Technique and Power - A Correlation?

[invictious]

This is one which I ought to have noticed many years ago, and posted about it.

Is there a direct relationship between the level of technical proficiency of a pianist and the loudness of his playing?

I realised that few of my pianist friends who had excellent technique played quite loudly when I asked them to demonstrate a specific passage. It is not banging, but firmness in tone.

Take another example, I once watched Li Yundi teaching a masterclass with a younger girl. The piece was Chopin's Polonaise Op.26 in C-sharp minor. When the girl played, I thought the volume was acceptable, especially in the opening notes. When Yundi played, however, he played it with such gusto and volume that I literally jumped in my seat. His tone was certainly bolder, and of course, louder.

One of my theories is that since they are concert pianists, they are more used to playing at concert volume. As I was taught when playing the cello, what sounds like a forte to myself only sounds like a piano to the audience when played in a concert hall situation. I had to play louder to compensate for the difference in the perception of volume.

Of course, they generally have better technique, knowing how to exert force etc.

What I am really interested is the legends of Liszt playing the piano. Back then, the pianos were not as sturdy as the ones we have today, including the frame, the strings, keys etc. I read that Liszt would always break piano strings, and even break piano frames! Even if the pianos were not a strong as they are today, I think it is still an amazing feat to accomplish. It sounds like it would require a ridiculous amount of force to consistently break piano strings in many concerts.

I also read that Liszt would play so loudly that the seats under the audience would vibrate. I think it is still impressive today even a pianists manages the same effect with a modern massive grand pianos that Steinway produces. Yet, back then, the pianos were surely not as resonant as they are today. It seems simply amazing that Liszt would be able to produce such drastic effects with a piano.

On a side note, it would be unfortunate with be neighbours with Liszt!

Anyone care to shed some light? Maybe practicing pieces with full force (hopefully with proper technique) will assist in acquiring technique?

PS. Would be great if someone could share more legends about the piano playing of Liszt, like how he sight-read Grieg's Piano Concerto. I cannot find any documentaries of Liszt on youtube, unfortunately..

[musicluvr49]

Hi invictious,

Could it be that pianists with more technical proficiency play more with their arms than with their hands? I've found that less experienced pianists tend to play more from the wrists and hands than from their arms. I've also found that playing from the arms produces a much louder sound, and it sound a lot better than the loud that you get from just banging down from the hands or the wrist.

[richard black]

Frankly, no. I was working with a composer the other week, for instance, who plays piano to a reasonable level but is no Horowitz technically, but good grief, he has a big tone. Conversely, I've come across plenty of pianists who can get around lightning-fast but never seem to make much tone.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi invictious,

Could it be that pianists with more technical proficiency play more with their arms than with their hands? I've found that less experienced pianists tend to play more from the wrists and hands than from their arms. I've also found that playing from the arms produces a much louder sound, and it sound a lot better than the loud that you get from just banging down from the hands or the wrist.

While it's a little bit of a simplification, I'd actually say the opposite, if anything. There are principles of leverage that mean the optimal style of concise movement in the hand can transfer energy very efficiently- for a big sound without wasted energy. The mistake is when people isolate the fingers with a stiff arm, but this is something altogether different and does not accurately represent the limits of what the hand can do with a properly loose arm. The arm itself cannot product a true "pull" of the keys in anything like the same way as anything in the hand. Although it can provide more brute force it has to use much more wasteful pushing actions. There is a way in which you can reap the benefits of both a very efficient levering action in the hand AND additional power from the arm. Skilled pianists understand both elements, whereas amateur pianists often rely upon applying brute force through either a flaccid or stiff hand. You often see such players banging like hell but producing little tone- because most of the energy they expend fails to go anywhere productive. I'm working on a post that gives practical demonstrations of all of these principles, based on using a pencil to move a key. When you lever the pencil in the right way, you can make a very big tone with very little effort. When you don't lever the pencil (and treat it merely as an extension of the arm), there's little the arm can do to compensate apart from applying brute force.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can see this in Fiorentino, by the way:

Although he sometimes uses an arm drop or a a tiny moment of pressure, more often than not the efficiency of his hand actions are more than enough for a big sound. However, his arms are visibly extremely loose. It has absolutely nothing to do with stiffening the arm while doing so.

[musicluvr49]

I completely agree with you that both the power from the arm and the action in the hands should be used while playing, but I never said anything about stiffening the arm.

[nyiregyhazi]

I completely agree with you that both the power from the arm and the action in the hands should be used while playing, but I never said anything about stiffening the arm.

I think you misunderstand what I mean. I don't think power from the arm is necessary at all for most playing. It's just an optional extra for the very biggest moments of all. More often than not simply keeping it loose is enough. It's this bit I disagree with:

"I've found that less experienced pianists tend to play more from the wrists and hands than from their arms."

This is only a problem when the rest of the arm is stiffened. Many pianists, notably Horowitz, could achieve collossal power with action in the hand. I find the above to be an excellent description of exactly how many of the MOST experienced pianists play. Pianists who have such a starting point can often add arm pressures effectively. However, it's overwhelmingly common to see pianists with no finger technique at all pounding with the arms and failing to get a big tone. Ironically, dependency on arm pressure can be the greatest enemy to the effortless big sound.

[musicluvr49]

Ok, so you're saying that playing just with the hand can produce just as loud of a sound as playing with power from the arm? Sorry, but I just find that hard to believe... I think that many pianists, though they do use the action from the hands, also use power from the arms to create a louder sound. Of course, there is a way to do this, and a way not to do this. An amateur pianist could try to use this technique, and fail to get the same results as a proffesional.
Also, if the arm is loose, I think its inevitable that some of the power from the arm will be used to create a louder sound.
I haven't studied piano science or anything though, so I could be wrong. But.. what you're saying just isn't making sense to me, sorry. Don't feel like getting into a whole debate about it though...

[nyiregyhazi]

An amateur pianist could try to use this technique, and fail to get the same results as a proffesional.
Also, if the arm is loose, I think its inevitable that some of the power from the arm will be used to create a louder sound.

In a sense, absolutely. However, I think the way it's phrased can be important. Many people (myself included for a long time) misunderstand phrases like "arm power" as literally meaning arm pressure. So I always pressed for power. If the arm simply hangs free and loose, strictly speaking the hand is where all the energy comes from (unless the arm actually moves). The arm's release stabilises and enables far more power, but the power comes from the hand. You can get big sounds with this. It's a place where subjective impressions can be very different and there's much room for confusion. However, my own technique has improved hugely since I basically threw out active arm pressure and concentrated on training the hand. My power has certainly improved since I stopped using so much brute force and worked on more efficient use of the levers. I realised that a lot of what I had been doing was equivalent to trying to press through a piece of foam-killing most of the input energy.

[nearenough]

In my opinion there is much nonsense on this topic: fingers, hand, forearm, upper arm, upper back, lower back, position, chair too high, too low, just right. A book going on and on with all this is Reginald R. Gerig's Famous Pianist & Their Technique.

How about listening to a recording and telling anyone what components of what are in the sound? That's all it amounts to. I know you can't do it.

I love the swan-like wafting of the hand and wrist AFTER the note(s) are struck. Impressive (not). And using the leg to hoist one up after smashing a chord (Rubinstein used to do that, but everybody was in on the joke).

Horowitz cunningly played softly when he knew a louder passage was coming up which would then seem all the louder for the contrast.

Only Rachmaninoff and Hoffman are worthy for additional comment here. They knew how to play to great effect and I believe neither was notable in demonstrative athletic show-offsmanship.

[nyiregyhazi]

In my opinion there is much nonsense on this topic: fingers, hand, forearm, upper arm, upper back, lower back, position, chair too high, too low, just right. A book going on and on with all this is Reginald R. Gerig's Famous Pianist & Their Technique.

How about listening to a recording and telling anyone what components of what are in the sound? That's all it amounts to. I know you can't do it.

Why would you have to be able to? It makes as much sense as asking whether you can identify the details of golfer's swing from watching a shot land. What matters is the result, BUT the means is what directly produces the result. Without a decent means, you don't get decent results. Some styles of movement are at odds with achieving good results. That is why people study technique- to improve the means to an end. If I hear a pianist with poor technique, I often get a fair idea as to what problems that pianist might have physically and where technical issues are preventing the intentions from being realised. However, whether I'd be 100% correct or not matters little. What matters is that, while there's more than one "good" way, there are many "bad" ways of moving that can very audibly compromise the results. The fact that the results can be heard is the issue- not whether anybody can make specific association with the movement used by ear.

[keyboardclass]

Ok, so you're saying that playing just with the hand can produce just as loud of a sound as playing with power from the arm? Sorry, but I just find that hard to believe...

Exactly.  Also the conviction that the more you type the closer you are to the truth...(and not to forget liberal use of obfuscation - ketchup that hides the tasteless offerings)

[invictious]

Just to break up the little debate here, I read somewhere about how the Czerny etc would advocate for action mainly focused on the wrists, but Liszt would use his whole arm and even his back muscles in the production of a massive tone! Rather violent, don't you think?

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly.  Also the conviction that the more you type the closer you are to the truth...(and not to forget liberal use of obfuscation - ketchup that hides the tasteless offerings)

If you find words intimidating, simply compare how Fiorentino plays with this typical demonstration of how poorly trained pianists achieve their power:

No amount of arm pressure can replace an absence of proper lever actions within the hand. Fiorentino barely needs to do anything with his arms beyond keep them loose. Arm pressures are an occasional extra, but truly great players are not dependent upon them for power in the same way amateurs tend to be. When they use them it's down to choice- not lack of options. Any fool can use the big muscles in the arm to bang a piano and make a noisy sound. It's really not very difficult. The big difference the action of the hand- does it just stiffen to transfer brute force with low efficiency or does it actually lever the keys?

[keyboardclass]

As you know full well, much of a good pianist's technique is invisible - you can't use what you think you're seeing as evidence to support any theory.

[musicluvr49]

Exactly.  Also the conviction that the more you type the closer you are to the truth...(and not to forget liberal use of obfuscation - ketchup that hides the tasteless offerings)

Umm.. Sorry,  but I'm not sure what you're talking about? 

[nyiregyhazi]

As you know full well, much of a good pianist's technique is invisible - you can't use what you think you're seeing as evidence to support any theory.

A lot of that which is invisible is also non-existant. It's often a very convenient way of twisting reality to fit a theory, regardless of the lack of evidence for it. Taubman's rotation is a classic example of citing the invisible to support a preconceived explanation. What is abundantly visible is that many amateur pianists work their arms extremely hard, but that many skilled pianists scarcely work their arms at all. If you explore the basic physics of levers, the reasons quickly becomes clear. Pianists like Fiorentino require substantially less arm pressure (which is not remotely invisible), because they use the more efficient lever action in the hand (which is far from invisible in the close-up films of his playing). The principles of leverage are entirely subject to proof and I am currently writing an article detailing such proofs.

[keyboardclass]

You cannot understand what really happens solely from a superficial exterior.

[nyiregyhazi]

Indeed- that's why I am exploring the laws of physics, to looker deeper beneath the surface. There's a difference between coming up with a random and unevidenced conjecture and saying "it's there but it's invisible" and identifying an issue of mechanical efficiency (that while not obvious to the naked eye, is fully subject to proof).

[keyboardclass]

Indeed- that's why I am exploring the laws of physics, to looker deeper beneath the surface. There's a difference between coming up with a random and unevidenced conjecture and saying "it's there but it's invisible" and identifying an issue of mechanical efficiency (that while not obvious to the naked eye, is fully subject to proof).

No amount of physics (laughable or not) is going to tell you what is going on in the interior of a good pianist.

[nyiregyhazi]

No amount of physics (laughable or not) is going to tell you what is going on in the interior of a good pianist.

I didn't say it provides the whole picture of every individual detail. However, it certainly explains many of the general principles that allow some pianists to achieve huge sounds with very little motion and expenditure of energy. It also explains various aspects of why many poor pianists expend so much energy while achieving so little sound. If what goes on in the interior is not consistent with the principles that create the possbility of efficiency, the results are not efficient. It's really not terribly complex. That which is inefficient requires high energy input. That which is efficient requires low energy input- and enables the concise actions great pianists use.

Scoff all you like. You're governed by the laws of physics the same as every other pianist in the world. Ignoring the nature of possibility does not change it.

[keyboardclass]

Scoff all you like. You're governed by the laws of physics the same as every other pianist in the world. Ignoring the nature of possibility does not change it.

Yes, but I like those laws interpreted by someone with more than a grade school qualification!

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, but I like those laws interpreted by someone with more than a grade school qualification!

I've said this before and I'll say it again- if there are any factual errors in any physics I have cited then please expose them. Claiming that something you know nothing about is wrong, does not make it so. It just shows that you would like it to be wrong- perhaps because so much of it conflicts with many of the factually inaccurate statements you keep repeating? Perhaps the errors are just "invisible"?

[keyboardclass]

Science doesn't work like that - yours is the burden of proof.  If you're that frustrated why don't you just post one of my vids and slag that off as usual?

[nyiregyhazi]

Science doesn't work like that - yours is the burden of proof.  If you're that frustrated why don't you just post one of my vids and slag that off as usual?

The proofs of what I say ARE detailed in my blog. If you feel that you have cause to dispute them, feel free to make use of the comments section with a full explanation of what you dispute and why. If not, please stop cluttering this thread with mere personal attacks and innuendo that you are not prepared to put any argumentative substance behind. It contributes nothing to discussion of the topic.

[thalbergmad]

It don't take much to start you two off

[keyboardclass]

The proofs of what I say ARE detailed in my blog.

In which case maybe you could confine your comments to there.

[nyiregyhazi]

Einstein didn't need no blog.  If you can't say it short and sweet quoting your sources (the 'I am the source' doesn't cut it in science) then it ain't worth no hill o'beans.

Why are you so intent on repeatedly exposing your ignorance? How many times must you be told that NEWTONIAN MECHANICS is the source!!! Application of these accepted premises do not require a further source- any more than applications of standard mental arithmetic do. If you want to attack me by repeating your misunderstandings ad infinitum, please find somewhere else to do it. It has nothing do with this topic.

[keyboardclass]

NEWTONIAN MECHANICS is the source!!!

Of which you have knowledge beyond grade school???  Those with a real knowledge of physics who have read your posts (and their have been plenty, poor devils) have, without exception,  pronounced your physics bogus.

[richard black]

I've said this before and I'll say it again- if there are any factual errors in any physics I have cited then please expose them.

OK.

I don't think power from the arm is necessary at all for most playing.

Then you think wrong. Power from the arm is necessary to raise the hand and move it around. This may not be directly relevant to playing loudly or with any specific kind of sound but it's correct physics. 'Power' from the arm, in the strict scientific sense of the word, is indeed not needed for pressing the keys down, even with the utmost force: power is a quantity measured in newton.metres/second - equivalent to force times velocity - and since the arm doesn't need to move anywhere its velocity may be zero, making its power contribution zero whatever force it is applying.

However, the arm applies downward _force_ practically all the time in playing the piano because the hand has insufficient mass to give the keys the downward acceleration required to sound loud enough and in quick enough succession. I don't care what it feels like: there are muscles in your arm providing downward force in any passages apart from the slow and/or quiet.

I think the attempt to harness science in the service of playing the piano better and more efficiently is admirable. However, I have to say that a small number of individuals in this (and other) thread(s) are not only misapplying science but doing so in a distinctly unscientific spirit involving personal sniping and arguments along the lines of 'I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot', a line of argument which itself, I submit, makes the proponent look an idiot.

[nyiregyhazi]

Of which you have knowledge beyond grade school???  Those with a real knowledge of physics who have read your posts (and their have been plenty, poor devils) have, without exception,  pronounced your physics bogus.

"without exception"? Are you intent on being sued for professionally libelling me? The only person who claimed I said anything bogus was a pedant, eager to find something to "correct" at any cost. Unfortunately, his idea of a "correction" was to try to pick me up for attributing a movement to gravity. Considering that the kinetic energy from that very movement is transferred directly from gravitational potential energy, he actually made a very embarrassing schoolboy error.

I appreciate that you would very much like me to have no idea what I am talking about. However, that does not make it so. Regardless, these persistent allegations have zero to do with either this thread or even the comments I have made within it. If you are intent on forcing me to spoil this thread further, by having to defend myself against false off-topic accusations, please at least have the courtesy to provide some supportive substance for them- rather than vague hearsay.

[nyiregyhazi]

"However, the arm applies downward _force_ practically all the time in playing the piano because the hand has insufficient mass to give the keys the downward acceleration required to sound loud enough and in quick enough succession."

You say this as if you assume I would disagree. I do not. The entire approach I am writing up is fundamentally based upon the passive role of a free arm- and how much this enables the hand to do, before you add active muscular pressure from the arm. I disagree with the latter:

"I don't care what it feels like: there are muscles in your arm providing downward force in any passages apart from the slow and/or quiet."

What proof is there of this? Some people choose to play that way. It does not define the limits of possibility, however. Why present that as if incontrovertible fact? An arm can be used as passively as you choose to use it. In a passive role, it's possible to stabilise the hand with a very big counterforce- which enables very loud sounds to originate via the hand. None of this is based on the arm pressing into the keys to add power.

"'I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot', a line of argument which itself, I submit, makes the proponent look an idiot."

Where have I said that? I am simply challenging standard assumptions about what is possible from the hand. Where does that suddenly translate into meaning "I think there's only one way to play the piano and everyone else is wrong". What I am saying is that I believe a lot more is possible than people widely assume. Is that too arrogant? It seems to me that others are saying "that's clearly impossible", whereas I am simply suggesting that it really can be done.

[richard black]

"I don't care what it feels like: there are muscles in your arm providing downward force in any passages apart from the slow and/or quiet."

What proof is there of this?

As I said above - the weight of the hand is simply insufficient to press enough keys hard enough in most passages of piano music. End of subject, really. I write that, ironically, as someone whose arms are so relaxed while playing that you might easily think I had no muscles in them at all. I actually play, as far as I can judge, pretty much in the way you advocate. It's just that some of the reasons you have for advocating it are untenable, to the extent I understand your (often unclear) reasoning.

[nyiregyhazi]

As I said above - the weight of the hand is simply insufficient to press enough keys hard enough in most passages of piano music. End of subject, really.

Why not stabilise it from both ends? If you are claiming this is impossible I would be very interested in the explanation as to why. You've accused me of arrogance, but now you're casually dismissing all other possibilities outright?

When the finger pulls it draws the arm forwards. When the upper arm is released, it causes a chain reaction that ends in the hand being pulled backwards at the wrist. Why do you speak of it as if dead weight is the only means of stabilisation? It isn't. It's also possible to pull backwards a little extra still. None of this provides direct pressure into the keys. However it certainly does keep the hand stable enough to pull VERY hard. It's exactly the same principle as when pulling a chain taut with contrary forces at both ends. It becomes more stable. As soon as you introduce such forces, the lack of weight in the hand becomes a non-issue.

[richard black]

I'm sorry, I can't reply to that last post as I haven't a bleeding clue what you're on about.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry, I can't reply to that last post as I haven't a bleeding clue what you're on about.

Two contrary forces. The finger pulls on the key causing a reaction force that draws the wrist forwards. A released upper arm results in forces that pull back at the wrist (the released upper arm pulls back at the elbow, hence causing a pull back at the wrist). These cancel out and stabilise the hand- just the same as when you pull a chain taut from opposite ends. What's so complex? This makes the low mass of the hand a total non-issue. Anything that stems from that premise cannot be used to account for the limits of possibility.

[richard black]

I'm sorry, I can't reply to that last post as I haven't a bleeding clue what you're on about.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry, I can't reply to that last post as I haven't a bleeding clue what you're on about.

Okay, take a piece of very light but strong metal wire. Pull it from both ends. When it's taut, does it's minimal mass prevent it from bearing large forces? No. Assuming the wire is strong enough, the low mass is a total non-issue. Low mass doesn't prevent it resisting force. It's down to how taut it is being kept by the pair of opposing forces.

This post details more about how the arm can be stabilised along much the same principle:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.com/2011/03/alignment-and-role-of-arms-part-i.html

When the wrist is suspended by two equal opposing forces, it can resist the reaction forces- regardless of the low mass. Can you clarify what confuses you about this? Why would this be an unfeasible scenario? When you talk of the weight of the hand- are you talking about dropping dead-weight? I'm not referring to simply flopping a dead hand onto the piano. I'm talking about moving the fingers from a stable arm.

[richard black]

Look, I'm sorry, I really can't be bothered. Please learn some physics if you're going to start trying to argue about physics. Read up particularly on the issue of inertia, which is absolutely germane to my earlier posts.

And for the members of Pianostreet who are following this thread for amusement, I apologise for contributing to yet more pointless verbiage - my excuse is that I'm supposed to be sitting at this computer writing something I'm not very interested in, and this is excellent work avoidance. Not very impressive, is it? I'll try to resist the temptation in future 

[nyiregyhazi]

Look, I'm sorry, I really can't be bothered. Please learn some physics if you're going to start trying to argue about physics. Read up particularly on the issue of inertia, which is absolutely germane to my earlier posts.

And for the members of Pianostreet who are following this thread for amusement, I apologise for contributing to yet more pointless verbiage - my excuse is that I'm supposed to be sitting at this computer writing something I'm not very interested in, and this is excellent work avoidance. Not very impressive, is it? I'll try to resist the temptation in future  

Sorry, but you haven't given me anything very useful by way of response. I'm more than familiar with inertia- which is exactly why I made the point about the low mass wire. If you have a point, can I ask you to actually make it rather than vaguely allude to it? Earlier you were claiming that the low mass means a hand action cannot result in loud playing. I've illustrated that it's perfectly possible for something of a miniscule mass to resist forces, but you haven't given me anything by way of a follow up.

Does a taut steel wire depend on inertia to remain stable? Quite simply, no. It does not. Inertia is just one single factor in what can stabilise the arm against the reaction forces that the keys send back at it. It is not the single factor that dictates the limits of possibility. A wrist can be additionally stabilised by a pair of horizontal forces- just like a wire. There's more than inertia to consider.

[jinfiesto]

Nyireghazi, while I would welcome a scientific explanation of why our wonderful instrument works the way it does, I don't think that the Newtonian mechanics you seem to be familiar with is sufficient. I embarked down a similar path once and came to that conclusion. I haven't read your posts in depth, but the piano is a complex enough mechanism warrants a statics/dynamics approach to the issues. You can't simply use high school physics to explain the problem. Statics/dynamics is of course still Newtonian physics.

Also, Richard Black, he "thinks wrongly" not "thinks wrong"

[keyboardclass]

As I said above - the weight of the hand is simply insufficient to press enough keys hard enough in most passages of piano music. End of subject, really. I write that, ironically, as someone whose arms are so relaxed while playing that you might easily think I had no muscles in them at all. I actually play, as far as I can judge, pretty much in the way you advocate. It's just that some of the reasons you have for advocating it are untenable, to the extent I understand your (often unclear) reasoning.

Ditto.

[lostinidlewonder]

Using physics to describe what you do at the piano mechanically/technically is about as futile as trying to explain painting with physics describing the forces which you hold your drawing tools and the forces that you cause when it touches the medium you are drawing on. I am sure that some posters are very serious about looking at piano in peculiar ways, but you don't have to go so far as to say other people are incorrect and then ram jam your damn ideologies down our throat. If we do not understand what you say that does not mean that your ideas are superior one bit, it highlights a failure in your ability to make others understand, also, perhaps your ideas are only meant for the certain few, who like to look at musical art with marginalized perspectives.

I think not even the best teacher in the world can put in words piano technique that will help everyone, sure there are generalizations that can be used, but certainly it seems to me quite pathetic when one tries to generalize everything to do with piano playing and use obscure tools to describe it with. It is a known truth that what one does at the piano cannot be written completely in words, there needs to be a combination of words, physical direction, sound observation and consideration for the individual person, with these elements required to be satisfied for effective teaching one can see how silly it can be to try to solve technical issues completely with words.



With regards to the topic, when performing you need to take notice of the size of the room that you are playing in. Experienced performers will adjust their playing as they carefully measure the projection of sound while they play. Often I cannot hear it when I am sitting at the piano so I always ask someone else to play and I walk around the area. I have met performers who neglect the size of the room they play in (and for competitions in large halls the comments tend to be about this, they play wonderfully but they are playing piano like they are in their small room at home!), I watch many competitions where fantastic players also ignore the size of the room or the type of piano they are playing on. These things are difficult to teach because they come from experience, you need to have experience playing on many piano, you need to have experience playing in different sized rooms. Some people are just stuck in their little box, many of my students simply always play piano in their home, when they are asked to play on a concert stage they tend to sound so much softer because they are just not used to project their sound. The very top concert pianists tend to play very loud because they often play in large halls, I can relate to this from one of my old teachers who is still one of the top international concert pianist today, he played very loud and almost harsh when playing in small rooms, but in concert halls it was very much appreciated.

[richard black]

Back again  

Me:

"However, the arm applies downward _force_ practically all the time in playing the piano because the hand has insufficient mass to give the keys the downward acceleration required to sound loud enough and in quick enough succession."

Nyiregehazi:

You say this as if you assume I would disagree. I do not. ....

Me:

"I don't care what it feels like: there are muscles in your arm providing downward force in any passages apart from the slow and/or quiet."

Ny:

What proof is there of this?

Well, if you agree with my first statement about the arm providing downward force I don't see how you can really question the latter.

'Stabilising' the hand has nothing to do with the fact that the hand isn't heavy enough to press down enough keys fast enough - it hasn't enough inertial mass. Therefore the arm must pull it down at least some of the time. This is done by muscles in the arm (lower, upper, as appropriate). The keys too have significant inertia, after all.

Also, Richard Black, he "thinks wrongly" not "thinks wrong"

He's right, you know! Careless of me.

[keyboardclass]

'Stabilising' the hand has nothing to do with the fact that the hand isn't heavy enough to press down enough keys fast enough - it hasn't enough inertial mass. Therefore the arm must pull it down at least some of the time. This is done by muscles in the arm (lower, upper, as appropriate). The keys too have significant inertia, after all.

Oh no, not the dreaded 'stabilized hand'??  For that read constant tension!

[nyiregyhazi]

'Stabilising' the hand has nothing to do with the fact that the hand isn't heavy enough to press down enough keys fast enough - it hasn't enough inertial mass. Therefore the arm must pull it down at least some of the time. This is done by muscles in the arm (lower, upper, as appropriate). The keys too have significant inertia, after all.

I'm really struggling to see logic behind that. The hand is certainly heavy enough. You could fire a gun at a piano key and produce plenty of tone with a far smaller mass. When the action of the hand is used (rather than a dead drop) there's more than enough mass- provided that you use adequate muscular acceleration. Can you please clarify why you feel it's a given that a hand does not have enough mass? I see no basis for that assertion.

Also, as I said earlier, I'm not talking about a stiffened arm (which is about the closest you can get to simulating a situation where the arm's inertia plays no role). I'm talking about a released arm- but not arm that involves active pressure from the muscles. Why are you speaking about it as if the inertia of a released arm could not be a factor in stabilising a hand action? That does not follow. Whether it's a whole arm thrust or an action in the hand, the arm's inertia remains.

If you start with a bent thumb and use an action of straightening it to sound a key, the whole arm will be pushed upwards. If the arm is in a released state, there's no need for a jot of actively instigated muscular pressure in the rest of the arm. The thumb straightens and in doing so causes the arm to be raised up around the thumb- involving its inertia, which has certainly not vanished. It's possible to make a huge sound with such an action. Just because the action occurs in the thumb, does not stop the arm's inertia being fully involved. In no way is the action limited in the way a disembodied thumb would be.

Actively instigated muscular pressure from the arm is a choice, not a necessity. Sounds all way up to a healthy fortissimo can be produced with a released arm and hand actions. It's simply not accurate to claim it's impossible without active muscular pressure in the arm. The arm can work extremely passively. You say yourself that your arm often feels so relaxed it seems to fit such a description. Why would it be hard to believe that it really is?

[nyiregyhazi]

Nyireghazi, while I would welcome a scientific explanation of why our wonderful instrument works the way it does, I don't think that the Newtonian mechanics you seem to be familiar with is sufficient. I embarked down a similar path once and came to that conclusion. I haven't read your posts in depth, but the piano is a complex enough mechanism warrants a statics/dynamics approach to the issues. You can't simply use high school physics to explain the problem. Statics/dynamics is of course still Newtonian physics.

When power is initiated at the knuckle, it's very simple leverage issue. If the arm provides all the energy, the level of complexity is comparable to chaos theory. I'm not going anywhere near analysing such complexity. If the hand initiates activity (and the arm is used as a passive means of absorption) the physics is very simple- as is the movement itself. I believe the mistake with traditional mechanical analysis is to assume the energy for most playing "obviously" comes from further back. It would certainly be very complicated if this were the case.

[richard black]

Using physics to describe what you do at the piano mechanically/technically is ... futile...

I think not even the best teacher in the world can put in words piano technique that will help everyone,

Agree most strongly with the second comment, but not with the first (as you'll already have gathered, perhaps). However, I certainly accept that trying to explain technique to pupils in terms of physics is likely not to work in a majority of cases. I used for play for a singing teacher who tried to explain singing in terms of acoustics. He was very well grounded in the subject but most of his pupils would visibly switch off when he got going on the science stuff and he was clearly wasting his voice talking about it. All part of basic teaching psychology!

[richard black]

Me:

... the hand isn't heavy enough to press down enough keys fast enough - it hasn't enough inertial mass. Therefore the arm must pull it down at least some of the time. This is done by muscles in the arm (lower, upper, as appropriate). The keys too have significant inertia, after all.

Nyiregyhazi:

I'm really struggling to see logic behind that. The hand is certainly heavy enough.

It really isn't. I've just 'weighed' my hand by the simple expedient of resting the wrist on a solid support and resting the fingers on the centre of my kitchen scales. To my complete lack of surprise it comes out at about 250g, give or take about 10% (just estimate the volume of a hand and its density and you'll see that's an eminently plausible figure. Sure, that's more than enough to press down a piano key given that the rule of thumb for the 'weight' of a key is 50g. However, for a 4-note chord it's getting marginal - at most it will push the keys down rather sluggishly - and for a 5-note chord it just won't get the keys down at all.

This is where inertia comes in. In order to get the keys moving fast enough to generate some decent volume, one needs to accelerate their inertial mass quite rapidly, and the inertial mass is a lot more than 50g. I just don't have the energy (sorry, non-scientific use of the term) just now to start pulling one of my pianos apart, nor to assemble the means of measuring it from the key surface, but I would hazard a guess as the inertial mass being in the region of 150g per key. So two of those, as in a two-note chord, have roughly the same inertial mass as the hand and, by action and reaction, would cause the hand to bounce upwards at the same rate as the keys go downwards if the hand were not restrained by the muscles in the underside of the forearm.

Clearly it's possible to play a note or two in isolation without bringing the arm muscles into play, as a little upward movement in the hand will be counteracted by gravity, but it won't be counteracted very quickly and any time you play a large number of notes per second (simultaneously and/or in rapid succession) gravity along won't be sufficient.

Indeed it's easy to show that gravity and the hand's weight are insufficient even for a single note if it needs to be loud. Get something that weighs 250g and hold it so that it rests very slightly (just in contact) on the surface of a piano key. Now suddenly release it, and see how loudly the note sounds under the influence of a 250g weight. Quite loud, but not very. (I just tried this.) Do the same for two adjacent keys using the same weight and it's only something in the mezzo-forte range at most. Therefore, we can deduce, the hand needs some effort from the arm even to play one or two isolated notes loudly. Of course you can raise the hand above the level of the keys (using the arm, of course, but not in the sense we've been talking about) and drop it so there's a sudden impact on the keys, but that's one bit of piano technique that as far as I am aware is universally avoided, except for special effects, and it's completely unsuitable for anything fast.

Of course, the simple act of resting the hand and arm so that the forearm is level and the fingers are resting on the piano keys involves the muscles in the arm - otherwise the wrist would bend and the hand would slide off the keys.

It's no surprise that we aren't always aware of the muscular effort involved. Lots of things don't feel as if they require an effort but obviously do - everyday movements like scratching your nose, for instance.

[Footnote for anyone wondering why inertial mass is greater than playing weight: the key is balanced in the middle and arranged so that the mass each side of the balancing point nearly cancels out under the force of gravity. However, from an inertial point of view the mass on each side of the fulcrum adds rather than cancels, and that's what you are accelerating when you play a note.]

[nyiregyhazi]

It really isn't. I've just 'weighed' my hand by the simple expedient of resting the wrist on a solid support and resting the fingers on the centre of my kitchen scales. To my complete lack of surprise it comes out at about 250g, give or take about 10% (just estimate the volume of a hand and its density and you'll see that's an eminently plausible figure. Sure, that's more than enough to press down a piano key given that the rule of thumb for the 'weight' of a key is 50g. However, for a 4-note chord it's getting marginal - at most it will push the keys down rather sluggishly - and for a 5-note chord it just won't get the keys down at all.

Eh?

This is not relevant to anything I have argued. As I said in my post- I'm not talking about collapsing dead weight. You can say the same of a bullet- which has far less mass. However, once propelled into a key, it can overcome the key with minimal inertia. When an action in the hand is used, there is far more mass than that tiny bullet. I'm not referring to a gravity drop. I'm talking about starting from contact with the keys and using the muscles to move the fingers.

Also, when a finger bonds well with a key- the arm can PULL rather than necessarily push. The wrist can be pulled straight- either by the result of releasing the upper arm or by active muscular pull. Either way- the arm is not pressing into the keys or contributing power. Inertia is not the sole factor. It's exactly the same mechanical principle as when you have a low inertia steel wire pulled taut.