obviously very important for playing the piano, but they're ignored completely.

Later in the book, he talks about how to play scales and arpeggios, and I think most of the advice here--for example, doing everything possible to make sure that the finger stays parallel to the forearm in order to reduce friction on your tendons--is very good.  But then he says you shouldn't let your fingers rest on the keys--you should always use the extensors to keep the unused fingers raised over the keys.  I think this is a big mistake.  First, it wastes a small amount of energy.  Second, he says you can't utilize gravity if your finger is already resting on top of the key because there's no distance for it to fall, but that's obviously wrong.  Your weight still pushes down on something if you're just resting on it, otherwise when you step on a bathroom scale it will always say 0 pounds.  Third, the extensors (like the flexors that also run along the forearm across the wrist) usually lift several fingers at once because of the way the tendons are interconnected.  It's anatomically impossible for most people to lift one finger totally by itself (unless it's the thumb and index finger) without the other fingers budging at all.  So if you're trying to play using the third finger, while also lifting the fourth and fifth fingers, you're involuntarily lifting the third finger to a certain degree, which you have to overcome by pushing down harder with that finger.  Clearly no good.  And the cocontraction of the extensors (which run OVER your wrist), and the major flexors (which run UNDER your wrist) obviously leads to a stiff wrist. 

Instead of actively lifting your fingers, I think you should, as often as possible, let the keys lift your fingers for you by just relaxing them.  The only time you should use your extensors is when you want to deliberately stiffen your wrist, like when playing chords, but only at the instant that your hand goes down into the keys, never continuously like he advocates.

I think I had one or two other quibbles, but I'm assuming they were small because I can't remember them.   I invite anyone else's comments on the book, pro or con.  Also, if there's anything in what I said that you disagree with, absolutely let me know--I'm still very much trying to figure this all out.  Thanks!

[pianistimo]

i used to have his book 'on piano playing' and lost it somewhere in the move to pennsylvania.  it was helpful to a degree - but also agreed that sometimes one book doesn't cover everything.  say, this is changing the subject a little - but here's an obituary of him last year (scroll down about 3).
https://classyclassical.blogspot.com

[joca_hdj]

I just read your post and am impressed with your detailed and insightful analysis of what's going on when we play. I agree totally with much of what you write, but allow me to reply with a few points of difference that may carry our overall discussion further towards understanding. I have read neither Sandor or Chang but will comment on your perceptions from the point of view of my teacher, Alan Fraser, author of The Craft of Piano Playing.

Your paragraph 2: I agree with you totally that the lumbricals and interosseous are crucial to piano playing. Bravo that somebody else finally figured this out! However, note that the interosseous do not only move our fingers from side to side, but have a role in whole finger flexion and extension as well. The first dorsal interosseous is especially important in maintaining the viability and independence of the thumb…

Your paragraph 3) I will reproduce with my answers interspersed in capital letters. You wrote:

“Later in the book, he talks about how to play scales and arpeggios, and I
think most of the advice here--for example, doing everything possible to
make sure that the finger stays parallel to the forearm in order to reduce
friction on your tendons--is very good.  But then he says you shouldn't let
your fingers rest on the keys--you should always use the extensors to keep
the unused fingers raised over the keys.  I think this is a big mistake.”

SOMETIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS.

“First, it wastes a small amount of energy.”

BUT IT MAY GALVANIZE THE FINGER, PREPARING IT FOR MUCH-NEEDED ACTIVITY. 

[nick]

Iratehamster, I for one keep my fingers up almost all the time as getting off the keys is just as important as striking the key. So when you quoted from Sandor's book:
"But then he says you shouldn't let your fingers rest on the keys--you should always use the extensors to keep the unused fingers raised over the keys", I have to agree. The clarity of finger passages with an almost staccato like percussive sound is what I love most, not unlike the sound of Gould or Horowitz. Give it a shot.

Nick 

[joca_hdj]

ok,i finaly got some time to finish my reply.I hope you don't mind.
I just can't figure out this"quote text " thing ,so my reply will be interspersed in capital letters.
Well,

“Second, he says you can't
utilize gravity if your finger is already resting on top of the key because
there's no distance for it to fall, but that's obviously wrong.  Your weight
still pushes down on something if you're just resting on it, otherwise when
you step on a bathroom scale it will always say 0 pounds.”

HOWEVER, THE FINGER IS VERY SMALL. ITS WEIGHT ALONE WILL NOT DEPRESS THE KEY, ONLY THE WEIGHT OF SOMETHING LARGER WORKING THROUGH IT. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF THE FINGER DOES STRIKE THE KEY FROM ABOVE, IT SHOULDN’T BE GRAVITY GENERATING THE FORCE BUT MUSCLE ACTIVITY.

“Third, the
extensors (like the flexors that also run along the forearm across the
wrist) usually lift several fingers at once because of the way the tendons
are interconnected.  It's anatomically impossible for most people to lift
one finger totally by itself (unless it's the thumb and index finger)
without the other fingers budging at all.”

NOT IF YOU REDUCE THE EFFORT NEEDED TO LIFT THEM

“So if you're trying to play using
the third finger, while also lifting the fourth and fifth fingers, you're
involuntarily lifting the third finger to a certain degree, which you have
to overcome by pushing down harder with that finger.  Clearly no good.  And
the cocontraction of the extensors (which run OVER your wrist), and the
major flexors (which run UNDER your wrist) obviously leads to a stiff
wrist.”

IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH IT IS DONE. MY TEACHER OFTEN ADVOCATES LIFTING THE FINGERS VIGOROUSLY, AND LOOK AT HOROWITZ, CONSTANTLY PULLING HIS FIFTH BACK AND CURLING IT. THIS PRIMES THE OTHER FINGERS, MAKING THEM MORE READY TO STRIKE WITH AGILITY AND BRILLIANCE. VIGOROUS ACTIVITY IS NEEDED IN PIANO PLAYING; WITHOUT IT YOUR TONE MAY BE BEAUTIFUL BUT RISKS BEING BLAND AS WELL.

IF YOU LEARN TO SENSE THE SKELETAL ALIGNMENTS IN YOUR HAND, YOU DISCOVER YOU CAN MOVE YOUR FINGERS SWIFTLY WITH MUCH LESS EFFORT THAN BEFORE, SO THAT THERE IS LESS OPPOSITION BETWEEN ANTAGONISTS (FLEXORS AND EXTENSORS) OR EVEN NONE AT ALL.

“Instead of actively lifting your fingers, I think you should, as often as
possible, let the keys lift your fingers for you by just relaxing them.”

THIS IS EXCELLENT AS A PRACTICE TECHNIQUE AND FOR REALLY FINE CONTROL OF YOUR SOUND. THAT RELAXATION OF YOUR FINGERS AS YOU LET THE KEY ITSELF LIFT THEM, ALLOWS THEM TO FEEL THE KEY WITH ULTRA-FINE SENSITIVITY AND THUS TO CONTROL IT IN A REALLY BEAUTIFUL WAY.

“The
only time you should use your extensors is when you want to deliberately
stiffen your wrist, like when playing chords, but only at the instant that
your hand goes down into the keys, never continuously like he advocates.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE YOUR HAND IN AS MANY WAYS AS POSSIBLE, TO HAVE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TONAL PALETTE (MY TEACHER SAYS THESE VERY WORDS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DVD VERSION OF THE CRAFT OF PIANO PLAYING). THUS ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT THE WAY YOU SUGGEST, BUT ALSO AT TIMES TO USE A CONTRASTING TECHNIQUE…

I think I had one or two other quibbles, but I'm assuming they were small
because I can't remember them.   I invite anyone else's comments on the
book, pro or con.  Also, if there's anything in what I said that you
 disagree with, absolutely let me know--I'm still very much trying to figure
this all out.  Thanks!

WELL HERE ARE MY HUMBLE COMMENTS, I WELCOME YOUR REPLY TO MY REPLY!

[will]

A superb book.

Only some very minor possible disagreements.

At times I find it confusing the way Sandor talks about weight and speed in creating sound from the piano.

Sandor writes “Weight alone is also of little use, unless it is set in motion. Even if a ton of weight is applied to the key, it does not produce a sound unless it moves downwards with a certain speed. It is speed that generates sounds, not weight; therefore let us use as little weight as possible when generating speed”.

But couldn't you also say “Speed alone is also of little use, unless it has weight”?

And

Sandor writes “The volume of sound depends exclusively on the speed of the hammer hitting the strings... Whether this speed is generated by a small or large weight is immaterial. The notion that the full weight of the arm produces more sound than a lighter weight is erroneous: the fact is that the activation of a longer lever generates more speed than a shorter one”.

Dropping a heavy arm will create more speed in the hammers and thus more sound than a lighter arm dropped from the same height. Try it - drop 50 grams onto the piano and then drop 500 grams onto the piano from the same height.

Also, from memory, some of the photos look awkward. For example, there is a photo in the free-fall section showing the landing part of the motion with the wrist at a fairly large angle - certainly outside the central range shown earlier in the book.

I am also in agreement with iratehamster that the fingers should not be actively raised and held above the keys. It is a waste of energy and interferes with the downward motion of the other fingers.

[robertp]

I find it helpful at times, but quirky...his pedal suggestion for Beethoven's Tempest, 3rd movt. is not so good.

But since fingers seem to be the subtopic here. I don't disagree with anything that's been posted. Here's another way to think of them. They're the delivery mechanism. Which means they're working, but they shouldn't be doing all the work. Of course, that's a function of the piece.

I use as an example the RH of Chopin 104, first couple of bars. Play it all fingers and you'll never get it close to tempo (although I think 160 works better on modern pianos than the published 176 [=80, 88, obviously]). Play it with fingers as the delivery mechanism, as part of the whole series of gestures...and it can rattle right along.

[lisztianick]

Ohhhhhh I have this book, but just today when I needed something from it, I didn't find it !!!!

It is a very good book though.  G. Sandor mentions some great things about all aspects of piano playing, from simple issues such as the hands position till advanced ones like how to deal with audience and what is the difference between recording and playing in public

[richy321]

Sandor writes “The volume of sound depends exclusively on the speed of the hammer hitting the strings... Whether this speed is generated by a small or large weight is immaterial. The notion that the full weight of the arm produces more sound than a lighter weight is erroneous: the fact is that the activation of a longer lever generates more speed than a shorter one”.

Dropping a heavy arm will create more speed in the hammers and thus more sound than a lighter arm dropped from the same height. Try it - drop 50 grams onto the piano and then drop 500 grams onto the piano from the same height.

In response to Will: 

If you keep in mind that Sandor is talking about the speed of the hammer hitting the string you will see that he is right.  It makes no difference if the key was struck with a straw or an iron bar, if the resulting speed of the hammer is the same, the audible result will be the same.  The reason why the whole arm stroke can generate greater power is that using such a large lever can generate greater velocity, which. added to the actions of the elbow, wrist and fingers can add up to the greatest velocity.   But since was Sandor was talking about the hammer's velocity at the string, this does not negate his statement.

Actually, the main thing about Sandor's book that I objected to was his statement that the wrist must lower for each use of the thumb.  Other than in rotations, I don't agree that this is necessary or even good.  Anyone have thoughts on this?

Rich Y

[nick]

In response to Will: 

Actually, the main thing about Sandor's book that I objected to was his statement that the wrist must lower for each use of the thumb.  Other than in rotations, I don't agree that this is necessary or even good.  Anyone have thoughts on this?

Rich Y

I agree with you, that dropping the wrist for each use of the thumb would reduce speed on fast passages. I play some Goldberg Variations that require repeated use of the thumb rapidly and it is a must to make just the thumb strike and then rise on it's own for clarity and speed. I also agree that Sandor is right about the speed of the key determines volume. Seems obvious.

Nick

[will]

In response to Will: 

If you keep in mind that Sandor is talking about the speed of the hammer hitting the string you will see that he is right. 

I agree that the volume of the sound of the piano depends exclusively on the speed of the hammer.

   However Sandor jumps from saying Breithaupt was “in the view the volume of sound produced is in proportion to the quantity of weight employed: more weight, more sound” to the next sentence
“The volume of sound depends exclusively on the speed with which the hammer hits the strings, regardless of weight that generates that speed.”

   I think the confusion arises because Sandor moves from talking about the pianist's movement to talking about the speed of the hammer - comparing movement from outside the piano to movement inside the piano.
   Also more weight does equal more sound - again drop different weights onto the piano keys from the same height and they will produce different dynamics. More weight moving the key creates more speed in the hammers.

It makes no difference if the key was struck with a straw or an iron bar, if the resulting speed of the hammer is the same, the audible result will be the same.

Yes but to get the hammer to the same speed  requires a combination of speed and weight.

At https://www.pianoatpepper.com/catalog/art_PiPianoSympFink3.jsp
under How Are Dynamics Controlled? Fink says “Pianists control the dynamics of a particular sound by varying the speed of a key’s descent. Depressing individual keys quickly produces bold sounds, while a correspondingly slower pressure results in softer sounds “

I believe that thinking about speed is more beneficial than thinking about weight - however both are necessary.

How then do you play passages of music fast and soft at the same time?

[nyquist]

   Also more weight does equal more sound - again drop different weights onto the piano keys from the same height and they will produce different dynamics. More weight moving the key creates more speed in the hammers.

A few centuries back Galileo showed that objects of different weight fall at the same rate.  I.e., two objects of different weight released from the same height would hit the ground at the same speed (ignoring air friction etc.).   The speed of the hammer depends on the speed of key descend which, as above, is independent of the weight of the object falling.  You might be confusing weight with the effort you are making to depress the key.

nyquist

[will]

A few centuries back Galileo showed that objects of different weight fall at the same rate.  I.e., two objects of different weight released from the same height would hit the ground at the same speed (ignoring air friction etc.).   The speed of the hammer depends on the speed of key descend which, as above, is independent of the weight of the object falling. 

nyquist - get a light object and drop it onto middle C from a certain height. Now get a heavy object and drop it onto middle C from the exact same starting height. What results do you get? Please try this experiment and let me know of the results.

[nyquist]

nyquist - get a light object and drop it onto middle C from a certain height. Now get a heavy object and drop it onto middle C from the exact same starting height. What results do you get? Please try this experiment and let me know of the results.

I get exactly the same volume.  What results do you get? 

nyquist

[berrt]

I get exactly the same volume.  What results do you get? 

i tried with a match and a brickstone from 3ft.
slight difference.

B.

[will]

I get exactly the same volume.  What results do you get? 

Hmmm very interesting. What weights did you use? From what height did you drop the weights?

My initial results: more weight = more volume

I have already done a basic test using both weighted and non weighted keyboards and in each case it is clear to both to the ear and to the MIDI numbers (1-128) that they increase as more weight is dropped onto the keys from key level. 

I have also dropped different weights onto my acoustic piano and easily noted that more weight = more volume.

Here's what I plan to do next: move my computer next to my piano and conduct the experiment while recording the sound directly to the computer as a .wav file.
I will use several different weights and several different starting heights on several different notes.
I can then use an audio program to compare the various dB levels or relative volumes of the notes (as a percentage).

I will tabulate the results and post them here as well as the .wav file if you are interested.

Any suggestions as to inclusions to the experiment and how to make it run smoothly without bias?

[iratehamster]

will's right, and so is Galileo.  The two statements aren't in conflict.  When something heavy rests on the key, it's being acted on by TWO forces in opposite directions, a downward force that's due to gravity and an upward force that's due to the resistance of the key.  So it's being accelerated down at a certain rate, AND being accelerated UP at a certain rate.

The force due to gravity is directly proportional to the object's mass--something twice as massive falls with twice as much force.  However, the force with which the key pushes back is constant with respect to that object's mass--something twice as massive is pushed up with the same amount of force.  For the sake of simplicity, let's say the key resists with an amount of force that's equal to one pound.  Now let's drop something that's 4 lbs on it:

net acceleration = net force divided by mass

net acceleration = (force equal to 4 lbs - force equal to 1 lb) divided by 4 lbs = 3/4 of the acceleration of a free-falling object

Now let's drop something that weighs 2 lbs on it:

net acceleration = (force equal to 2 lbs - force equal to 1 lb) divided by 2 lbs = 1/2 of the acceleration of a free-falling object

The 4 lb object would accelerate into the key 50% faster than the 2 lb object.

Whew, I'm glad my thread's getting noticed.   I'd respond to more but my brain's fried for the time being.    (It's been a while since I even thought about any of this stuff!)

[dnephi]

I saw it on a pro's shelf.    It's about arm weight and speed of attack.  And it's about energy, not "zpeed"  from the local physics student.  KE=~mgh. KE ismore eergy so more sound.

Which brings tone. Pushing weight down makes a deeper while up makes a bright almost harsh.

May the Mazeppa be with you.

[nick]

i tried with a match and a brickstone from 3ft.
slight difference.

B.

I got $50.00 on the brickstone.

Nick

[nyquist]

will's right, and so is Galileo.  The two statements aren't in conflict.  When something heavy rests on the key, it's being acted on by TWO forces in opposite directions, a downward force that's due to gravity and an upward force that's due to the resistance of the key.  So it's being accelerated down at a certain rate, AND being accelerated UP at a certain rate.

The force due to gravity is directly proportional to the object's mass--something twice as massive falls with twice as much force.  However, the force with which the key pushes back is constant with respect to that object's mass--something twice as massive is pushed up with the same amount of force.  For the sake of simplicity, let's say the key resists with an amount of force that's equal to one pound.  Now let's drop something that's 4 lbs on it:

net acceleration = net force divided by mass

net acceleration = (force equal to 4 lbs - force equal to 1 lb) divided by 4 lbs = 3/4 of the acceleration of a free-falling object

Now let's drop something that weighs 2 lbs on it:

net acceleration = (force equal to 2 lbs - force equal to 1 lb) divided by 2 lbs = 1/2 of the acceleration of a free-falling object

The 4 lb object would accelerate into the key 50% faster than the 2 lb object.

Whew, I'm glad my thread's getting noticed.   I'd respond to more but my brain's fried for the time being.    (It's been a while since I even thought about any of this stuff!)

The fallacy here is that it assumes that all the  momentum of the falling object is transferred to the hammer.  Most of the momentum is dissipated as heat in the keybed or in the joints of the pianist (or in rebound!).  The piano keyboard is much more of a velocity transfer contraption than a momentum transfer one.  When the falling body hits the keybed it has not slowed down much, yet the hammer is already in free flight. 

nyquist

[nick]

I will still raise it to $75.00 for the brickstone.

Nick

[drjames]

I don't know but I'm just thinking that gravity and the weight of a finger or arm have much less to do with the volume of sound we produce on the piano than the force we generate using our muscles.  Take or create an object the weight and consistancy of a finger and drop it from any height onto a keyboard.  I would be surprised if it did anything other than bounce off and onto the floor.  Do the same with an arm. The sound generated would probably be substantial but how often do we play any note by letting our arm fall freely through the air.  Even as we move our arm down to generate the loudest of sounds we are using opposing muscles that allow us to control the motion so we strike accurately.  In addition over the short distance involved we can generate much more force than gravity could alone.  Again, I just don't see that gravity is playing any important role in the movement of my fingers or arms when playing.  More likely I'm resisting gravity in order to better control my playing. James

[nick]

I don't know but I'm just thinking that gravity and the weight of a finger or arm have much less to do with the volume of sound we produce on the piano than the force we generate using our muscles.  Take or create an object the weight and consistancy of a finger and drop it from any height onto a keyboard.  I would be surprised if it did anything other than bounce off and onto the floor.  Do the same with an arm. The sound generated would probably be substantial but how often do we play any note by letting our arm fall freely through the air.  Even as we move our arm down to generate the loudest of sounds we are using opposing muscles that allow us to control the motion so we strike accurately.  In addition over the short distance involved we can generate much more force than gravity could alone.  Again, I just don't see that gravity is playing any important role in the movement of my fingers or arms when playing.  More likely I'm resisting gravity in order to better control my playing. James

I don't play this way, but even with the finger on key surface, you can drop the weight of hand and arm and produce a very loud sound, and continue transfering weight from finger to finger with a loud sound without much muscle involved with the actual key depression, only once the key hits keybed is there substantial muscle involvement to support the weight.

Nick

[will]

The piano keyboard is much more of a velocity transfer contraption than a momentum transfer one.

   Yes I agree with you here. The piano seems to respond more to changes in speed than to changes in weight. That is one reason why I said earlier that thinking about speed is more beneficial than thinking about weight - however both are necessary.
   It will be interesting to compare the results in my experiment to see just how much an effect speed and weight have on the piano.

[iratehamster]

I'm definitely no expert in any of the areas involved here, but would you at least concede that there's a _little_ more to this problem than meets the eye?    I tried to show how a heavier weight EQUALS more acceleration (and therefore speed) into the key.  As long as the object's speed is registered by the hammer at all, and as long as some time passes between the point that the object lands on the key and the point that the hammer is set in motion (giving the resistance of the key time to act), then I'm pretty sure that my conclusion is valid to at least some degree.  Sure, maybe it's negligible.  But c'mon, I think I deserve some brownie points! 

I definitely think none of this matters when you're actually playing, hehe--then the speed of your muscles matters much more than weight.  Weight mainly comes into play to keep the keys held down without you having to keep pressing them, and speed is obviously not involved there.

[iratehamster]

However, note that the interosseous do not only move our fingers from side to side, but have a role in whole finger flexion and extension as well. The first dorsal interosseous is especially important in maintaining the viability and independence of the thumb…

First off, thanks for the replies!

I was a little unclear about this.  I knew that the interosseous muscles extend the second and third (most distal) joints, but I don't really understand how they control the flexors.

MY TEACHER OFTEN ADVOCATES LIFTING THE FINGERS VIGOROUSLY, AND LOOK AT HOROWITZ, CONSTANTLY PULLING HIS FIFTH BACK AND CURLING IT. THIS PRIMES THE OTHER FINGERS, MAKING THEM MORE READY TO STRIKE WITH AGILITY AND BRILLIANCE. VIGOROUS ACTIVITY IS NEEDED IN PIANO PLAYING; WITHOUT IT YOUR TONE MAY BE BEAUTIFUL BUT RISKS BEING BLAND AS WELL.

I read somewhere that some pianists involuntarily curl their pinkies when they're keeping the main flexor tense, which they do in order to keep the other fingers from collapsing.  Tensing the main flexor at the same time as the extensors makes your fingers stay rigid--at least, I think that's what's happening.

I watched some videos of Horowitz, and I noticed when he wants to accent or brighten up the tone of certain notes, he does lift his fingers up high before striking.  This is definitely something I'm going to be experimenting with.  I'm ready to concede that lifting your fingers can be useful when you want a brighter tone, but I still think that keeping them up ALL the time, indiscriminately, is a bad idea.

[will]

First off, thanks for the replies!

I was a little unclear about this.  I knew that the interosseous muscles extend the second and third (most distal) joints, but I don't really understand how they control the flexors.

https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/anatomy.html

I read somewhere that some pianists involuntarily curl their pinkies when they're keeping the main flexor tense, which they do in order to keep the other fingers from collapsing.  Tensing the main flexor at the same time as the extensors makes your fingers stay rigid--at least, I think that's what's happening.

The bottom of https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/differences.html

[drjames]

Just to further explore how much of a role gravity plays in our playing, think about these two questions.  Could you play the piano just as well in the weightlessness of space?  Or, an easier question to answer if someone was willing to try it, could you play the piano upside down?  It seems I saw a video of someone playing the piano while being spun head over heels.  I believe it was Kieth Emerson at a live concert but it was so long ago.  Obviously this is not the same as being held head down but I think if you can adjust to the lightheadedness you can play in a myriad of positions without much trouble.  Someone nail their digital piano and bench with a seatbelt to the ceiling and give it a go.  I'm anxious to hear back. James

[will]

I believe it was Kieth Emerson at a live concert but it was so long ago.  Obviously this is not the same as being held head down but I think if you can adjust to the lightheadedness you can play in a myriad of positions without much trouble.  Someone nail their digital piano and bench with a seatbelt to the ceiling and give it a go.  I'm anxious to hear back. James

&search=keith%20emerson

[PaulNaud]

Later in the book, he talks about how to play scales and arpeggios, and I think most of the advice here--for example, doing everything possible to make sure that the finger stays parallel to the forearm in order to reduce friction on your tendons--is very good.  But then he says you shouldn't let your fingers rest on the keys--you should always use the extensors to keep the unused fingers raised over the keys.  I think this is a big mistake.  First, it wastes a small amount of energy.  Second, he says you can't utilize gravity if your finger is already resting on top of the key because there's no distance for it to fall, but that's obviously wrong.  Your weight still pushes down on something if you're just resting on it, otherwise when you step on a bathroom scale it will always say 0 pounds.  Third, the extensors (like the flexors that also run along the forearm across the wrist) usually lift several fingers at once because of the way the tendons are interconnected.  It's anatomically impossible for most people to lift one finger totally by itself (unless it's the thumb and index finger) without the other fingers budging at all.  So if you're trying to play using the third finger, while also lifting the fourth and fifth fingers, you're involuntarily lifting the third finger to a certain degree, which you have to overcome by pushing down harder with that finger.  Clearly no good.  And the cocontraction of the extensors (which run OVER your wrist), and the major flexors (which run UNDER your wrist) obviously leads to a stiff wrist. 

Instead of actively lifting your fingers, I think you should, as often as possible, let the keys lift your fingers for you by just relaxing them.  The only time you should use your extensors is when you want to deliberately stiffen your wrist, like when playing chords, but only at the instant that your hand goes down into the keys, never continuously like he advocates.

I'd like to have, if you don't mind, some of Bernhard's or Marik's thoughts on this matter.

[PaulNaud]

His playing  is may be the result of his finger technique.
If you listen carefully to his performances, the sound is lacking in depth; the piano have a very resonant acoustic and a slightly metallic tone. There is not really enough dynamic range and the result is that the ear tires very rapidly. 

[PaulNaud]

I'd like to add one thought about Sandor's piano playing that could be related to his technique.
Sandor's playing brings out fully the percussive side to Bartok's piano writing for example. Much of his playing is strong in personality, though a whole disc of it is a little wearing.

[danny elfboy]

Resuming the weight vs. speed vs. accelleration vs. kinetic energy thread ...

I want to sum it up what has been said and try to find a rational and logical conclusion to it all, because this is what I have been exploring myself lately: the role of gravity, weight, accelleration in playing.

I don't like labels but to make it clear enough I'm definitely of the "arm weight school" rather than the "finger centered school". So I put more emphasys on the whole playing apparatus (as someone said: on the large levers) rather than straining the fingers by using them in isolation hence having to rely on energy-wasting and large motions at the small joints.

In relying on shorter motions at the finger joints level and relying more on the arm lever and larger motions at the elbow joint, I've always believed that what I'm using is the weight of the arm and that differences in forte and piano sounds is due to the amount of support from the upper arms and sternum hence different degrees of how much of the weight is supported versus released (which of course doesn't mean a concrete change of weight or mass is occurring at the arm level)

But is really weight the point here or rather accelleration?
Given a 1.6 oz of weight necessary to depress a key, does the difference between 1.6 oz and 5.6 oz falling from the same height results in a difference in volume of the sound (hence in the speed exerted to the hammer) ?
And how that would happen given that different weights of the same shape fall at the same speed?

To summarize what has been said:

Sandor writes “Weight alone is also of little use, unless it is set in motion. Even if a ton of weight is applied to the key, it does not produce a sound unless it moves downwards with a certain speed. It is speed that generates sounds, not weight; therefore let us use as little weight as possible when generating speed”.

But couldn't you also say “Speed alone is also of little use, unless it has weight”?

Sandor writes “The volume of sound depends exclusively on the speed of the hammer hitting the strings... Whether this speed is generated by a small or large weight is immaterial. The notion that the full weight of the arm produces more sound than a lighter weight is erroneous: the fact is that the activation of a longer lever generates more speed than a shorter one”.

[/size]

If you keep in mind that Sandor is talking about the speed of the hammer hitting the string you will see that he is right.  It makes no difference if the key was struck with a straw or an iron bar, if the resulting speed of the hammer is the same, the audible result will be the same.  The reason why the whole arm stroke can generate greater power is that using such a large lever can generate greater velocity, which. added to the actions of the elbow, wrist and fingers can add up to the greatest velocity

[/size]

“The volume of sound depends exclusively on the speed with which the hammer hits the strings, regardless of weight that generates that speed.”

[/i][/size]

The speed of the hammer depends on the speed of key descend which, as above, is independent of the weight of the object falling.  You might be confusing weight with the effort you are making to depress the key.

[/size]

nyquist - get a light object and drop it onto middle C from a certain height. Now get a heavy object and drop it onto middle C from the exact same starting height. What results do you get? Please try this experiment and let me know of the results.

I get exactly the same volume.  What results do you get?

[/size]

Most of the momentum is dissipated as heat in the keybed or in the joints of the pianist (or in rebound!).  The piano keyboard is much more of a velocity transfer contraption than a momentum transfer one.  When the falling body hits the keybed it has not slowed down much, yet the hammer is already in free flight.

[/size]

How can more weight increases the velocity of the hammer?
And if it can't than the opposite of "finger centered school" is not playing with the weight of the arm but playing with the more efficient speed and acceleration provided by such a large lever as the arm.

What do you think?
What can we conclude?
The debate is re-opened.

[counterpoint]

Almost every pianist uses a combination of finger movement and arm weight (+ other tricks    )

[danny elfboy]

Almost every pianist uses a combination of finger movement and arm weight (+ other tricks    )

Yes, it's all integrated.
Either locking the arm and playing with fingers over a stiff fulcrum or releasing the arm and playing with stiff fingers is unefficient and straining.

But the point is that the arm component doesn't seem to depend on weight.
Reading the debate so far it seems the arm has little to do with weight just with mechanically created speed. Still curious to know the truth.

[nyquist]

But the point is that the arm component doesn't seem to depend on weight.
Reading the debate so far it seems the arm has little to do with weight just with mechanically created speed. Still curious to know the truth.

I think that one would have to perform a lot of controlled experiments in a lab setting to really know what is happening.  However, it does not stop me from having hypotheses.  I believe that the arm being more massive and, therefore,  having more inertia than the fingers is, perhaps paradoxically, easier to control. (The operational word is "mass" rather than "weight".)  Simplistically: one gets the mass of the forearm moving and lets that inertia play the key.  For example, I find that it is easier to play pianissimo  by involving the arm than by using only fingers.  

I study the Taubman approach that teaches that the forearm gets involved rotationally with every played note.  (The rotation can be very small.)  This approach provides a very nice uniformity of touch because of the movement of the relatively massive arm is behind the movement of the different fingers.  It is not just the muscles that move the finger attempting to move the key.  One is not at the mercy of the different strengths of the different fingers.  There are no more weak fingers. 

The basic touch, say, for passage work is created by the combination of two movements:  the finger moves from the knuckle joint; the knuckle joint itself is moving in a small arch together with the forearm rotation. If you are interested in this approach there is a series of videos, "The Taubman Techniques",  that demonstrate it.  The videos are expensive but many college libraries have copies.

nyquist

[danny elfboy]

I think that one would have to perform a lot of controlled experiments in a lab setting to really know what is happening.  However, it does not stop me from having hypotheses.  I believe that the arm being more massive and, therefore,  having more inertia than the fingers is, perhaps paradoxically, easier to control. (The operational word is "mass" rather than "weight".)  Simplistically: one gets the mass of the forearm moving and lets that inertia play the key.  For example, I find that it is easier to play pianissimo  by involving the arm than by using only fingers.

I too have speculated it's about inertia.
The difference degree of support (from the upper arm and the sternum) is too a matter of inertia I guess.

But how to explain the fact that you're saying that more weight doesn't mean more volume or stronger sound while others say that in their experiment the more weight the more sound. Like 1.6 oz of glued coins vs. 5 oz of glued coins from falling from the same height?

I study the Taubman approach that teaches that the forearm gets involved rotationally with every played note.  (The rotation can be very small.)  This approach provides a very nice uniformity of touch because of the movement of the relatively massive arm is behind the movement of the different fingers.  It is not just the muscles that move the finger attempting to move the key.  One is not at the mercy of the different strengths of the different fingers.  There are no more weak fingers.

I have been involved with similar concepts.
I have followed feldenkrais and alexander technique for 2 years.
Also other courses involving the McCall and orthobionomics approach at the instrument.

My technique is more shaped over that of Matthay: the lifting of the forearm and wrist in depressing a note or a group of notes. In other word a small but constant lifting impulse of the wrist and arm. This videos shows what I mean:

https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/movies/Schumslow.avi

I have always call it "wrist impulse". Others call it "wrist phrasing". I have learned yesterday someone call it "arm stroke".
 
I'm especially interested what is going in on here.
I know this is an healthy way of playing and it has been confirmed by my classes in funtional anatomy, feldenkrais and alexander. But Matthay said that what this motion is about is "depressing the keys with the weight of the arm" but we're kind of questioning this view ... right? So, since you've studied Taubamn and there are similarities with Alexander, what do you think is involved in this impulse or stroke?

If you are interested in this approach there is a series of videos, "The Taubman Techniques",  that demonstrate it.  The videos are expensive but many college libraries have copies.

I'm interested in the Taubman approach indeed but it is not known where I like and I don't have 500$

[nyquist]

My technique is more shaped over that of Matthay: the lifting of the forearm and wrist in depressing a note or a group of notes. In other word a small but constant lifting impulse of the wrist and arm. This videos shows what I mean:

https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/movies/Schumslow.avi

I have always call it "wrist impulse". Others call it "wrist phrasing". I have learned yesterday someone call it "arm stroke".
 
I'm especially interested what is going in on here.
I know this is an healthy way of playing and it has been confirmed by my classes in funtional anatomy, feldenkrais and alexander. But Matthay said that what this motion is about is "depressing the keys with the weight of the arm" but we're kind of questioning this view ... right? So, since you've studied Taubamn and there are similarities with Alexander, what do you think is involved in this impulse or stroke?

I have read the Matthay books without much success.  I cannot translate them to the piano.  I do not know of anybody teaching the approach where I live.

The movements shown in the video link you provided are definitely not in the Taubman repertory.  An essential part of the Taubman approach is that the connexion between forearm and hand is maintained as much as possible.  The wrist does not bend as in that video.  There are a few video excerpts of the Taubman tapes in the link below:

https://www.taubman-institute.com/html/web_videos.html

I don't believe that there is a single one true way to play the piano.  What I like about the Taubman approach is that it is comprised of a self-consistent (small) set of principles that are applied uniformly and predictably (you know what you should be doing given the music).  Also, many testimonials indicate that it is a healthy way of playing.  There are other approaches that I have no experience with that may be equally useful.  If you like the wrist-phrasing movement shown in the link from Richard Beauchamp's page, you might like  Barbara Lister Sink's video "Freeing the Caged Bird":

https://www.freeingthecagedbird.com/

nyquist

[nick]

I think that one would have to perform a lot of controlled experiments in a lab setting to really know what is happening.  However, it does not stop me from having hypotheses.  I believe that the arm being more massive and, therefore,  having more inertia than the fingers is, perhaps paradoxically, easier to control. (The operational word is "mass" rather than "weight".)  Simplistically: one gets the mass of the forearm moving and lets that inertia play the key.  For example, I find that it is easier to play pianissimo  by involving the arm than by using only fingers.  

I study the Taubman approach that teaches that the forearm gets involved rotationally with every played note.  (The rotation can be very small.)  This approach provides a very nice uniformity of touch because of the movement of the relatively massive arm is behind the movement of the different fingers.  It is not just the muscles that move the finger attempting to move the key.  One is not at the mercy of the different strengths of the different fingers.  There are no more weak fingers. 

The basic touch, say, for passage work is created by the combination of two movements:  the finger moves from the knuckle joint; the knuckle joint itself is moving in a small arch together with the forearm rotation. If you are interested in this approach there is a series of videos, "The Taubman Techniques",  that demonstrate it.  The videos are expensive but many college libraries have copies.

nyquist

Does the Taubman approach give indications of what practice speed is best to achieve ones tempo speed, ie slow, medium, or faster once the correct movements and notes are learned?

Nick

[phillip21]

It is some years since I read the Sandor book, but I seem to recall that he advocated extensive use of the sostenuto pedal.  That is, I'm sure, good advice.  The problem is that although my piano at home (a Kawai) has one, very few of the pianos I play outside (for concerts, rehearsals and even exams, as accompanist) have one.  For this reason it seems that the only people who can take up his advice would be professional recitalists playing industry-standard instruments.

Phillip