keeping a relaxed wrist in chords and octaves

[pts1]

I do not think you want to actively "curl" the finger.
Though Roy seems to be doing this, I think it can be injurious.
You want to simply play on the key, and pull the key down with the finger tip
in a naturally "curved" not "curled" shape. Its a very small movement and the finger tip moves down and very slightly in -- perhaps a 1/2 inch if that.

The hand is brought to the key(s) with a light floating arm.

With stacatto playing, there is more "curl", but stacatto can be tiring and ultimately injurious due to the tension involved. But by and large, there is very little stacatto playing in intense, long scalar runs in piano literature.

The whole idea is to develop an approach that takes very little movement and energy and "muscle" power.

So I think Roy's videos are very good in concept, provided you don't over do the motions.

[chopantasy]

hmmm... well it's supposed to be the way Bach played. I was excited for a few days b/c I thought I was finally on to the proper technique. It felt right as soon as I tried it. But now, I'm not playing tonight b/c I'm resting my right hand. I suppose it helped me realize some benefitical movements but yeah, the curling I think is the real problem after a while. And to think I JUST ordered the book the other day... 

Stick with it, it is how Bach played but takes a while for the body to adjust.  Don't play Romantic period like that though.

[ahinton]

Stick with it, it is how Bach played but takes a while for the body to adjust.  Don't play Romantic period like that though.

Are you seriously seeking to associate this kind of approach with selective repertoire only? If nothing else, such a suggestion would presumably give rise to all manner of confusion when playing Bach/Liszt, Bach/Busoni, Bach/Godowsky et al...

Best,

Alistair (who prefers his piano music to be played using broadly the same physical/mechanical approaches as pianists might be expected to adopt for Bach, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Sorabji or Finnissy, thanks all the same)

[j_menz]

Alistair (who prefers his piano music to be played using broadly the same physical/mechanical approaches as pianists might be expected to adopt for Bach, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Sorabji or Finnissy, thanks all the same)

Does that make you the first composer to specify not only the notes, the tempo, the pedalling and the dynamics but also the physical/mechanical approach to be used?  I look forward to seeing something like "Slowly with tenderness and a straight back and relaxed fingers" at the start of you next solo work.

 
John

[chopantasy]

Are you seriously seeking to associate this kind of approach with selective repertoire only? If nothing else, such a suggestion would presumably give rise to all manner of confusion when playing Bach/Liszt, Bach/Busoni, Bach/Godowsky et al...

Or Bach/Chopin or Mozart/Chopin?  Notice there are no such things - maybe wonder why?

[ahinton]

Does that make you the first composer to specify not only the notes, the tempo, the pedalling and the dynamics but also the physical/mechanical approach to be used?  I look forward to seeing something like "Slowly with tenderness and a straight back and relaxed fingers" at the start of you next solo work.

Of course not! As I'm sure you deduced, the sole intended purpose of what I wrote there was to cast aspersions on the very idea that players might consider adopting different physical positions, muscular movements and so on for different areas of repertoire!

Best,

Alistair

[pts1]

There is really only one basic piano technique which advanced players use.

Roy is giving a really good demo and explanation of it, but many are misinterpreting it.

There is NO curling involved!

There IS a natural curve... which can almost seem flat it can be so slight.

Then there is simply the pulling down of the key as the fingers (the whole finger) pulls toward the palm --NOT CURL TOWARD THE PALM.

The arms primary function is to position the hand/fingers on the keys. NO WEIGHT resting on the hand or fingers -- another road to ruin.

The best examples of this is can think of are Horowitz, Michellangeli, and Art Tatum.

If you'll watch these fellows, everything you need to know is there. Rachmaninoff too, though I don't think there are ample videos.

As for "changing" technique for different composers, this is plain nuts, and yet another detour toward the "Road to Ruin."

The body always works the same, and doesn't care what composer's name is scrawled on the sheet music, be it Bach, Chopin or Liszt.

The piano doesn't care either. It takes very little effort to press the key down -- 50 grams -- and not a lot more to evoke a decently audible sound.

[chopantasy]

If only it were that simple.  Bach's fingers were so 'curled' they formed a straight line on the white keys (it's how he integrated the thumb as the first finger).  Even though he used the same 'caressing' motion, Chopin preferred to start beginners on a B scale because he wished to preserve the natural 'curve'.

[pts1]

It is that simple, go watch the pianists I advised.

The reason they make it look so easy, is because it IS easy.

They practice/play easily and over time the hands/fingers learn to do
amazing things, all with tiny movements and very little physical effort.

[link0126]

I do not think you want to actively "curl" the finger.
Though Roy seems to be doing this, I think it can be injurious.
You want to simply play on the key, and pull the key down with the finger tip
in a naturally "curved" not "curled" shape. Its a very small movement and the finger tip moves down and very slightly in -- perhaps a 1/2 inch if that.

The hand is brought to the key(s) with a light floating arm.

With stacatto playing, there is more "curl", but stacatto can be tiring and ultimately injurious due to the tension involved. But by and large, there is very little stacatto playing in intense, long scalar runs in piano literature.

The whole idea is to develop an approach that takes very little movement and energy and "muscle" power.

So I think Roy's videos are very good in concept, provided you don't over do the motions.

Thanks. I'm very interested in this technique still. Like I said, I think it helped me realize some other benefiticial movements. Would you be able to make a video of your interpretation of this technique, so we could see how you are using it in a safer manner than what Roy is doing?

[pts1]

Would you be able to make a video of your interpretation of this technique, so we could see how you are using it in a safer manner than what Roy is doing?

I'd be happy to, but I don't have any video equipment that's capable of linking with the internet.
All I have is a quite old tape cassette video machine, and I'm not even sure if it works.

But Roy's demonstration is very good. I think for demonstration purposes, he "flicks" the finger back toward his palm, and if you look very carefully, you'll see that he does not actively curl the finger tip, i.e. the finger tip joint. He's pulling the entire finger, "flicking the entire finger".

I don't think I look much different than Roy with the exception of after I pull the key down enough to make the sound I want, my finger relaxes, IOW, I'm not pulling back into my palm unless that much energy is required for the sound.

And just as important is the very light arm feeling. No weight, just a light arm gently positioning the hand on the keys.

Once you "get it" then you can maintain the "basics" and adapt to whatever you are playing.

Chopin had his students position their hands on: E F# G# A# C, since this is the single most natural configuration of keys that fits the most natural configuration of the hand.

Then with a very light arm, he'd have them pull the keys down at the finger tip/pad to learn this easy technique.

The feeling is that the hand is almost independent of the arm, the wrist very supple and light, and the hand and fingers feel no need to leave the keys.

Here's a video of Art Tatum

Notice how he almost never leaves the keys, and almost looks motionless. His technique is very "Chopinesque".

[chopantasy]

Here's how to play Bach.  Notice the fingers rarely stray into the black note area:

Shame it's poor quality - the guy's good.

This one's also worth watching:
 

[link0126]

Here's how to play Bach.  Notice the fingers rarely stray into the black note area:

Shame it's poor quality - the guy's good.

This one's also worth watching:
 

In the second video esp. he does not at all seem to be playing like Roy's demo. Way more vertical arm motion. Even in the first I believe I was seeing way more pressing rather than flicking.

[chopantasy]

That may be true.  I know who strung that second instrument - it has a far greater touch weight than a concert grand and requires excessive force.

[link0126]

And just as important is the very light arm feeling. No weight, just a light arm gently positioning the hand on the keys.

Once you "get it" then you can maintain the "basics" and adapt to whatever you are playing.

The feeling is that the hand is almost independent of the arm, the wrist very supple and light, and the hand and fingers feel no need to leave the keys.

Thanks, I think I am struggling with this aspect of it. Any tips on how to find the proper balance and get a "weightless" arm? Sitting higher maybe or keeping the shoulder slightly higher or something?

[pts1]

Thanks, I think I am struggling with this aspect of it. Any tips on how to find the proper balance and get a "weightless" arm? Sitting higher maybe or keeping the shoulder slightly higher or something

A few things.

First and most important, you must sit at the correct height, which, IMHO, is with your elbow about even with or slightly higher than the keyboard. For myself, there is a "window" of height adjustment which is no more than an inch or so, before I don't "feel right".

This is so the upper arm can hang down easily, as you sit erect, with the feeling that perhaps a rubber band is strung between your shoulder blades keeping them slightly back.

Your arm should hang properly then already giving a feeling of lightness.

Then, imagine that your forearm is like a marionette's forearm, and there's a string attached behind the wrist about 1/3rd of the way to the elbow. Now imagine this string effortlessly pulling your forearm up above the keys, hand limp... to the left a bit and then right, just floating effortlessly above the keyboard as you sit with perfect posture.

This should all feel very effortless and easy.

Then lower the hand onto the keys just enough to absorb the reaction of pulling down the key with your finger, and simply play the key. If you'll do the little Chopin exercise up I mentioned, you should be able to feel what I'm trying to say. After each key is played, the effort stops, the finger is "dead". One note at a time. Slowly then a bit faster, feeling the little adjustments the hand makes.

Don't play loudly, but piano or mezzo forte.

Once you "get it", you can always remember this feeling and transfer it to whatever passage on which you're working.

This, IMO, should be your basic state at the piano.

You'll notice that Roy and Art Tatum do very much what I'm describing.

[ajspiano]

Then, imagine that your forearm is like a marionette's forearm, and there's a string attached behind the wrist about 1/3rd of the way to the elbow. Now imagine this string effortlessly pulling your forearm up above the keys, hand limp... to the left a bit and then right, just floating effortlessly above the keyboard as you sit with perfect posture.

This should all feel very effortless and easy.

This is a pretty apt description. I don't think I'd have come up with that wording myself but thats very much what its like when you hit that target as quoted "this should all feel very effortless and easy"

Once you find this - most passages where you do something else "feel" extremely wrong, and you can tell immediately that its wrong and start working on how to fix it. If you don't have this, its kind of like walking through an obstacle course wearing a blind fold.

[marik1]

Roy is giving a really good demo and explanation of it, but many are misinterpreting it.

There is NO curling involved!

There IS a natural curve... which can almost seem flat it can be so slight.

Then there is simply the pulling down of the key as the fingers (the whole finger) pulls toward the palm --NOT CURL TOWARD THE PALM.

The arms primary function is to position the hand/fingers on the keys. NO WEIGHT resting on the hand or fingers -- another road to ruin.

The best examples of this is can think of are Horowitz, Michellangeli, and Art Tatum.

Considering I agree with many of ideas you are presenting here (perhaps not everything, but in the core I do), to me it seems strange you put together Roy's demonstration in the same breath with technique of Horowitz, Michelangeli, and Art Tatum (to the same list I'd add G. Gould).

I realize there might be a matter of semantics, or there is something I am missing, but to me there is a huge difference between Roy's proposed idea of finger follow through as if plucking the key from the surface and then the finger still keeps moving, following through vs. H. M. and A.T. economical motion of the firing finger precisely to 10.5 mm down and after that immediately releasing the energy once the finger reaches the key bed.

In fact, very often, that 10.5 mm is even shorter due to whether a) the finger starts from the key surface, but stops little shorter than that usual 10.5mm distance, so then the key goes down some distance by inertia, or  b) so called "half key playing"--fire the key not from the surface, but from its few millimeters down.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

There is really only one basic piano technique which advanced players use.

Roy is giving a really good demo and explanation of it, but many are misinterpreting it.

There is NO curling involved!

There IS a natural curve... which can almost seem flat it can be so slight.

Then there is simply the pulling down of the key as the fingers (the whole finger) pulls toward the palm --NOT CURL TOWARD THE PALM.

Two points- firstly nobody is misinterpreting Roy Holmes. He specifically states that the fingertip should curl. If you want to disagree with that I am very much in favour of your doing so. However, for the sake of accuracy, can we please be clear that avoidance of curling is NOT something that Holmes argues for? He specifically argues in favour of whole finger curling.

Secondly, apologies for being so blunt, but the geometry of what you are arguing for does not add up and cannot add up. It is literally an impossible explanation. What you describe can no more be achieved than taking a ten metre length of rope and spanning it between two points twenty metres apart.

Hold your finger in the position Holmes advises, approximately a cm above a flat surface. Now trace Holmes' path until you contact that surface. To do so, I must move somewhere between an inch or two, horizontally. Only with flat fingers (which Holmes is nowhere near), can I move far enough to account for the distance needed in key depression, without HUGE slippage.

If it's only half an inch, as you say, either you are starting with extremely flat fingers or your arm is descending- UNLESS the length between knuckle and fingertip has increased by lengthening the mid joints of the finger. There's no possible way you can depress the keys as Holmes describes, without notably more than half an inch of sliding. It cannot create adequate movement, when the slippage is so minor. And do we even see ANY sliding- when looking at great pianists? Generally, no. The finger doesn't even appear slip to by as little as half an inch. The reality of the matter is simply based on a totally different concept- not on an indirect circular path, that causes constant slips and skids. There simply is not enough slippage on display for this concept to be a literal reality. Something else is going on. In most cases, that something is a slight act of extending- that serves to "correct" the path of the fingertip and channel energy in a more direct line through the key.

PS I am arguing against your arguments and those of Holmes. Not against you. I'd politely ask you to reply in that spirit- rather than to take it as a personal affront that I have sought to illustrate the implausibility of this premise.

[nyiregyhazi]

Looking at this film, I don't think it could be much more abundantly clear that Michelangeli was not limited to the indirect circular path of action. Sometimes you see very minor slipping and on occasions he exaggerates it. However, there's no way that there's enough going on for purely circular actions to consistently account for his primary means of key depression. The act of extending out is frequently most abundantly visible- meaning that he is in a position to regularly move the keys down without even a trace of destabilisation between fingertip and key. Even when it's less obvious to the eye that his fingers are lengthening- what else can possibly account for the keys going down without the fingers sliding? Black magic?

[pts1]

N:

In watching the Michellangeli film, he exhibits all manner of "touches" including the "plucking" action, used mostly in Golliwogs Cakewalk, which produces that quick, plucky stacatto sound.

As I see it -- and agree with and try to do myself -- he moves only as much as necessary to produce the effect/sound he desires, end of story.

His base technique appears to be that his forearm is suspended lightly above the keyboard, his hand adapting to the "shape" of the "cluster" he's about to play, and he simply pulls the key down.

Since we're talking about a few millimeters here, its hard to see there's much arc to it, though if you extended the pulling down of the key magically through the keyboard, there's no doubt due to the physical design of fingers and hand, that the finger would arc slightly below the palm and eventually curl.

But, that's only of academic interest, as far as I'm concerned, and really does us no good to debate endlessly.

I don't understand your preoccupation with "sliding" as you put it, especially since I don't think its a good idea. I think of it as "plucking", and you only want that touch when producing a stacatto, which is a very small minority of the time, hence a very small tool in the pianists "tool box".

[nyiregyhazi]

My preoccupation with sliding is based on the fact that the lack of it on display renders your explanation of the finger action impossible. For it to be as you assert, every finger would have to slide very notably-or the keys couldn't be depressed. Your explanation and that of Holmes suffers from a big omission.

[pts1]

I realize there might be a matter of semantics, or there is something I am missing, but to me there is a huge difference between Roy's proposed idea of finger follow through as if plucking the key from the surface and then the finger still keeps moving, following through vs. H. M. and A.T. economical motion of the firing finger precisely to 10.5 mm down and after that immediately releasing the energy once the finger reaches the key bed.

Ok. I think that this degree of plucking business is for Roy's demonstration purposes... at least that's my interpretation.

I do NOT agree that the "norm" in playing requires this, and in fact will produce inflamation eventually.

Glenn Gould -- who had a very "technique" suffered from boughts of tendonitits, if my recollection serves me, as did Horowitz, who also used this technique at times -- both of these legends also playing in a rather "tense" manner.

Roy's main contribution, IMO, is to show how light and floating the arm is, that the fingers play from on the key -- not hitting it -- and that the arm' main function is to position the hand and fingers.

We see exactly this with Art and Michellangeli.

As for key travel, I agree with you that it is tiny, and even from a somewhat "already depressed state", IOW, not only on the key but somewhat "in" the key. And similar to what you say, once the required effort has been expended to "fire" the hammer into the string via the key lever, any further energy from the finger is a waste.

To go a bit further with this key travel business, its even hard to say how far down the finger goes, since depending on where you play the key, the distance down is greater or smaller.

For instance, if you play a white key at the edge, this is the greatest distance the key travels down vertically. If you play it as close to the fall board as possible, then this is the least distance it travels down (since its a lever and closer to the fulcrum, I think).

I bring this up, because to attempt to describe a technique -- outside of important and undeniable basics -- is impossible, since each cluster of notes to be played has different "3 dimensionality"
dependint on the pianist, with different size and shape hands, and other piano playing human "equipment", and even depending on how the pianist does phrasing, etc.

So I think that after a certain basic point, further discussion gets more and more complex, and may well take one further from the goal of understanding than closer.

I think that if I were to vote for the very best examples of "how to play" from the pianists we've discussed, I have to conclude that Michellangeli and Art Tatum demonstrate everything one needs to know.

Tatum reminds us that music should be fun and relaxing, not just intellectual and "high art" -- a point of great importance, IMHO, that often gets lost in just following the "classicists".

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok. I think that this degree of plucking business is for Roy's demonstration purposes... at least that's my interpretation.

I do NOT agree that the "norm" in playing requires this, and in fact will produce inflamation eventually.

Glenn Gould -- who had a very "technique" suffered from boughts of tendonitits, if my recollection serves me, as did Horowitz, who also used this technique at times -- both of these legends also playing in a rather "tense" manner.

Roy's main contribution, IMO, is to show how light and floating the arm is, that the fingers play from on the key -- not hitting it -- and that the arm' main function is to position the hand and fingers.

It would be fine if he presented it that way- but the problem is that he instead insists on various extraodinarily dubious specifics and insists that they are the lone way.

What you don't seem to understand is that the laws of geometry are absolute. You can no more use a pure pulling action to depress a key with mere mm of slippage (unless starting from a flat position, rather than Holmes' idea of a finger that is between 45 degrees and vertical), than you can draw two sides of a triangle and then choose how long the other side will be. It's all ready been determined by physical laws. Rules of geometry also dictate that the only way to create adequate downward movement via the arc is to also have a minimum level of horizontal movement. From a 45 degree angled finger, the key cannot go down far enough to sound unless there is significant horizontal movement- unless it grows in length. It's a physical impossibility. You cannot explain how Michelangeli moves the keys (without sufficient levels of slippage for an arc to be a possible explanation)- unless you are prepared to open your mind to this premise. Why would you want to base everything on a premise that can be proven as physically impossible?

[pts1]

My preoccupation with sliding is based on the fact that the lack of it on display renders your explanation of the finger action impossible. For it to be as you assert, every finger would have to slide very notably-or the keys couldn't be depressed. Your explanation and that of Holmes suffers from a big omission.s my opinion on how one best

N:

I don't understand why you want to go on with this?

It seems like something of an academic issue to me.

"Plucking", "slipping", or "sliding", should NOT -- repeat -- SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN OR EVEN FREQUENTLY USED TOOL IN THE PIANIST'S TOOL BOX!

My single "all weather" perfect example of classical piano playing is Michellangeli.

For my money, if you had to pick only one pianist out of all pianists from which to model one's self, he is it.

So by posting his playing, you're really just helping make my points -- largely unheard by you, however.

I do not think anyone actively engaged in playing or learning to play can involve themselves with the academic understanding geometry and physics... it is simply distracting and of no practical use, IMHO.

I don't think of the angle, degree, distance, speed or anything else when playing a key -- much less whether or not I'm violating some "law of geometry".... I mean, write me a ticket if you must!

As for Roy, his video is based on the research he did about how Bach and other "good players" played their instruments back "in the day".

But remember, all Bach had was a Clavichord (his working instrument as I understand it) and a Harpsichord.

Both have a much, much lighter touch than today's grand piano, and Bach may well have played with the plucking action Roy describes.

Be that as it may, I've described several times how I think the piano should be approached, so further arguing is of no point, IMO.

I would say, however, you seem to "read" mostly what you want to "see" and miss a great deal of what I'm saying in the process.

[nyiregyhazi]

So by posting his playing, you're really just helping make my points -- largely unheard by you, however.

I do not think anyone actively engaged in playing or learning to play can involve themselves with the academic understanding geometry and physics... it is simply distracting and of no practical use, IMHO.

I don't think of the angle, degree, distance, speed or anything else when playing a key -- much less whether or not I'm violating some "law of geometry".... I mean, write me a ticket if you must!

You are not violating any laws. Rather, you are doing something else other than what you perceive. Otherwise there's no explanation for how you can achieve enough movement to depress the key, with minimal finger slippage.

Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that it's by extending out the finger that that this paradox can be resolved? This movement is abundantly visible in Michelangeli. Holmes' big gaffe is to fail to mention this and indeed to suggest the very opposite of it. It's all very well saying that the movement becomes understated- but how does the key still go down when this happens? It cannot. The movement has changed, not become understated. You can't get between two places that are 20 miles apart other than by driving 20 miles. You can't just start reducing that to 18 and hope to get there still. If there's not enough physical slippage on display an arc cannot account for how the key gets depressed. You can't reduce horizontal slippage without also reducing the downward movement of the key. Only a change to the quality of the movement can still account for the key being depressed, without the slip.

Why is it so hard to stop and ask the question as to what DOES account for the key going down?

PS. The reason I stress this is because my finger technique never developed effectively until I realised this necessary aspect of good technique.

[pianowolfi]

Michelangeli is one of my most important and fascinating pianistic idols. The musical inspiration in him is so strong that it determines every single little step, every little motion, every technical "trick". Even all the esthetic aspects he seemed to be so obsessed of, sometimes, serve this one and only goal: get the musical idea across to the listener. Magical.

[pts1]

Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that it's by extending out the finger that that this paradox can be resolved? This movement is abundantly visible in Michelangeli.

Um..... I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would you want to "extend" the finger out.

Only two ways to do this that I know of, both of which are BAD ideas.

A: Do not firm up the finger tip joint, so that when you play a key it "breaks" and splays
outward or "extends" a tiny bit.

B: As you contract the muscles that pull the finger down (intrinsic and a bit of the flexors presumably), co-contract the extensors, which straightens, extends, and even bows the fingers.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what the "paradox" is.

Put your naturally curved finger on the key, have the tip appropriately "firm" and contract the muscles that pull down the finger, sort of "waving goodbye with the finger".

End of story.

[ahinton]

Michelangeli is one of my most important and fascinating pianistic idols. The musical inspiration in him is so strong that it determines every single little step, every little motion, every technical "trick". Even all the esthetic aspects he seemed to be so obsessed of, sometimes, serve this one and only goal: get the musical idea across to the listener. Magical.

Mine, too - even though I am not and could never have been any kind of pianist. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, my fist experience of him live was a most extraordinary one in which not only was there so little physial movement from the pianist but it also seemed as though there was no one between the composers (perhaps inevitably Debussy, Chopin and Ravel) and the listener yet at the same time you could have hard a pin not dropping because of the extent to which he had everyone's concentration at the utmost. I've experienced this kind of thing with very few pianists; I can think only of John Ogdon, Yonty Solomon and Ronald Stevenson in such a context.

Best,

Alistair

[chopantasy]

Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that it's by extending out the finger that that this paradox can be resolved? ...
PS. The reason I stress this is because my finger technique never developed effectively until I realised this necessary aspect of good technique.

That is such an unnatural movement and therefore of little use.  That you were unable to play 'effectively' has nothing to do with it - that's not science that's anecdote.

[pts1]

my fist experience of him live was a most extraordinary one in which not only was there so little physial movement from the pianist

I saw him once, and he was the very essence of what I think of as "Italian elegance".

There were a number of quite knowledgable pianists in the audience, and I well remember that
on top of the technical perfection of execution, the concensus was that the performance was quite literally "note perfect".

It seems quite ironic that at one time Michellangeli was a boxer!
(only an amateur as I recall, but still!)

Can you imagine?

[nyiregyhazi]

Um..... I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would you want to "extend" the finger out.

You've missed the bit where I pointed out that it's the only rationally plausible means of depressing a key without a LOT of slippage? Except in the case of flat fingers, mere mm of slippage are not enough for a circular motion to be able to account for key depression. Something else must be happening.

A: Do not firm up the finger tip joint, so that when you play a key it "breaks" and splays
outward or "extends" a tiny bit.

My joint sure as hell doesn't break when I extend it. With the right angle of motion, neither do I need to firm it up. It just moves through a simple line. See the video I already posted earlier in this thread:

Are you suggesting that this simple and direct finger action is invalid? Or are you denying that my fingers are extending to make it possible? You can't have it both ways. Either the movement on display there is unacceptable, or you are going to have to acknowledge that extension has a role to play in technique. Note how concise and easy the finger movements are- due to absence of slippage. Why on earth would I want to abandon that, in favour of forcing myself to accept counterproductive finger slides? One moment you're praising Michelangeli for keeping the movements small- the next you're suggesting that the means of the most concise movement possible is to be ruled out? Why? And where is the consistency?

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what the "paradox" is.

The paradox is that you talk only about the knuckle action while simultaneously talking about a very small level of slippage. In great pianists, we regularly see no slippage at all. That means the finger must be extending. Nothing else but an increase in distance between the knuckle and the fingertip can account for such a possibility. We're talking black magic, if you think you break the rules of geometry. What makes you so casually dismissive of the factor that balances the paradox you keep presenting and makes it rationally plausible?

Put your naturally curved finger on the key, have the tip appropriately "firm" and contract the muscles that pull down the finger, sort of "waving goodbye with the finger".

Why would I want to do that? It would bounce the knuckle up in the air- due to insufficient space for the action to be carried out. Why would I want every single finger action to induce some combination of slipping and knuckle bouncing? Why not simply balance the knuckles and then depress the following keys by expanding a slightly curved finger into greater length- straight through the line of the key? This allows for no slippage and no destabilisation of the arm- as seen in the short clip I filmed. Precisely what are you so cynical about?

[nyiregyhazi]

That is such an unnatural movement and therefore of little use.  That you were unable to play 'effectively' has nothing to do with it - that's not science that's anecdote.

It's "unnatural" for joints to extend rather than flex? Is running unnatural too then? What is your basis for this assertion? Casual and (rationally unsubstantiated) labelling of something as unnatural means nothing. Efficacy is what matters. I'll trust the overwhelming majority of concert artists who are able to play with minimal finger slippage, due to this "unnatural" adaptation. They are not limited to flexion actions, but must necessarily have ability to involve extension actions too- just as I illustrate in my Bach video. If they didn't, their fingers would be skidding around all over the keys on every note they ever play. Slapping on some ludicrously subjective linguistic label is not going to make me give up the simplest style of movement- merely becomes someone deems it "unnatural", without so much as a supporting argument.

[pts1]

In great pianists, we regularly see no slippage at all.

In great pianists, we don't see it because it is so small, and I'd call it "grippage" not "slippage", i.e. the tiniest bit of finger/pad tip control.

That means the finger must be extending.

No, the finger could be coming down in an arc, depending on the shape of what one's playing, e.g. rolled 7th chords, or arpeggios of 7th chords.

Besides, you are not doing what you think you are.

In your demo, you're doing one thing in slow motion, and quite another when playing fast.
For instance, when you play slow, the second finger on the C# near the end of the passage does this strange extension thing, but when you play at tempo, you quite clearly "flick" or "slip" on the key quickly twice in a row!

So you're fooling yourself.

Watch yourself... that's what your doing at tempo, not what you're talking about.

I don't think its deliberate, but you've talked yourself into some strange, unnatural finger articulation, IMHO, with the aid of cherry-picked physics, geometry and so on.

Why? Whatever for?

[pts1]

N:

You're flicking the third finger also at tempo... I watched it quite a few times.
Again, in slow speed you're not... up to tempo you are.

Its natural.

I assume you're also pulling the 4th and 5th finger to some degree also, though they're impossible to see.

[j_menz]

Methinks some of you guys should pay far greater attention to your fingers, wrist and movement while at the computer keyboard. You clearly spend way longer at it than any other sort of keyboard, and I'm concerned that if your not doing it right you may be doing yourself an injury, or generating needless spelling errors. Perhaps you should post a video for us to analyze.

[chopantasy]

I don't think its deliberate, but you've talked yourself into some strange, unnatural finger articulation, IMHO, with the aid of cherry-picked physics, geometry and so on.

Why? Whatever for?

Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes
he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.

[p2u_]

What you don't seem to understand is that [...]

So you're fooling yourself.

Sad, very sad that this topic is going as usual. I thought we already  established a few pages ago that one cannot establish a pianist's real coordination by watching a YouTube movie. As a matter of fact, we could all be fooling ourselves while trying to pick up something useful from this. What is visible is not necessarily the coordination a pianist feels he or she is using. When someone "lets go", there are always natural reflexes (the distals curling a bit), "movements" because of reaction forces, etc. (not deliberate motions!) As a matter of fact, I'd swear N. is a very dedicated "Taubmanite" because I also noticed some rotation here and there (slowed down the film and enlarged it).

The same can be said about Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli materials: any piano school can use certain excerpts to proclaim they'll teach you to play as the incomparable ABM did because of his many mannerisms. By the way, did you notice how his thumb tends to dangle out of the keyboard whenever he plays quick passages? This can be seen in the Scherzo film higher up at 4:55 and other places. Let's take that as a method and make a quick buck with it. I guess one can even write a blog post, illustrating the mechanical advantages of such an approach.

P.S.: Has anyone ever seen a pianist playing the famous Rach 3 "ossia" cadenza, systematically raising his fingers high French style? (A big no-no in the books of many methodists) Well, here's one:

I highly prefer L. Berman's end result, of course. My example is just an illustration of a "great name" doing something virtually impossible. Do it after him and you'll most likely end up with a physiotherapist...

Paul

[pts1]

Sad, very sad that this topic is going as usual. I thought we already  established a few pages ago that one cannot establish a pianist's real coordination by watching a YouTube movie.

I thought we'd pretty well put technique in general to bed, but apparently not.

I decided some time ago that while its possible to master technique using one's own personal gifts, strengths and perceptions, it is NOT possible to tell someone else how to do it with precision, since after a point of "advanced basics", it is very much an individual thing that must be discovered and instinctively understood by each pianist.

N seems to have a desperate need to explain this to himself for some reason -- and I empathize since I went through a miserable period of a similar though not as thorough attempt.

It is simply not possible to realize and understand everything that goes into playing the piano with an expert technique, and to attempt to intellectualize the process after a point, does more harm than good IMHO.

I really don't have anything else to add, and I hope N will use his considerable intelligence to put an end to his incessant thinking and observe what works for him and produces the best results.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is simply not possible to realize and understand everything that goes into playing the piano with an expert technique, and to attempt to intellectualize the process after a point, does more harm than good IMHO.

I really don't have anything else to add, and I hope N will use his considerable intelligence to put an end to his incessant thinking and observe what works for him and produces the best results.

When I see such a silly comment as this, I struggle to remain polite. Look through my old youtube videos- although what you really ought to see is the various aborted attempts at Chopin Etudes from 3 or 4 years ago which were simply too shameful to even be considered for uploading.

Funnily enough, wanting to understand how it is physically possible to achieve the efficient quality of movement that you praise in Michelangeli (yet denigrate in my own film- instead suggesting that my fingers ought to move in a path that would have me slipping around with significantly less efficiency or concision) does not mean that experimentation and observation never occurred to me. Having a focus and understanding of certain necessary issues does not mean failing to observe. The premises I have found to be helpful are literally nothing more than the beginning of the work.
 
Frankly, I'm tempted to upload some of those old Chopin Etudes- so you can see what utter crap resulted, in the days before I discovered the necessity of a more direct line of finger movement. My hand got pulled around everywhere by the reaction forces of indirect finger arcs and I could not physically achieve comfortable stillness. Every finger action was tugging me out of alignment and destabilising. But obviously anyone who cares to think about these issues will do more harm than good...

[nyiregyhazi]

In great pianists, we don't see it because it is so small, and I'd call it "grippage" not "slippage", i.e. the tiniest bit of finger/pad tip control.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If I use an arc from the starting position seen in my Bach film, I require at least an inch of slippage in order to depress the key to the keybed. Without that, there is no possibility of key depression. It's equivalent to deciding that next time you drive to a town 20 miles away, you're only going to travel 15 miles- ie. it's literally impossible.

In your demo, you're doing one thing in slow motion, and quite another when playing fast.
For instance, when you play slow, the second finger on the C# near the end of the passage does this strange extension thing, but when you play at tempo, you quite clearly "flick" or "slip" on the key quickly twice in a row!

Do you see an inch of slippage? Perhaps there is a tiny trace. However, the point is that it's geometrically impossible for a mere arc to account for the key depression unless there is an inch of slippage during EVERY key depression. It's basic geometry. To create downward movement, you require considerable horizontal movement- unless the fingers starts near the horizontal. Mine does not.

If I choose to make an unequivocal statement, I'm not in the habit of doing so lightly. In this case, it is literally impossible that an arc can provide any explanation for key depression, without a good half inch (at a conservative estimate of movement) of horizontal sliding. Even a half-inch slide is not on display in a single finger action. In many there's not even a mm.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are other elements to a healthy technique? I'm not even arguing against using a literal arc sometimes. It's just that a technique that contains no means of avoiding slippages where desired is not a versatile technique. There is no rational explanation for how an arc could either eliminate slippage, or reduce it to negligible levels- unless the pianist also uses actions of extending. Good pianists have more than an arc in their toolbox. Until I discovered the more direct extension action and developed it, I was as good as crippling myself. Most likely- you're lucky enough to have stumbled across it without realising- just like Roy Holmes (who himself regularly shows way too little slipping for it to be physically possible that a pure arc movement is occurring).

[pts1]

N:

I really don't think I can be of any help to you -- if that's what you're seeking?

And I certainly don't wish to carry on with you in the manner you and Keybordclass/Chopintasy
have.

But it really seems you simply want to argue with me and whomever else disagrees with you, or has different opinions based on their experience.

Most of your questions are provocative, and not simply seeking information.

As for your video, both I and P2U see you doing things you don't think you're doing, so I don't know where to go with this.

Rather than criticize me/us for seeing something you don't, might it not be better to try and understand what we're able to discern that you are not?

Instead, you seem to take it as a personal attack.

So unless you have a genuine question I think we're done.

[nyiregyhazi]

N:

I really don't think I can be of any help to you -- if that's what you're seeking?

And I certainly don't wish to carry on with you in the manner you and Keybordclass/Chopintasy
have.

But it really seems you simply want to argue with me and whomever else disagrees with you, or has different opinions based on their experience.

Most of your questions are provocative, and not simply seeking information.

As for your video, both I and P2U see you doing things you don't think you're doing, so I don't know where to go with this.

Consider this:

I have not once stated that the arc is an invalid movement. I have pointed out the impossibility of exploiting it from anything but a flat finger without considerably pronounced slipping (that cannot possibly be reduced without also reducing distance of key depression, due to basic geometry). Personally I use a wealth of different possibilities. I'm simply baffled by your insistence that a pianist should restrict himself to just one alone. For someone who insists that these matters are not of interest, you're remarkably adamant and persistent about refusing to acknowledging the validity of anything but a pure arc action.

Personally I acknowledge both a pure arc and an action that also involves extension. If you think we occupy polar opposites, you are mistaken. I'm just interested in the significantly different physical possibilities of the two different actions- BOTH of which are of interest to me,

PS. If you're going to tell me that I'm wasting my time analysing technique and patronise me with the statement that it will do more harm than good, that IS a personal attack. If you find these discussions so pointless, why are you engaging in them? I linked a blog post, detailing issues that have substantially aided progress. So what is your motive in insisting that piano technique is all about the arc and must not involve extension- given both that you proclaim that analysis is counterproductive and that it does not interest you? It seems that you have one rule for your personal beliefs and another rule for anything that falls outside of them.

[nyiregyhazi]

Sad, very sad that this topic is going as usual. I thought we already  established a few pages ago that one cannot establish a pianist's real coordination by watching a YouTube movie. As a matter of fact, we could all be fooling ourselves while trying to pick up something useful from this. What is visible is not necessarily the coordination a pianist feels he or she is using. When someone "lets go", there are always natural reflexes (the distals curling a bit), "movements" because of reaction forces, etc. (not deliberate motions!) As a matter of fact, I'd swear N. is a very dedicated "Taubmanite" because I also noticed some rotation here and there (slowed down the film and enlarged it).

In many cases I'd agree with you. However, in this case, there's only one physically possible explanation of how the knuckles can remain at a consistent height (rather than fall by the distance the key descends by), yet without causing a good half inch+ of finger tip slippage. The exclusive physical explanation for that is that the distance between fingertip and knuckle has been increased- by lengthening the finger.

There are many things that can go on under the surface, that might start bigger but become smaller. However, any explanation that has no alternative explanation for how a physical distance can have increased (supposedly without any lengthening occurring between those two physical points) is on a par with witch-craft. You cannot "internalise" the necessity of spanning a distance. Either you cover it or you don't. Two things cannot get further away from each other without a lengthening having occurred. I only speak so unequivocally on issues where it is rationally justifiable to do so.

[pts1]

                                      THIS THREAD


                                                       

[nyiregyhazi]

                                      THIS THREAD


                                                       

We're not done yet. I'm going to upload a film that shows quite what a pronounced level of slippage would be required merely to ground a key- were the action to be carried out purely as an arc.

[thalbergmad]

I'm going to upload a film that shows quite what a pronounced level of slippage would be required merely to ground a key- were the action to be carried out purely as an arc.

Well, I was going to watch Godfather III tonight, but now it looks I will have to change my plans.

Thal

[chopantasy]

Well, I was going to watch Godfather III tonight, but now it looks I will have to change my plans.

Thal

You'll be needing English subtitles.

[marik1]

Has anyone ever seen a pianist playing the famous Rach 3 "ossia" cadenza, systematically raising his fingers high French style? (A big no-no in the books of many methodists)

Yes:

And in my book does pretty darn good job.

Best, M

[m1469]

Yes:

And in my book does pretty darn good job.

Best, M

haha ... *searches now for ALL things Sokolov*