Why not break in your nail joint?

[keyboardclass]

...because, as I tell my students, if you do you are failing to use a good portion of your flexor muscle (the portion that attaches to that joint) and therefore underperforming.  Even more so though - you are failing to build up the ligament that wraps around that joint.  Ligaments have such a poor blood supply they take months (though I think it's years) to strengthen.   The brain will only allow the flexor muscle to exert as much force as a ligament can take - so in the long term you're hamstringing yourself!

Remember you heard it here first!

By the way Ortmann measured that it took 1/30th of a second for the joint to break in therefore affecting your precision.

[nyiregyhazi]

...because, as I tell my students, if you do you are failing to use a good portion of your flexor muscle (the portion that attaches to that joint) and therefore underperforming.

I think you're missing something here. There's an alignment and style of activity by which the joint can extend out- without inward action. When done just right there is no collapse but neither is there inward gripping. The point about the ligaments is interesting and it could be that spending time working on the inward grip is a necessary step to acquisition of the most effortless stabilisation, while extending rather than gripping. However failing to use the flexor is not under-performing. The less they have to do, the better, in my opinion.

Recently, I've been changing my technique to an extension action that neither involves any need for inward grip (except from the knuckle) nor involves any collapse of the last joint. I used to think grip was the secret, but I've come to feel that collapsing joints are typically caused by using too much arm pressure as a replacement for hand movements. I don't think that the flexor action should be forced to compensate for this- or it will simply be burdened. It shouldn't be used as an emergency save- as it would put a large workload on the most sensitive and injury-prone tendons.

Also, while a collapse during the movement is a major issue in terms of control (being a bit like trying to play golf with a club that has a hinge that gives way on contacting the ball) a joint that has ALREADY collapsed should be distinguished as a totally different issue- that is not detrimental to either efficiency or control.

(PS I politely request that you direct any responses to the subject, just as I have)

[keyboardclass]

Also, while a collapse during the movement is a major issue in terms of control ... a joint that has ALREADY collapsed should be distinguished as a totally different issue

Look at your fingers.  Are the joints ALREADY collapsed?

[nyiregyhazi]

Look at your fingers.  Are the joints ALREADY collapsed?

The relevance being what exactly? I didn't say the joints are automatically collapsed in a default position and neither did anything I stated hinge upon any such premise. There are occasional circumstances where they can usefully be made to collapse prior to sounding the keys- an act that ensures that there is no room for collapse to occur during the movement of the key. Although this would never be a default approach, it should not be written off. What is the relevance of whether the joints start this way? Did someone write a rule that says pianists are only allowed to play from a single fixed hand-position and may never depart under any circumstances?

Is that baffling irrelevant question really the only point that sprung to mind in response to the detailed points I made?

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, what exactly did ortmann say? The time it takes for the joint to collapse is effectively meaningless. Did he say that it makes the key descent take 1/30 of a second longer, perhaps? Even if so, I am baffled as to where such a precise figure might stem from- considering that it would vary notably depending on many factors. While a collapse during movement will inevitably affect both the pacing and extent of acceleration, I have absolutely no idea what this curiously specific figure is supposed to imply about anything. If anything, it's the sheer variance that makes the results of collapses unpredictable- not that they supposedly take a dubious constant of time to occur. Were it actually a simple constant, there would be little effect on precision at all. Variability is what makes collapses detrimental to control. It's an issue of chaos theory- where seemingly miniscule differences accumulate into a notable effect.

[jmanpno]

Theres nothing fundamentally wrong with breaking the nail joint.

[keyboardclass]

Also, what exactly did ortmann say?

Ortmann devotes over two pages to the 'breaking-in' of the nail joint so you'll need to find a copy of Physiological Mechanics yourself and read it.  The actual measurement is 5/50ths of a second for key descent of a breaking in nail joint as opposed to 2/50ths for curved joint.  In other words you can play more than twice as fast not breaking in.

Yeh jmanpno, in slow playing.

[j_menz]

I can see that it might make a difference on repeated notes on one finger, if you were largely using your finger action to do the repeats; but that would be something you shouldn't be doing in any case. Otherwise, I don't see how it makes one scrap of difference.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ortmann devotes over two pages to the 'breaking-in' of the nail joint so you'll need to find a copy of Physiological Mechanics yourself and read it.  The actual measurement is 5/50ths of a second for key descent of a breaking in nail joint as opposed to 2/50ths for curved joint.  In other words you can play more than twice as fast not breaking in.

Yeh jmanpno, in slow playing.

That makes sense but only in the broad sense- ie that the depression would take longer. The exactness of the readings is simply nonsensical, however. For there to be even a jot of value, there would have to be a means by which to control EVERY variable other than the collapse and to make them 100% constant. Considering the utter implausibility of that, to claim accuracy to a 50th of a second is just ludicrous and can most certainly be regarded as pseudoscience.

While the message that collapse slows the depression is significant, purporting to have exact figures for comparison is just silliness on ortmann's part (assuming that you are recounting him with accuracy) . That collapse both causes depression to take longer and reduces control is far better illustrated by mechanical logic- than by unjustifiable figures. While they make the right point, I don't like seeing such exactitude presented where it cannot possibly be justified. Actions featuring collapse are slower than equivalent ones that don't (which can be proved by mechanics) - but to supposedly measure the precise extent in fractions of seconds is just nonsense.

PS. to the poster who says collapse doesn't matter- it's like saying that putting foam over the keys wouldn't matter. Both cause negative movements that limit control of acceleration- and hence control over tone. My last blog post covers some of the mechanical reasons why this is so. It's especially detrimental to control over pianissimo. I don't believe in banning it outright 100% of the time- but it really does matter. A finger that ALREADY collapsed can he fine- but to collapse DURING depression introduces too many unpredictable variables for fine control.

[werq34ac]

WAIT A SECOND? Is one of you saying that collapsing the last joint on one's finger is a good thing??

You've got to be kidding me. I noticed myself doing that to my right pinkie in some particularly difficult passage (for me) (can't recall off the top of my head what it was). Then I noticed my pinkie was actually sore. Collapsing the last joint places incredible stress on the finger. Can't be healthy at all.

[jmanpno]

So what if it takes longer to put the key down that way?  The fact of the matter is if one is a good musician he will put the key down at precisely the correct time--so what if he has to start the descent sooner?

If the nail joint is breaking on account of key bedding or pressing or something like that, yes it could result in some tiredness. 

However if it is merely the natural result in healthy playing it's not so bad.

MUCH better than being overly curled!

[keyboardclass]

The exactness of the readings is simply nonsensical, however. For there to be even a jot of value, there would have to be a means by which to control EVERY variable other than the collapse and to make them 100% constant. Considering the utter implausibility of that, to claim accuracy to a 50th of a second is just ludicrous and can most certainly be regarded as pseudoscience.

And exactly where in his (scientific) method have you found a flaw?

[nyiregyhazi]

And exactly where in his (scientific) method have you found a flaw?

In the areas that I already outlined most explicitly in my previous posts. To reiterate (and add a little extra detail) to ascribe a single precise figure to something that by nature involves a wealth of defining variables (including dynamic intensity, range of motion, starting position etc) is nonsensical. You might as well claim to be able to say how long it takes for a person to stand up, or fall to the ground. The possible figures would fall into a large range- not a small one. Even if ortmann's figures are supposed to represent a particular pianist at a particular level, the figures are meaningless. Its ludicrous to claim to keep all defining factors constant other than collapse. Humans are not robots. If you cannot be sure of changing a lone variable without affecting others in ANY way, claiming accuracy to a 50th of a second is just foolishness.

I am curious as to whether you are accurately quoting ortmann or presenting figures that he used to give a rough idea of relativity, as if they were specific absolutes. They most certainly are not and to present unjustifiable precise figures as if they are definitive of something is the very epitome of pseudoscience.

[keyboardclass]

It's actually pretty simple.  The only variable is joint broken/joint not broken.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's actually pretty simple.  The only variable is joint broken/joint not broken.

The only intended variable. A scientist who thinks a human being can adjust a lone variable in a movement without affecting others is a staggeringly naive scientist. And that's without even factoring the fact that collapse is extraordinarily variable in itself. It's not a binary thing that simply happens in a single flawlessly repetitious manner, or does not happen at all. To ascribe 50ths of seconds to something so variable is ridiculous.

Simple mechanical logic is a far better way of making the broad point than bogus statistics.

[keyboardclass]

How sad you reject the work of a true scientist who produced two seminal volumes on the mechanics  of piano technique.  And you're totally unaquainted with it!  Here's his bliography - kinda makes your "I am the source" look very silly indeed:

[nyiregyhazi]

So what if it takes longer to put the key down that way?  The fact of the matter is if one is a good musician he will put the key down at precisely the correct time--so what if he has to start the descent sooner?

Firstly, when changing hand position in rapid notes, you may not have time to start the descent sooner. Your hand will not be there yet. So it can greatly matter. Secondly, your point is in reverse. Someone who SOUNDS like a good musician does so BECAUSE they have exact control over both tone and timing. When compensating for collapses, this is unlikely to happen in the first place. These issues place a block between the intent and the result- by making the results unpredictable and hence giving the sound of someone who is not in control.

If a pianist allows factors that make the results unpredictable to exist in their technique, they will never have the greatest possible unity between their intentions and the results.

[nyiregyhazi]

Perhaps ortmann should have included some books on experimental procedures (specifically on the nature of ensuring that variables are can be controlled adequately to justify the possibility that readings might be meaningful)? Why are you quoting a bibliography rather than the pertinent passages? A bibliography has no bearing on this. How ortmann came about those bizarre figures is the issue and specifically how he justified them. His ability to list books has zero bearing on whether he abides by good scientific practises. I'm still inclined to suspect that you have misattributed what he wrote. Please quote the relevant passages, if you have an interest in this progressing.

[keyboardclass]

Why are you quoting a bibliography rather than the pertinent passages?

The Physiological Mechanics of Piano Technique, Otto ortmann, Dutton (1962), pg 225 227.  That's just the section on the nail joint.  There are many, many pages on how he made his measurements so you'll just have to read the book (which any self respecting 'theorist' of piano technique would have read by now).

By the way, Ortmann was the first person to take the mechanics away from you armchair theorists and put it into the laboratory.

[nyiregyhazi]

The Physiological Mechanics of Piano Technique, Otto ortmann, Dutton (1962), pg 225 227.  That's just the section on the nail joint.  There are many, many pages on how he made his measurements so you'll just have to read the book (which any self respecting 'theorist' of piano technique would have read by now).

By the way, Ortmann was the first person to take the mechanics away from you armchair theorists and put it into the laboratory.

It's a complete waste of time to do so, on the collapse issue. The only meaningful results would come from a very accurate robotic simulation of the human body. It's the only way to have necessary levels of scientific control in place. Theory already proves that collapse slows down key depression- with unequivocal certainty. A scientifically flawed experiment to prove that which is already proven by basic mechanics is a waste of time- especially when it is utterly implausible to put enough controls in place for the results to be considered meaningful. There's no way such experiments could meet the basic requirements of sound experimental procedures. It's like claiming to be able to accurately get the mass of your arm from a weighing scales, without cutting it off. Without the ability to control variables independently, results are worthless.

Why are you unwilling to quote the relevant passages- if it's no problem to link the irrelevant bibliography? What are you trying to hide?

[keyboardclass]

Real scientists spend their day measuring things.  You have no aquaintance with Ortmann's apparatuses, methods or results.  Your ignorance is beyond a joke!  Yet you pontificate?  You can't, as you do, study the mechanics of technique from an armchair.   

[thalbergmad]

You two are brilliant and I doubt if you could agree on the colour of cowcrap.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

I doubt if you could agree on the colour of cowcrap.

How could N. possibly get rid of all the variables - he's so stuck up his abstract arse!

[nyiregyhazi]

Real scientists spend their day measuring things.  You have no aquaintance with Ortmann's apparatuses, methods or results.  Your ignorance is beyond a joke!  Yet you pontificate?  You can't, as you do, study the mechanics of technique from an armchair.  

Sure, resort to substantiated allegations and insults. My interest in reciprocating is zero.

I read the relevant passages. Ortmann makes no claims about how long it takes for collapse. He uses a graph to show it takes LONGER in a singular instance where a finger collapsed- just as mechanics already shows. You need to take care to quote things in context- as ortmann is simply showing the broad issue. He is not claiming to have a precise figure (to the nearest 50th of a second) for how long collapse takes in general. Neither is he inferring that collapse generally doubles the time to press a key. He presents a single instance as a single instance as part of illustrating a broad point. If you'd appreciated the context of his words (and conveyed it with accuracy) you could have cleared up my initial question in a single post.

While ortmann is being a little foolish to cite times in 50ths of a second at all (opening himself to being misunderstood) it's quite clear that he is illustrating the general issue- rather than claiming to be in a position to ascribe specific figures for how long collapse takes. Collapse can take a whole range of lengths to occur.

[keyboardclass]

He presents a single instance as a single instance as part of illustrating a broad point.

How many collapsing nail joints is he supposed to measure to get the point?  (maybe you'd like he spent his career measuring collapsed joints?)  Sure, there'll be variations from subject to subject but broadly 5/50ths holds as a speed of collapse at a tempo and 2/50ths for the same subject at the same tempo with no collapse.  Yet another thread of mine you've trashed.

Now you come up with a measurement - difficult as it's all in your head.

[nyiregyhazi]

How many collapsing nail joints is he supposed to measure to get the point?  (maybe you'd like he spent his career measuring collapsed joints?)  Sure, there'll be variations from subject to subject but broadly 5/50ths holds as a speed of collapse at a tempo and 2/50ths for the same subject at the same tempo with no collapse.  

Jesus! You actually believe that? Have you considered that different dynamics involve different key speeds and that collapse will also be quicker at different key speeds? And that different joints have different ranges of motion/ different levels of resistance to collapse?

This is where you have totally misunderstood ortmann. He is ascribing this figure toONE instance- to illustrate nothing more than that collapse slows depression. If you think his figures are supposed to be directly applicable to collapses in general, the you have most gravely misunderstood him. You've put 2+ 2 together and made 5. While ortmann is careless about not being sure to clarify that he is ONLY speaking of a single instance, I apologise for accusing him of pseudoscience, when it was down to your misconception of what his data does (and most importantly does NOT) represents.

And you want me to come up with a "measurement" for what I have explained is a VARIABLE issue? There is no measurement for something that is widely variable! What we have is that collapse takes LONGER. If you need a timescale then I'm afraid you're not going to get one (other than by grossly misreading data). If you cannot understand why data cannot be simplistically applied to any old context (in which countless variables have changed) I'd advise you to stay away from scientific writings (especially ones as cold and deeply technical as ortmann's) . You cannot make casual extrapolations from a single piece of data without understanding what that data actually means.

I'm anticipating a typical one sentence wittlesscism in response, but I hope you'll go away and actually think about how important it is to appreciate context of what you read- before leaping to a superficial assumption (and ironically accusing me of pseudoscience for correcting the erroneous assumptions).

[keyboardclass]

He only shows one diagram of key depression with collapsed joint, to compare to one diagram without.  Why would he add more?  That's plenty to illustrate his findings.  If he'd found the 3/50ths difference was not representative he would have said so (in fact not even included it).  He's not giving some particular instance for its own sake - what would be the point in that? - it's a representative example presumably from many he took.

Never mind me staying away from scientific writings - maybe you should actually read some?
 

[nyiregyhazi]

He only shows one diagram of key depression with collapsed joint, to compare to one diagram without.  Why would he add more?  That's plenty to illustrate his findings.  If he'd found the 3/50ths difference was not representative he would have said so (in fact not even included it).  He's not giving some particular instance for its own sake - what would be the point in that? - it's a representative example presumably from many he took.

Never mind me staying away from scientific writings - maybe you should actually read some?
 

What are you hoping to achieve here? Are you on a one man crusade to portray him as an ignorant pseudoscientist, who felt a single piece of experimental data provides a universal rule? Man up enough to stop blaming your own naive inferences upon the author. Assuming that a single specific instance provides a direct timing that directly applies to all collapses in general is on a par with a person seeing a single green car and deducing that all cars are therefore green. Are you honestly intent on portraying such staggeringly ignorant logic to Ortmann himself?

Ortmann outlined a single instance. The ludicrous assumption that this serves to provide a constant time scale that accurately applies to the diverse possibilities of collapses in general is your own. If you want to cite ortmann, you need to do so accurately and without passing off your own unsupportable inferences as being his- otherwise you do him a gross disservice and make him appear plain incompetent. Ortmann did not write with a layman in mind and probably never would have dreamed that a reader might be naive enough to think that a single piece of data provides a universal rule for precisely how long a collapse takes- nevermind claim that he himself had been responsible for such a schoolboy error. Quite frankly, he should have been a lot more careful to use language that would prevent anyone without an understanding of scientific logic from misinterpreting his data. However, he was not guilty of any deluded inferences.

[keyboardclass]

Without knowing the tonal intensity you cannot say with a lot of certainty how the effect applies over a range of intensities but I would hazard a guess Ortmann would have chosen one mid-range, say mf.  In that case it doesn't take a great mind to work out quieter and a greater gap than 3/50ths, louder  a smaller gap than 3/50ths.  It all then makes perfect sense.  Just keep trashing my thread why don't you!   The OP is about ligaments!?

[nyiregyhazi]

Without knowing the tonal intensity you cannot say with a lot of certainty how the effect applies over a range of intensities but I would hazard a guess Ortmann would have chosen one mid-range, say mf.  In that case it doesn't take a great mind to work out quieter and a greater gap than 3/50ths, louder  a smaller gap than 3/50ths.  It all then makes perfect sense.  Just keep trashing my thread why don't you!   The OP is about ligaments!?

Great let's take random guesses at the dynamic intensity- purely the for sake of applying your meaningless calculation to something specific. Now would you like to incorporated the other variables?

The elasticity of a particular pianist's joint
Which finger is playing
The position from which the finger begins
The pianist's range of motion
The length of the pianist's fingertip

Every single one of these factors makes a mockery of the idea of ascribing a specific duration to collapse (even if we make the bizarre assumption that every note is to be played mf). It is the fact that collapse is so VARIABLE that makes it so problematic. It takes as long as it takes in a given circumstance. Trying to quantify it to a figure is like asking how long a piece of string is. Ortmann only measured one piece.

I have not trashed your thread. You have trashed it by attributing your own nonsense to Ortmann and refusing to hold your hand up to the fact- regardless of the troubles I have taken to illustrate your irrefutable gaffe. Had you appreciated what ortmann actually stated, without adding your own unwarranted inferences, this would have been resolved in just 2 or 3 posts. I only intended to make a passing point. Had you listened to it and corrected your error, we would have been done.

Also, appreciation of the variability of collapse is central to understanding why it is problematic. You might have your fingers in your ears, and but were you to take them out, you'd realise that to assume that collapse takes a predictable amount of time is to grossly misunderstand a central issue. The very problem is you CANNOT predict how collapse effects the key speed-hence the effect it has on control. Your error relates to a most significant issue.

[keyboardclass]

Great let's take random guesses at the dynamic intensity-

No, hardly random.  Ortmann chose which intensity to use as an example.  Would he have chosen p?  f?   probably not - something in the middle.  As usual your hyperbole is getting the better of you.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, hardly random.  Ortmann chose which intensity to use as an example.  Would he have chosen p?  f?   probably not - something in the middle.  As usual your hyperbole is getting the better of you.

Who cares if it's vaguely in the middle (which is mere assumption and not deduction) ? The figure is still meaningless- due to ignoring every one of the variables I listed to you. It applies only to the pianist tested and only to the specific circumstances of a single collapse. Also, see the additional paragraph in the edit of my post. Regardless, I'm not going to argue any further with a person who cannot hold their hand up to their errors. You're a complete waste of time, because you're more interested in refusing to acknowledge an error than in taking on board the consequences of it. A person who cannot adapt or learn from new information is not worth talking to.

[jmanpno]

There's plenty of time.  You simply leave the previous note sooner, in the case of leaps.  If we are talking about 1/50th of a second as one person cited, that is the equivalent 16th's at quarter note equals 720.... nothing goes by that fast. 

I do agree in the importance of ood technique, but a little break here or there isn't a big deal.  Face it...

Oh, and please for the love of God STOP using Ortmann!  So many of the conclusions he came to are simply braindead and make piano playing out to be a seemingly impossible task. 

[j_menz]

** Pours drink, sits back and waits for the fireworks ** 

(barracking for jmanpno, surprisingly)

[keyboardclass]

Oh, and please for the love of God STOP using Ortmann!  So many of the conclusions he came to are simply braindead and make piano playing out to be a seemingly impossible task. 

Ooh! What You Said

Here's one of my conclusions - I just measured the distance my nail joint travels while it breaks in.  It's at least 3/16ths of an inch but maybe closer to 1/4 inch.  The key only goes down 3/8inch (in fact less if you count only to the let-off).  That little bit of science tells me breaking in the joint involves my nail phalange travelling about twice the distance!   The tip travels just less than 3/8ths inch, the joint end a similar distance.  Not quite precision is it jmanpiano?

There's plenty of time.  You simply leave the previous note sooner, in the case of leaps. 

It's more to do with uneven tone.

Anyway, you're missing the point - in breaking in you're failing to develop the ligament and therefore losing access to much of your strength.

[keyboardclass]

You're a complete waste of time, because you're more interested in refusing to acknowledge an error than in taking on board the consequences of it.

Would you care to list the consequences?  because there aren't any!

[nyiregyhazi]

Would you care to list the consequences?  because there aren't any!

I already did. Why don't you read the rest of my post? The consequences are the unpredictability that jman is missing. Were collapse something that always takes a specific length of time, it could be compensated for more easily. The fact that it varies so greatly according to a very large number of factors is extraordinarily significant. It limits the scope for compensation- hence causing erratic tone and rhythm.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ooh! What You Said

Here's one of my conclusions - I just measured the distance my nail joint travels while it breaks in.  It's at least 3/16ths of an inch but maybe closer to 1/4 inch.  The key only goes down 3/8inch (in fact less if you count only to the let-off).  That little bit of science tells me breaking in the joint involves my nail phalange travelling about twice the distance!  

This is indeed wasteful, so why don't you also apply this to your idea of producing tone by thrusting the wrist down? It's inefficient for exactly the same reason- where a big movement of the wrist sends plenty of movement into the wrist yet creates minimal acceleration between finger tip and key. As we're dealing with an even bigger circle, it's all the more wasteful than a collapsing tip.

Both are examples of what I call negative movements in my most recent blog post. Negative movements channel a relatively low proportion of expended energy into sound- leaving more to either hit the keybed or be stopped by sudden muscular braking.

[keyboardclass]

This is indeed wasteful, so why don't you also apply this to your idea of producing tone by thrusting the wrist down?

Both are examples of what I call negative movements in my most recent blog post.

The wrist goes down after the tone's produced.  And please, leave your tacky blog out of this.

[nyiregyhazi]

The wrist goes down after the tone's produced.  And please, leave your tacky blog out of this.

After?

 www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGpeCuHopCY&nomobile=1

Ahem... Seriously, I'm not posting this as a cheap shot. I'm showing you why your articulation is flaccid and why you can only do it slowly. Wrist drops and finger collapses have the same effect on control. Apply the exact same reasoning you yourself made about the collapsing tip. A big wrist drop slows key depression vastly more than a mere collapse of the tip.

[keyboardclass]

Wrist drops and finger collapses have the same effect on control.

After the sound's been produced!?  What kind of voodoo is this!

[nyiregyhazi]

After the sound's been produced!?  What kind of voodoo is this!

You think that wrist bobbing comes after sound is produced? Who are you trying to fool? It's as clear as anything that you are using inefficient wrist drops to sluggishly produce tone. If you do not have the capacity to recognise that and begin to make amends to your technique, I'll leave you to carry on digging your own grave (whilst ironically having pointed to the very issues that are the problem, within this thread).

[keyboardclass]

If you want an illustrative video use this (silent) one.  As you can see in the last example (drop and flop) the wrist flops (breaks in) after the finger reaches the key bed.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you want an illustrative video use this (silent) one.  As you can see in the last example (drop and flop) the wrist flops (breaks in) after the finger reaches the key bed.

The break in alignment is not the issue. The drop is. It creates large movement around the wrist and little movement between finger and key. Use the same logic you did for describing the finger collapse. It slows down the key depression, vastly more than the finger collapsed does- hence you need to put a lot of effort in for a small result. It also takes a lot longer to produce tone compared to without the drop. If you are interested in the consequences of a collapsing joint, you ought to consider the consequences of analogous movements elsewhere. Anything that traces a downward circle around the point of contact detracts from efficiency and yields less sound for more effort- regardless of whether that breaks an alignment! It's a very simple issue of mechanics.

[keyboardclass]

The break in alignment is not the issue.

The break in alignment (or not in this case) is the issue as is that is the only thing vaguely resembling OT in your post.   

If the OT was 'Wasteful Movements as Seen by N.', I'd see some point.  Instead you trash my thread!

[nyiregyhazi]

The break in alignment (or not in this case) is the issue as is that is the only thing vaguely resembling OT in your post.  

If the OT was 'Wasteful Movements as Seen by N.', I'd see some point.  Instead you trash my thread!

If you were to prepared to ask WHY collapsing joints make the depression take longer, you'd be in a position to learn something that can be applied to various issues at play regarding every possible way to move a key. Specifically it's because sending movement in a downward circle around the key generates speed at the wrong end. That is what happens when the tip buckles and it is what happens all the more severely when the wrist drops (due to a bigger circle). Large amounts of effort produce small accelerations at the fingertips and large but useless acceleration at the other end.

This is the single biggest issue in defining the whether a key is accelerated efficiently and directly or wastefull and sluggishly (leaving remaining energy to go into impact). It explains why collapsing tips are a problem and also countless other issues.

[keyboardclass]

This is the single biggest issue in defining the whether a key is accelerated efficiently and directly or wastefull and sluggishly (leaving remaining energy to go into impact). It explains why collapsing tips are a problem and also countless other issues.

After the key has reached the keybed!?

[nyiregyhazi]

After the key has reached the keybed!?

Stop trolling. If you are trying to tell me that you cannot see your wrist dropping in either your thirds or you DROP and flop, then you're just trolling. Nobody in the world could possibly miss that it occurs during depression. What purpose would a wrist drop serve anyway? Try one in the chopin thirds étude. It's just an exercise. It serves no purpose in faster playing and actively hinders anyone who depends on it.

[keyboardclass]

Stop trolling. If you are trying to tell me that you cannot see your wrist dropping in either your thirds or you DROP and flop, then you're just trolling.

Trolling in my own thread!?  Good one.  In this vid there is no wrist breaking in until the fingertip reaches the keybed. i.e. after sound production!

[nyiregyhazi]

Trolling in my own tread!?  Good one.  In this vid there is no wrist breaking in until the fingertip reaches the keybed. i.e. after sound production!

Even if timed perfectly (unlike in your slack 3rds) what is the purpose? It sets up the intent to collapse the wrist. In even moderate tempos, there's no time either to do between depressions or to keep resetting after. So why? Because grindea said so? It's just asking for trouble-especially if used as the source of tone like in your 3rds. It eliminates any scope for attaining speed. Above all, why do feel the fingertip is so important when you are happy to allow the far greater inefficiency of playing thirds with a wrist drop? Or have you recanted on that?