Theory of Technique is Dead

[keyboardclass]

I'm not wasting any more time on this. If you want sources about the impossibility of time travel, go and do your own research.

Hey that's my line!  So, no page no. on the Newton reference or the Matthay one?  Some scholarship!

Edit: No!  I Don't believe it.  I'VE HAD THE LAST WORD!

Edit2: Drat!

[nyiregyhazi]

Hey that's my line!  So, no page no. on the Newton reference or the Matthay one?  Some scholarship!

I am not referencing page numbers on time travel. As for the fact that Matthay's teaching can cause people to think any old contact with the keybed is okay if you relax after, you are my source. You explicitly stated that you believe that in this thread. The videos of you playing are my source for how harmful that is to piano technique.

[keyboardclass]

I am not referencing page numbers on time travel. As for the fact that Matthay's teaching can cause people to think any old contact with the keybed is okay if you relax after, you are my source. You explicitly stated that you believe that in this thread. The videos of you playing are my source for how harmful that is to piano technique.

You cannot site the entire body of Newtonian Mechanics as 'a' source - a page number please.  If I said something then a quote please.

[nyiregyhazi]

You cannot site the entire body of Newtonian Mechanics as 'a' source - a page number please.  If I said something then a quote please.

I'm not wasting any more time on argument with someone who asks for something so truly stupid as a source for the impossibility of time travel. I'm not going to continue to debate with someone who places more interest in argument than in the subject.

[keyboardclass]

Aha!  The last word this time!  So, no page numbers for references and no quotes? - wouldn't pass muster at any respectable institution. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Aha!  The last word this time!  So, no page numbers for references and no quotes? - wouldn't pass muster at any respectable institution.  

I'm not currently aware of any institutions that demand sources for the impossibility of time travel. But hey, well done. It seems that you've now "won", because I didn't provide a source for that. Well done. Now go to the piano and try to relax AFTER hitting the keybed in some Lisztian octaves. Still "winning"?

[keyboardclass]

I'm not currently aware of any institutions that demand sources for the impossibility of time travel.

You know, I'm not even going there.

[mike_lang]

Children, children . . .

[kelly_kelly]

I'm not currently aware of any institutions that demand sources for the impossibility of time travel. But hey, well done. It seems that you've now "won", because I didn't provide a source for that. Well done. Now go to the piano and try to relax AFTER hitting the keybed in some Lisztian octaves. Still "winning"?

Um... I study physics at a very reputed institution, and I can think of at least one professor who is interested in time travel to the past (time travel to the future is definitely possible, past is a bit more tricky) and how it might be achieved.

(Sorry about the off-topic post...)

[keyboardclass]

Great!  All contributions welcome.

[nyiregyhazi]

Um... I study physics at a very reputed institution, and I can think of at least one professor who is interested in time travel to the past (time travel to the future is definitely possible, past is a bit more tricky) and how it might be achieved.

(Sorry about the off-topic post...)

Well, I appreciate that the prevailing idea that travelling to the past is impossible may not necessarily be the absolute and final word (phenomenally speculative as theories that is possible remain). However, I'm pretty damned sure that there aren't a whole lot of pianists who've figured out how to retrospectively prevent an impact by relaxing after a collision already occurred. Shock absorption is traditionally based on what occurs during the immediate present, rather than prior to the shock.

[mike_lang]

Shock absorption is traditionally based on what occurs during the immediate present, rather than prior to the shock.

You've hit the nail on the head (and preferably with a supple wrist)!

[venik]

I'm not sure I follow you. Why would the arm recieve more mass when you tense your muscles? Unless I've missed something important, wouldn't the mass be constant and the energy vary with the velocity applied to the arm/fingers? Speaking in a mathematical sense of course.

Think of it like this, you hit the key with just your index finger. Then you tie a iron brace from your finger to your entire body. Now in order to hit that key your entire body needs to rotate with the finger in order to hit it. You have more mass when you are forced to move your entire body.

Likewise when a boxer punches, if he doesn't tense his entire body and arm, only the mass of his fist is going to be effective.

It's about effective mass, not real mass. The only mass that matters is the mass that is actually rigid with the motion. If it's not rigid and connected to the muscle or the impact arm, then it's only force acting upon it is gravity.

Here's another one, think of a newspaper. You hit someone with it all unfolded, they might not even notice you hit them. On the other hand, if you roll it up first tightly. All it's mass is rigid and therefor when you hit someone with it it could have the effect of a small baseballbat (if rolled tight enough).

If you attached a 50 lb weight to your feet as you play, that would not effect the momentum of your average player playing keys. However if that player was to tense his entire body and play hard and fast enough to make the 50 lb weight come off the ground, then it would. That takes rigidity.

The tensing of the muscles forces your body to act with more mass as you play.

[venik]

Well, I appreciate that the prevailing idea that travelling to the past is impossible may not necessarily be the absolute and final word (phenomenally speculative as theories that is possible remain). However, I'm pretty damned sure that there aren't a whole lot of pianists who've figured out how to retrospectively prevent an impact by relaxing after a collision already occurred. Shock absorption is traditionally based on what occurs during the immediate present, rather than prior to the shock.

Yet another botch from our "physicist", time travel has been observed on the quantum level. Hardly impossible.

I think you merely decide on every whim what should be physically impossible or possible. With absolutely no knowledge of such outside tv shows and movies.

[richard black]

Likewise when a boxer punches, if he doesn't tense his entire body and arm, only the mass of his fist is going to be effective.

Apposite analogy.

Don't get too excited by the time travel thing, people. It's predicted to occur in quantum physics but I've yet to see any physicist suggesting any theory or mechanism by which it might affect everyday objects on timescales observable by humans.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Likewise when a boxer punches, if he doesn't tense his entire body and arm, only the mass of his fist is going to be effective."

? That's as much bullshine as your claim about quadruple energy was (when it was actually double). If only the fist is flying across (having literally disconnected from the arm?) then that's true. However, you don't see a lot of disembodied fists travelling in boxing. Are you seriously a physicist? Honestly?  Fists usually tend to be connected to an arm that carries momentum. How is the mass that sets the fist in motion to begin with supposed to be disconnected from the mass of the fist? If you seriously studied mechanics, frankly I am stunned by this wealth of indisputable scientific innaccuracy. Honestly- did you actually study this?

Even if it were regarded as good technique to tense up in boxing (here's a clue, it isn't- Boxers MOVE through the punch with muscles of the whole body, which is altogether different from simply locking up those muscles), is the goal in piano to create impact? No. Only boxing do people seek to cause impact and damage. Piano is all about how much reaches the string via the hammer. Whole arm actions expend more energy into the keybed. However, they don't necessarily provide more to the hammer, unless executed without lossage in transmission. If the finger collapses during even a powerful arm action, you send huge amounts into the keybed- while potentially achieving little sound. It's like pushing hard through a sponge. When you minimise lossage by iniating momentum closer to the key (eg. from a hand action), there's little need for whole arm momentum in all but FFF. In fast notes, it's impossible to use arm momentum unless the whole arm goes up and down on each note anyway.

"It's about effective mass, not real mass. The only mass that matters is the mass that is actually rigid with the motion. If it's not rigid and connected to the muscle or the impact arm, then it's only force acting upon it is gravity. "

So you're oblivious to the fact that a human arm is pretty damned well connected together to start with? There's no requirement of stiffness. When momentum is travelling, it stays travelling unless stopped by something. With suitable alignment, all that is required is slight stabilisation to keep it that way. Not the quality of being "rigid". Find me a martial arts trainer in the world who preaches the importance of a "rigid" wrist.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yet another botch from our "physicist", time travel has been observed on the quantum level. Hardly impossible.

I think you merely decide on every whim what should be physically impossible or possible. With absolutely no knowledge of such outside tv shows and movies.

The idea that you cannot prevent an impact after it ALREADY happened is a "whim"? Accepted physics only refers to "time travel" (with very relevant quotation marks) to the future. Anything else is pure speculation and certainly not part of what a pianist does. There's no question that pianists are absorbing impacts AFTER they happened. Are you also going to start defending the plot of the film "Back to the Future" ? Is being argumentative more important to you than illustrating common sense?

PS. If you hadn't accused me of pseudo-science then I would have felt no need to expose the gross schoolboy errors in your assertions and calculations. Is the best response you have to claim it's a "botch" to say that unsubstantiated theories about time travel clearly have no role in piano playing?

[venik]

"Likewise when a boxer punches, if he doesn't tense his entire body and arm, only the mass of his fist is going to be effective."

? That's as much bullshine as your claim about quadruple energy was (when it was actually double). If only the fist is flying across (having literally disconnected from the arm) then that's true. However, you don't see a lot of disembodied fists travelling in boxing. Are you seriously a physicist? Honestly?  Fists usually tend to be connected to an arm that carries momentum. How is the mass that sets the fist in motion to begin with supposed to be disconnected from the mass of the fist? If you seriously studied mechanics, frankly I am stunned by this wealth of indisputable scientific innaccuracy.

Double the velocity IS quadruple the energy. Are you high?

Energy is one half mass, times velocity *squared*. 2 squared is 4. Therefor double velocity = quadruple the energy.

Your lack of comprehension is astonishing. Here's another example. You are running full speed and you put your hand out to the side and touch a pole. If your arm is relaxed you will barely feel it hit, if your arm is tense it could knock you on the ground. Likewise the energy required to knock you on the ground will be exerted by your own tense muscles. As such you do not want to hit keys in this same manner as you are exerting unnecessary energy.

You are applying elementary physics which deals with strictly rigid bodies, and applying it to non-rigid bodies (arms and hands and bodies). It doesn't work like that. The physics of non-rigid bodies is more like fluid dynamics than conceptual physics.

To boot you don't even understand conceptual physics. A relaxed finger can depress literally any mass sized object. It could hammer a nail, it could move a truck, or it could put a a hole in a wall. It just needs to be going *fast* enough. Likewise once my finger has reached the speed to depress the key at desired volume I relax it.

Even if it were regarded as good technique to tense up in boxing (here's a clue- it isn't), is the goal in piano to create impact? No. Only boxing do people seek to cause impact and damage. Piano is all about how much reaches the string via the hammer. Whole arm actions expend more energy into the keybed. However, they don't necessarily provide more to the hammer, unless executed without lossage in transmission. If the finger collapses during even a heavy arm action, you send huge amountsl into the keybed while achieving little sound. When you minimise lossage, there's little need for whole arm momentum in all but FFF. In fast notes, it's impossible to use arm momentum unless the whole arm goes up and down on each note anyway.

It is good technique in boxing, you are supposed to put your whole body into a haymaker, and that is impossible without kinetic linking. Actually, if you look "kinetic linking" up, you will probably find information relating to boxing.

This point has gone way over your head. You are in fact arguing against your own technique. The only factor needed to press a key is *velocity* of the key as the hammer leaves the action. Any more weight being put behind this is simply making the action require more energy. akin to making the key weight heavier. You're technique does this, not mine. If this paragraph here you typed up is what you actually believe, you should stop using your technique.

Boxing is a example of kinetic linking giving more momentum. In the case of pianos, you do not want kinetic linking...you want as little as necessary.

[venik]

The idea that you cannot prevent an impact after it ALREADY happened is a "whim"? Accepted physics only refers to "time travel" (with very relevant quotation marks) to the future. Anything else is pure speculation and certainly not part of what a pianist does. There's no question that pianists are absorbing impacts AFTER they happened. Are you also going to start defending the plot of the film "Back to the Future" ? Is being argumentative more important to you than illustrating common sense?

Strawman...

You said time travel was impossible, on a whim. I said that's wrong. That's the end of that. You are merely making more unscientific assumptions. This time about something you believe I was implying, which I wasn't.

PS. If you hadn't accused me of pseudo-science then I would have felt no need to expose the gross schoolboy errors in your assertions and calculations. Is the best response you have to claim it's a "botch" to say that unsubstantiated theories about time travel clearly have no role in piano playing?

You haven't exposed anything, in fact you still haven't understood a word I said.

But since you brought it up let's talk exposing.

You believe that a relaxed finger cannot depress a key even if it is going 100 miles an hour.
You believe that twice the velocity means twice the energy (it's four times the energy)
You believe that kinetic linking doesn't add mass to a boxer's punch, essentially saying the boxer could lightly toss a marble on a string and knock someone out, as long as the thrower is still touching the string when it hits.

[nyiregyhazi]

Double the velocity IS quadruple the energy. Are you high?

Energy is one half mass, times velocity *squared*. 2 squared is 4. Therefor double velocity = quadruple the energy.

It's double. You said 10 m/s down and then 10 m/s up (I have no idea where the latter came from). Seeing as you referred to a collision in the interim (ie hitting the ground). we have two equal levels of energy. They are to be added. It's the same energy added to itself. There's no square in sight, regarding a simple multiplication by 2. And that's assuming a "bounce" offers zero conservation of energy (ie. not a bounce at all). Where did you study?

"Boxing is a example of kinetic linking giving more momentum. In the case of pianos, you do not want kinetic linking...you want as little as necessary."

That's my point exactly. Would you like to quote where I suggested otherwise? Also would you please tell me how a "relaxed" finger is not repelled by the considerable force that a key will respond with upon landing?

[nyiregyhazi]

You believe that a relaxed finger cannot depress a key even if it is going 100 miles an hour.
You believe that twice the velocity means twice the energy (it's four times the energy)
It's about effective mass, not real mass. The only mass that matters is the mass that is actually rigid with the motion. If it's not rigid and connected to the muscle or the impact arm, then it's only force acting upon it is gravity.

A relaxed finger collapses. That is too slow for piano playing- causing major energy loss in transmission. And my point was actually that it cannot KEEP a key down. Fire a relaxed finger out of a gun if you will. It won't keep a key down though, after it reaches the bottom.
Where did the velocity double? You cited two instantaneous velocities of EQUAL magnitude and hence two equal levels of energy to add.
Effective mass is not defined solely by rigidity or disconnection. What kind of ridiculous simplification is that? Joints are either rigid or not even connected at all? What world are you living in? My point about the fist was that it is ALWAYS coupled with the mass of the arm, in a punch- contrary to your claim that it could ever function independently. That is literally impossible.

[lostinidlewonder]

You know when you do not know exactly what someone is talking about and take a guess, if you misinterpreted what they where talking about and then that person responds to your misinterpretation believing that you fully understand what they said previously, you will end up with a thread full of tangents and craziness.

Start talking about a piece of music and specific bars and not this general trash and you might find out you have nothing much to say about physics that is as ubiquitous as you try to make it out to be when talking in generalizations.

[emill]

You know when you do not know exactly what someone is talking about and take a guess, if you misinterpreted what they where talking about and then that person responds to your misinterpretation believing that you fully understand what they said previously, you will end up with a thread full of tangents and craziness.

Start talking about a piece of music and specific bars and not this general trash and you might find out you have nothing much to say about physics that is as ubiquitous as you try to make it out to be when talking in generalizations.

hehhee... until now I thought I was really good in math and physics ... but after reading the exchanges in this thread .... I am beginning to doubt my ability to comprehend ...  

[lostinidlewonder]

hehhee... until now I thought I was really good in math and physics ... but after reading the exchanges in this thread .... I am beginning to doubt my ability to comprehend ...  

Generalizations can be confusing if you don't know how to apply it to your own situation, but that is not to say if you can't determine how to apply it to your situation it is any failing on your behalf. The person describing the generalised idea needs to direct us as to the context in which it is important for us to learn. None of the posts talk about specific pieces so what they say makes no relevant sense to piano playing itself until they do.

The posts make sense if you can apply them to a single instance of playing, I am sure you can find instances where what is being said makes perfect sense, but what is the point? It is one small instance, show us more show how it exists in many parts of ACTUAL MUSIC. If you break down technique to how a single finger moves you are just looking at the leaf trying to understand the entire forest.

Speaking in generalizations can make you look intelligent but it is like a map without any scale or accurately drawn images, they only make sense if you can make your own measurements to understand it and can interpret the mysterious symbols they draw. Effective generalizations can naturally make you think about important issues that are relevant to your life. Look at how Astrology charts are written, there is a good bit of generalized trash that people often relate to closely!! Weaker generalizations the sort you get when people talk about physics and piano, start going into realms where what they say might be right for certain instances but what is the relevance to our learning or playing of a piece? If you cannot make that clear definition then it is useless to us. If the definition is obscure and generalized without anything specific which can be tested, it can't be something we want to try. Unless you like to experiment a lot and have a lot of extra time on your hands go for it, blindly follow generalizations and make up observations in how they help you without really knowing what you are doing, but since time is precious we should try not to experiment too much and learn the craft properly.

[keyboardclass]

You believe that a relaxed finger cannot depress a key even if it is going 100 miles an hour.
You believe that twice the velocity means twice the energy (it's four times the energy)
You believe that kinetic linking doesn't add mass to a boxer's punch, essentially saying the boxer could lightly toss a marble on a string and knock someone out, as long as the thrower is still touching the string when it hits.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify, but you won't get anywhere.  For years he's trashed threads with paragraph after paragraph of garbage obfuscating these basic facts and no amount of reasoning by numbers of those qualified in physics has made a difference.  The kinetic linking is the key - he just ignores it.

The mechanics of playing the piano necessitate complete fixation of all the joints at the moment of key depression immediately followed by complete relaxation.  It's a skill few attain.  Anybody can perform the former, the latter's easily a life's work.   

[venik]

It's double. You said 10 m/s down and then 10 m/s up (I have no idea where the latter came from). Seeing as you referred to a collision in the interim (ie hitting the ground). we have two equal levels of energy. They are to be added. It's the same energy added to itself. There's no square in sight, regarding a simple multiplication by 2. And that's assuming a "bounce" offers zero conservation of energy (ie. not a bounce at all). Where did you study?

It came from your "redirection" of motion in your technique, which requires energy. You're thinking in terms of a total differential. A common problem in plugging and chugging physics formulas.

Luckily the universe doesn't work the way you're saying it does, or we'd run into problems like not being able to play paddle ball on an airplane (the energy would be 1000x more required than at rest).

On to the correction. Energy is an abstract measurement used to connect various forces into a medium so we can relate them. The reason the energy quadruples is most apparent when deriving  the kinetic energy equation. You will find that each velocity in the velocity squared represents a difference force. Energy in this case is the integral of the velocity times the change in momentum with respect to time. First you are doubling the change in momentum (velocity 1), then you are doubling the velocity (velocity 2) in which this change must occur.

Integral(2v * 2d(p)/d(t)) = Energy = 4Integral(v*( d(p)/d(t) ))

This is just another complete botch on your part. Considering you are going to brush this one off like all the others I'll go ahead and ask you the impossible question I foreshadowed earlier, which makes your understanding of physics impossible in reality. Why can I play paddle ball at 600 mph with relatively the same energy input as playing paddle ball at 0 mph? When your understanding says it should be infinitely harder at 600 mph. Energy is not conserved in *your* interpretation.

"Boxing is a example of kinetic linking giving more momentum. In the case of pianos, you do not want kinetic linking...you want as little as necessary."

That's my point exactly. Would you like to quote where I suggested otherwise? Also would you please tell me how a "relaxed" finger is not repelled by the considerable force that a key will respond with upon landing?

Heres you saying you should bounce:

You clearly haven't even been reading my posts before replying. Why are you telling me about not pressing into the keybed? I don't. I press AWAY from the keybed. The difference is in issues of momentum.

Post #39 "I press away from the keybed"

A relaxed finger is repelled as much as a non-relaxed finger, the difference is the relaxed finger has less inertia because it has no kinetic linking. But albeit with less inertia the relaxed finger can reach the *same* momentum as a kinetically linked finger. Mind you momentum is irrelevant in piano other than to depress the key, other than that velocity is king. To boot, it requires less energy for that finger and key to reach the same velocity than a hand/arm and key, as it has less mass. That is why I'm arguing not to kinetic link, to *relax*. Because any added unnecessary mass is simply making you work harder to reach the same mass irrelevant velocity.

[nyiregyhazi]

It came from your "redirection" of motion in your technique, which requires energy. You're thinking in terms of a total differential. A common problem in plugging and chugging physics formulas.

Bulllshine. When a falling ball hits the ground it doesn't require any NEW energy EITHER to change direction OR to proceed upwards. Did you seriously study physics? You must be kidding me? When the keybed stops the motion, there is no new energy. You are assuming energy is directional. It most certainly is not. It is based on MAGNITUDE of an instant of velocity and is an absolute that is not in any way linked to direction. Two instants of 10m/s (which is what you presented) equals the corresponding energy level times two (assuming zero conservation in the "bounce"- which does not happen in a piano action, the mechanism actually stores some of that energy, so it's not even double). I'm stunned that you actually studied physics, if you really did. I'm even more stunned that you'd seriously pretend such simple physics is in question, rather than admit to your gaffe. Sorry, but this is simply absurd. Also, keep your talk of "plugging and chugging" physics formulas to yourself. I am referring to the calculations YOU presented in the context that YOU presented them.

"A relaxed finger is repelled as much as a non-relaxed finger, the difference is the relaxed finger has less inertia because it has no kinetic linking. But albeit with less inertia the relaxed finger can reach the *same* momentum as a kinetically linked finger".

And when it reaches the bottom of the key? What happens then? Stop arguing like a lawyer and think like a bloody scientist, for God's sake. Scientists don't duck inconvenient questions.

That's without even going into any of the other inaccurate assumptions that you have leapt to. If you're going to make any more replies, stop leaping to your ridiculous assumptions about what I said and read what I DID say. When I referred to pressing AWAY from the keybed (not into it) how could that possibly lead you to think I'm involving momentum of the whole arm? Quite the contrary. Any arm momentum compresses you IN and not AWAY from the keybeds. To press away It just involves the arms inertia to resist reaction forces as the key moves. I'm not going to spend any more time replying to seemingly random misattributions that I never stated nor even implied. Also, your explanation of kinetic linking is collossally simplified. If energy is sourced in the finger, the ONLY linking with the arm is with regard to the braking effect of the arm's inertia. It doesn't involve a jot of additional momentum. You have massively oversimplified the idea- to the point of factual inaccuracy.

[keyboardclass]

Did you seriously study physics? You must be kidding me?

That's just effing rude.

[pianisten1989]

Why do you bother "discussing" this? Obviously non of you are prepared to share even a slight part of the other's opinion. And you even do it with mathematical spells?! Like, omg! Everyone is different! What works for one might not work for the other.

But why do I bother? Now you'll just say something that I do everything the wrong way, or trying to get me into your pissing contest. No, I wont!

[nyiregyhazi]

To clarify, when I say press "away from the keybed" I am not referring to a bounce. Do you think I only play staccato or something? That's what would happen if you truly relax the finger- rather than use it to stabilise the key at the bed. What I am referring to is where everything other than the finger tip is felt to be move slightly away from the keybed (particularly in a thumb straightening action) or to pull the knuckle around it. There's no instant where the arm is ever jamming down through it. But I'm certainly not talking about bouncing off the key. Due to the arm's inertia, the movement is negligible- but it has a massive effect on impact absorption.

[venik]

Bulllshine. When a falling ball hits the ground it doesn't require any NEW energy EITHER to change direction OR to proceed upwards. Did you seriously study physics? You must be kidding me? When the keybed stops the motion, there is no new energy. You are assuming energy is directional. It most certainly is not. It is based on MAGNITUDE of an instant of velocity and is an absolute that is not in any way linked to direction. Two instants of 10m/s (as you presented) equals the energy level times two (assuming zero conservation in the "bounce"- which does not happen in a piano action, the mechanism actually stores some of that energy, so it's not even double). I'm stunned that you actually studied physics, if you really did. I'm even more stunned that you'd seriously pretend such simple physics is in question, rather than admit to your gaffe. Sorry, but this is simply absurd. Also, keep your talk of "plugging and chugging" physics formulas to yourself. I am referring to the calculations YOU presented in the context that YOU presented them.

Your hand is not a ball.
Forces are vectors not *scalars* (they are not called "magnitudes"). This means it IS directional. It is the forces and velocities, which are both vectors, which create the squaring effect.
You are still talking about the energy *of* the finger rather than the *"energy required to move the finger"* Which was your mistake I pointed out in your previous posts.
If the finger bounced you would not need to put in this extra energy, but since hands are non-rigid they are incapable of bouncing, so you must exert that force yourself by kinetic-linking...in your own words. Or you could simply lift up but that would be too simple wouldnt it?
If you "plug and chugged" my formula I gave, correctly, you would end up with quadruple the energy. The change in velocity is 20 m/s, it's a single equation not 2. And this isn't a conservation of energy solution either.

And when it reaches the bottom of the key? What happens then? Stop arguing like a lawyer and think like a bloody scientist, for God's sake. Scientists don't duck inconvenient questions.

Well a scientist would say, what state is the finger in? If it's rigid it will bounce. Depending on how much energy is put into making the finger rigid.

I think you're mistaking the careful placement of my words as ducking questions. When in fact my cautiousness is due to my knowing the delicacy of such problems. It comes from experience.

And scientists dodge questions all the time, mostly because the person asking the question clearly has no understanding of the subject and the effort is futile. Maybe I should act more like a scientist and stop responding to you and give you some fun fact you can go home and think about...making yourself feel more scientific.

That's without even going into any of the other inaccurate assumptions that you have leapt to. If you're going to make any more replies, stop leaping to your ridiculous assumptions about what I said and read what I DID say. When I referred to pressing AWAY from the keybed (not into it) how could that possibly lead you to think I'm involving momentum of the whole arm? Quite the contrary. Any arm momentum compresses you IN and not AWAY from the keybeds. To press away It just involves the arms inertia to resist reaction forces as the key moves. I'm not going to spend any more time replying to seemingly random misattributions that I never stated nor even implied. Also, your explanation of kinetic linking is collossally simplified. If energy is sourced in the finger, the ONLY linking with the arm is with regard to the braking effect of the arm's inertia. It doesn't involve a jot of additional momentum. You have massively oversimplified the idea- to the point of factual inaccuracy.

If you're pressing away from the keyboard that tells me you are using your fingers to lift your fingers by pressing down. And considering you were using that statement to "dispel" that you weren't pressing *into the keybed*...I don't see how you could interpret it any other way. Which might I remind you pressing into the keybed is an absolute waste of energy. Atleast when pressing "away" you are doing some sort of work. Albeit that work is useless aswell atleast your moving something.

There is momentum on both the way down and the way up, pressing up is simply converting your momentum into negative (in the opposite direction) momentum.

I really pity you for having to explain this for a 4th or 5th time, but the arm isn't actually connected to the finger for the application of "rigid-body physics" until the muscles are tensed. This is why if I were to come grab your idle index finger and move it 45 degrees, you arm would hardly move with it. Now if you were to flex and make it rigid I could probably move your arm very well.

And you never explained to me why a paddle ball in an airplane isn't harder to play?
.05(310^2) = 4805 Joules

.05(300^2) = 4500 Joules

= 305 Joules

vs

.05 (10^2) = 5 Joules

.05(0^2) = 0 Joules

= 5 Joules

A difference of 6100%, that seems high?

(.1 kg ball, 10 m/s, on a 300 m/s airplane)

[keyboardclass]

The above reminds me of a famous Tai Chi teacher who was able to trap a bird on his hand.  A bird needs to push off the ground as it takes off.  This master would compensate every time the bird attempted this - so it was stuck on his hand.  I believe it as a true story though N of course would say the human nervous system isn't clever enough.  His maybe isn't. 

edit: I found a reference here: https://www.radiantdolphinpress.com/pages/taoism_made_simple.html

He placed a bird on his open palm. Every time the bird tried to spread its wings and push off against his hand for flight, Yang yielded just the right amount, so that the bird could not fly away. The bird seemed stuck to Yang’s palm.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is momentum on both the way down and the way up, pressing up is simply converting your momentum into negative (in the opposite direction) momentum.

YES! Could I have made any more clear that this is exactly what I am saying? That momentum is REDIRECTED to be absorbed into inertia instead of sent into impact and compression?

As for the nonsense about 4 times the energy (calculations that YOU constructed), I'm not even going to bother (particularly considering your strawman pretence that I claimed forces are not directional- I said that ENERGY is not directional. Feed words into somebody else's mouth.). If you feel it takes new energy input for something to have its velocity changed by hitting the ground, then feel free to base calculations around that (and then presumably pretend that I'm the one to blame for that error too).
 

[keyboardclass]

YES! Could I have made any more clear that this is exactly what I am saying? That momentum is REDIRECTED to be absorbed into inertia instead of sent into impact and compression?

Even I can work out it's not the same momentum - that there's a dead stop inbetween down and back up.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just to clear this ridiculous nonsense up once and for all, when you throw a ball upwards to be released at 10 m/s per second and let it come down again, let's (very conservatively) say it reaches at least 5 m/s before returning to the height where it set off from. Based on your theory for how calculations are to be made, the ball changed velocity by 15m/s or more, before returning to the starter height. So are you going to feed that figure into the equation? Where is all this kinetic energy being created between start and finish? Based on your theory for how to perform calculations, by the time the ball reached the height it started at, we'd have created a whole bunch of magical free energy. I can scarcely believe that I'm having to argue on such a simple (not to mention pianistically irrelevant) matter.

Do you really treat discussion of science like a defence lawyer treats a court case- purely with a view to hoping to "win" at all costs? Or can you honestly not see what transparently bogus use of the equation you made? Are you going to file a patent on your energy creation scheme- or are you going to admit that you completely misused the equation?

[nyiregyhazi]

Even I can work out it's not the same momentum - that there's a dead stop inbetween down and back up.

Not when I do it. I don't do an about turn. It's a continuous action. This is a very important part of it. If you stop on the way, it's worthless- as impact already happened. The redirection occurs in the present, not after the event.

[keyboardclass]

Not when I do it. I don't do an about turn. It's a continuous action. This is a very important part of it. If you stop on the way, it's worthless- as impact already happened.

You have no choice!  It's physics - your friend Newton.  It's the opposite to your ball scenario (which obviously stops dead before falling to earth.

[nyiregyhazi]

You have no choice!  It's physics - your friend Newton.

Don't be such a bloody ignorant fool. Start with a bent thumb and straighten it to play a key. Where's the stop? There's one singular action that redirects momentum upon landing. There's no requirement whatsoever to stop dead and start a new movement. However, your assertion there is explains a lot about the stiffness in your technique.

[keyboardclass]

It's the opposite to your ball scenario (which obviously stops dead before falling to earth.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's the opposite to your ball scenario (which obviously stops dead before falling to earth.

If you assume the whole arm is a rigid body (that moves down as a single rigid body and then is raised as a single rigid body), yes. As I said, this explains why you are so stiff. When I straighten my thumb, relative to contact with the key, EVERYTHING is moving up from the outset. This is how you eliminate the stop. At the keybed, you are simply continuing a singular motion. There's no reversal. You simply have to think relative to the point of contact.

[keyboardclass]

How is this suddenly about my technique?  It's not, it's about Newtonian mechanics.  Just as your ball must have a moment of dead stop before falling so must any appendage as it transcribes the opposite - from downward motion to upward.

[nyiregyhazi]

How is this suddenly about my technique?  It's not, it's about Newtonian mechanics.  Just as your ball must have a moment of dead stop before falling so must any appendage as it transcribes the opposite - from downward motion to upward.

Who is free falling? Do your fingers have no muscles or tendons? You're comparing two different things. Really, I cannot overstate how clear it is that this mindset is responsible for your heavy landings in that Grieg. It's the dead-stop that causes strain.

[keyboardclass]

NOTHING TO DO WITH MY MINDSET!  IT IS PHYSICS!

[nyiregyhazi]

NOTHING TO DO WITH MY MINDSET!  IT IS PHYSICS!

Your superficial and closed-minded assumptions are not 'PHYSICS'. If you want to make a dead stop at every keybed, by all means do so. However, the only time you shows signs of comfort in your Grieg is when you REDIRECT the motion forwards and upwards. There's no dead stop there whatsoever- whether you believe that to be impossible or not. Are you seriously so unwilling to think these things through? You have no interest in aquiring comparable ease of contact in the preceeding octaves? Why do you even seek to discuss these things, without any interest in developing yourself?

[pianisten1989]

I will contribute anyway then!

If you do a circular motion, and hitting the key with slight to, for example, to the right, there is no need to stop that motion.
If you go down. You go down, then a slight motion to any direction, before you get too low with the wrist.
If you go into the keys, or up, you just continue the motion.

However, I think both of you (or at least one of you) should stop acting like "technique experts". It's rather pathetic that grown men are arguing about personal technique, and trying to use advanced words like science and stuff. I know that the body is science, but that doesn't mean that it only works in one way. I mean, if you spend 1 hour on youtube, and actually looking at different pianists technique, you'll see that they are completely different - and still works just as fine as the other.

[keyboardclass]

Your superficial and closed-minded assumptions are not 'PHYSICS'. If you want to make a dead stop at every keybed, by all means do so.

No.  It's your bizarre mindset that thinks you can reverse direction without passing through a dead stop.  IMPOSSIBLE!

[nyiregyhazi]

I will contribute anyway then!

If you do a circular motion, and hitting the key with slight to, for example, to the right, there is no need to stop that motion.
If you go down. You go down, then a slight motion to any direction, before you get too low with the wrist.
If you go into the keys, or up, you just continue the motion.

However, I think both of you (or at least one of you) should stop acting like "technique experts". It's rather pathetic that grown men are arguing about personal technique, and trying to use advanced words like science and stuff. I know that the body is science, but that doesn't mean that it only works in one way. I mean, if you spend 1 hour on youtube, and actually looking at different pianists technique, you'll see that they are completely different - and still works just as fine as the other.

Sure, there are alternatives.  However, what matters is that impact IS something that can be successfully absorbed. If it can't it's not an "alternative". It's simply poor technique. I'm all for anything that works. My problem with the sideways thing is that it's pretty useless for absorbing impact in something like fast, loud octaves. I'm all for it elsewhere, but it's important to have an effective means for ANY situation.

[pianisten1989]

Sure, there are alternatives.  However, what matters is that impact IS something that can be successfully absorbed. If it can't it's not an "alternative". It's simply poor technique. I'm all for anything that works. My problem with the sideways thing is that it's pretty useless for absorbing impact in something like fast, loud octaves. I'm all for it elsewhere, but it's important to have an effective means for ANY situation.

I'm glad you responded to at least 1/6 of what my post was about.

[nyiregyhazi]

No.  It's your bizarre mindset that thinks you can reverse direction without passing through a dead stop.  IMPOSSIBLE!

There is no reversal in direction- relative to the contact on the key. It's a single action.

[keyboardclass]

There is no reversal in direction- relative to the contact on the key. It's a single action.

Hey, you forgot to mention my Grieg in that post.