Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[cazico]

Hi guys!

(First of all I have to apologize for whenever my terrible english bothers you!)

I have a very important and fundamental question about piano technique - i.e. finger curves, angles, muscles etc.

First of all I would say that I'm not a beginner; now I work on several Chopin etudes, just so you know that. Here's the thing:

I've previously used a technique quite similiar to pianists like Kissin I think, with lifted and curved fingers, particularly when tempo is high. My first piano teacher said that it is important to practice slowly and lift the fingers quite high and curve them if the tempo is high, i.e. the angle are quite pronounced in both DIP and PIP articulationes (=junction?). Something like you can see when Kissin play fast scales.

However I feel that this is too much use of the extensor muscles in the forearm, and you can be tired in the left part of the forearm (because of extensor digitorum etc.).

Now I've had some few sessions with another teacher, who says that DIP and PIP shouldn't be much curved at all. The important thing is to use the intrinsic muscles in the hand more, like interossei and lumbricales. She says that Argerich has a wonderful technique and says that I should try to use more flat fingers, and have the movements in the "knuckle" (not in DIP/PIP). By doing that I will not overuse the forearme muscles (like extensor digitorum) and I'll be less susceptible for overuse injuries, tendinitis etc...

What's your thoughts on this? How much do you curve the fingers, I would like to know the angles of DIP and PIP. I know it depends on whether you play just white keys or black keys etc, but let's say when you play a C major scale very rapidly. Pictures or videos showing this would be great too!  I have my opinions on this, but I'll not say them yet, because I would like yours.

And what do you think of the technique of Argerich compared to Kissin? The use of muscles etc...

[p2u_]

Now I've had some few sessions with another teacher, who says that DIP and PIP shouldn't be much curved at all. The important thing is to use the intrinsic muscles in the hand more, like interossei and lumbricales. She says that Argerich has a wonderful technique and says that I should try to use more flat fingers, and have the movements in the "knuckle" (not in DIP/PIP). By doing that I will not overuse the forearme muscles (like extensor digitorum) and I'll be less susceptible for overuse injuries, tendinitis etc...

I agree, but your teacher weakens her own argument by referring to the wrong authorities.

P.S.: No offense, but I'm not going to compare Argerich with Kissin, not even if you pay me to do it. Neither am I going to show any other pianists to prove a point. Your teacher is right; this is the most natural way to play the piano. It's up to you what you do with it. As they say: Take it or leave it.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

There's a widely made mistake on this issue- that involves failure to differentiate between position and action as well as past and present. A curved finger is ALREADY curved. I believe it's widely harmful to clench a CURVED finger and to play by then CURVING it further still. However, a finger that already curved can extend to play a key. It's CURVED but never CURVING. The difference between matters of past and present are inestimably huge. Also, if whichever finger played last is serving to keep the knuckles up, the fingers may be curved without any activity or effort in those fingers themselves. They can dangle curved- if the finger that keeps a key depressed performs the activity that allows them to do so. "Curved" can be purely a position- not a direct action.

You cannot productively generalise about curved versus flat without taking into account these issues. It's all about what you do with the fingers. Personally, I've taken to using very curved fingers while playing. However, two key points are that I almost NEVER use any grasping action in the two mid joints- either before, during or after the note sounds. I don't strive to curve- quite the opposite. The curve is formed by dangling a loose finger and the action is the very opposite of curving- it's one of extending out, or "uncurving" if you like. In the case of Kissin's technique, I believe there is a lot of inefficiency and fixation. It's a matter of brute force rather than simplicity. I wouldn't personally advocate that style of movement- but the extreme curve of a pianist like Richter is a totally different matter.

[p2u_]

It's CURVED but never CURVING.

I think the topic starter probably means "curling" fingers, not "curving" ones.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

I think the topic starter probably means "curling" fingers, not "curving" ones.

Paul

Quite possibly. However, one of the reasons I stress the point so much is that I realise that, prior to becoming aware of various necessary distinctions, curved fingers were nothing more than a position to me. I didn't think much (if it all) about what created them or what specific style activity would be used from them to move keys. It was a simple matter of- are the fingers curved or are they flat? Beyond that, I really did not even know what it meant to me about how to move a key.

Different people might be prompted to do countless different things by thinking of curved fingers. For some it may lead to a natural finger curve and an act of extension that is the very opposite of "curving". For others, thinking of "curved" fingers may implant a strong desire to be performing the action of "curving". I'm becoming progressively bemused by the fact that so many people have placed so much important on the superficial dichotomy between curved and flat- generally without stopping to cover any of the important issues that lie under the immediate surface.

[p2u_]

I'm becoming progressively bemused by the fact that so many people have placed so much important on the superficial dichotomy between curved and flat- generally without stopping to cover any of the important issues that lie under the immediate surface.

I would not be surprised if this topic should actually have been called "curled vs. curved fingers" instead of "curved vs. flat fingers".

Argerich doesn't use flat fingers; she has them curved and lifts them.
And Kissin doesn't curve; he curls and lifts them.

Hence my remark about the wrong reference by the piano teacher.

P.S.: I also object against the "hold-a-ball-in-your-hand" kind of advice. To my mind, one should put the hands on the piano in the same position as they hang down alongside the body. This means they will be only slightly curved (the fingers look kind of flat, but are not as flat as Horowitz' fingers). From there anything goes as dictated by the music, but you always go back to the initial natural position.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

I would not be surprised if this topic should actually have been called "curled vs. curved fingers" instead of "curved vs. flat fingers".

Argerich doesn't use flat fingers; she has them curved and lifts them.
And Kissin doesn't curve; he curls and lifts them.

I see your point- but unless someone is familiar with the terminology Taubman uses, there isn't necessarily an obvious practical distinction that is inherent within the words themselves. I think it's largely a big of a "lingo" issue- rather than one that necessarily has major practical consequences. As I strive to use my thumb to push my knuckles as high as physically possible (something I'm exaggerating to get past a tendency that otherwise has them drooping down severely), my own fingers are often extremely "curled" when hanging down naturally and freely. Personally, I think virtually any extent can still be healthy- as long as the activity is performed in an effective way. Recently, I've frequently been doing extension exercises that start from curling the to the point of laying my nail down flat on the table and pushing myself away. Because I'm doing it rather lightly and never gripping inwards (but rather extending away), even this extreme curled position has never once caused me so much as a trace of discomfort. At the piano, even the most extremely curled starter position is positively mild by comparison. I'd only be concerned if someone were hammering from a great height- but extreme "curled" positions can be rather literally effortless, requiring no curling up actions at all. Even at such extremes, I'd still place much more importance in the corresponding actions and manner of movement, than in even a curled vs curved dichotomy.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just to summarise that in a brief way- the big issue for me is that fingers should not generally be performing an action of "CURLING", in most normal playing. Whether the position they are in would normally be described as "curled" or "curved" is not really a big issue- as either position can be achieved and played from healthily and comfortably (and without necessarily any activity at all in the fingers that are not keeping any keys down- no matter how "curled" they might appear to be).

[cazico]

Thanks a lot for all replies! I really appreciate your help.

It is of course important to differentiate between position and action, as you say.

but the extreme curve of a pianist like Richter is a totally different matter

I see what you mean! I've listened a lot to Richter, but actually never noticed on video his extreme curve. Interesting to watch!  


Regarding Argerich vs. Kissin: I think I was a little bit unclear. This isn't about who's best or who's playing scales clearest and producing the purest sounds etc. I'm thinking of the use of muscles etc. If you are teachers, would you teach the "Kissin technique" or "Argerich technique" (or something in between) ?

I personally think that Kissin uses the muscles in the forearm too much. I'm not criticizing him as a pianist, but I'm just discussing the "ergonomics".

Look at this video, where Argerich and Kissin play together:

You can see how "curved" (if that is the correct word) the Kissin fingers are. Look at 02:22 for example.
My thought is that he uses the flexor muscles of the forearem (to keep it curved) at the same time as he uses the extensor muscles of the forearm to lift the fingers high (see at his 5th finger particularly; it's lifted very high compared to Argerich's 5th finger).
I think that too much use of the extensor muscles and flexor muscles (which have actually quite opposing functions) at the same time is not good (ergonomically).

I'm not saying that Argerich play the piano better, but I think that she uses the muscles more effectively, and that her use of the intrinsic muscles of the hand (interossei and lumbricales) is better for the body.

I've played quite similiar to the Kissin technique you see in the video above at 02.22, with quite curved fingers and the 5th finger curved and lifted high. My teacher tries to show me that I should not curve the fingers that much (by using flexor muscles in the forearm). I should have a quite small DIP and PIP angle, but a larger angle at the knuckles. The movements should be in the knuckle. This is what we observe in Argerich.

To summarize, I would say that I'm trying to have a technique where I:
- have quite small DIP and VIP angles (in "static" positions)
- the movements are made in the knuckle, i.e. I'm not curving/curling the fingers in motion as I lift them. I just try to lift them straight up without much changes in DIP or PIP angles


What do you think of my thoughts / my teacher's thoughts?
More feedback and advices is highly appreciated!

[p2u_]

@ cazico

It is impossible to guess Kissin's coordination from this video. What we think we see may not be what he feels. After all, he has been playing for years now in a very busy schedule without problems. Genius has its own laws. Let me say it like this: the outer appearance of what he is doing is not something I would recommend just to anyone, but if, as a teacher, I got a talent of that calibre, I would not try to change his technique. That could mean the end of his artistic "self".

P.S.: You may want to have a look at Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. What he did in terms of movement is really aesthetically beautiful (and musically/pianistically effective, of course) and is very much in line with what your teacher says.

Paul

[chopantasy]

The important question you need to ask yourself is do you initiate movement from the DIP or the knuckle?  Compared to that 'curled', 'curved' or 'flat' is pretty academic.

[cazico]

The important question you need to ask yourself is do you initiate movement from the DIP or the knuckle?  Compared to that 'curled', 'curved' or 'flat' is pretty academic.

Could you please elaborate?

[chopantasy]

Could you please elaborate?

What moves first the DIP or the knuckle?  The vast majority go for the knuckle but there are a few of us sensitive souls out there who move the DIP first.  Reason being  the finger pads are the most sensitive to touch in the body.

[cazico]

It is impossible to guess Kissin's coordination from this video. What we think we see may not be what he feels. After all, he has been playing for years now in a very busy schedule without problems. Genius has its own laws. Let me say it like this: the outer appearance of what he is doing is not something I would recommend just to anyone, but if, as a teacher, I got a talent of that calibre, I would not try to change his technique. That could mean the end of his artistic "self".

P.S.: You may want to have a look at Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. What he did in terms of movement is really aesthetically beautiful (and musically/pianistically effective, of course) and is very much in line with what your teacher says.

Thank you for your insightful considerations, Paul.

I've wondered sometimes why Kissin hasn't experienced some kind of muscle problems, since I suspect he uses several hours a day practicing. And from what I see, he uses both extensor and flexor muscles in the forearm extensively and at the same time, and I think that this is often the cause of tendinitis and such problems in pianists. I know some friends with problematic tendinitis, and I suspect that this is caused by too much use of forearm muscles. When I practice scales very heavily I'll be tired in the forearm (extensor muscles) after some minutes. I think that it is a good idea to build up the intrinsic muscles of the hand (interossei and lumbricales) and that the piano playing should be less dependent on the forearm muscles.

I actually think that a large fraction of piano teachers don't know how to get ergonomically correct technique. Several teachers emphasize this curving/curling and lifting thing, like Kissin. But I think it is wrong.

And by the way. Argerich is famous for her trills, isn't she? I think that good trills are done mainly from the knuckle movements, and that the forearm muscles should play a less important role.

All in all, I think it is ergonomically good to have a relatively small DIP and PIP angle, and a larger knuckle angle. Then you (by using the intrinsic muscles of the hand) minimize the risk of overuse injuries, and should get less tired in the forearm.


I would like as many comments as possible on this, since it is really a fundamental thing.

[p2u_]

And by the way. Argerich is famous for her trills, isn't she?

I'll let her answer herself: EXCERPTS FROM A RARE INTERVIEW WITH ARGERICH

[On possibly making a recording of Scarlatti sonatas.]
Well, no, I can't. I have a horror of all those little trills. You see, little trills are my horrible obsession, and most of Scarlatti is full of them. Long, fast trills go all right, but the little ones - they are for me the horror - you know, sometimes I get stuck. I don't lift my fingers enough. It's like stuttering if I'm not in shape. Let's say I'm sight-reading something, and there are some little trills. Then they go.  But the moment I know in advance that I have to do them, then ugh! It's terrible.

She's probably good at them because she's obsessed with them as she says in the interview. Very often the greatest virtuosos are really insecure; that's why they prepare so well. I highlighted the phrase: I don't lift my fingers enough. This will make many PIP- and DIP-users wonder, I think.

I think that good trills are done mainly from the knuckle movements, and that the forearm muscles should play a less important role.

Of course, she plays from the knuckle, but I can't guess the exact coordination in her arms. Emil Gilels is my favorite for trills; not as fast as Argerich, but oh so beautiful. He uses a combination of perfect finger technique (from the knuckle, of course) + rotation elements.

All in all, I think it is ergonomically good to have a relatively small DIP and PIP angle, and a larger knuckle angle. Then you (by using the intrinsic muscles of the hand) minimize the risk of overuse injuries, and should get less tired in the forearm.

Well, I agree (the right movement is in my signature) and I already gave you a hint: watch Michelangeli. In my mind, that's good piano playing.

P.S.: I would like to add though, that although the movement from the knuckle (flexion) is the main initiator, many pianists additionally use a small extension (lengthening) movement from the "knee" (middle) joint. There are certain mechanical benefits to this combined coordination that can be described as follows:
* The intrinsic muscles (interosseous and lumbricals in the hand itself) allow the fingers to work independently,
* the movement adapts directly to the movement of the key, thus avoiding friction,
* the muscles are fast and close to the fingers,
* they are extremely sensitive [through proprioceptive feedback] to the weight and movement of the key.

nyiregyhazi (Reply #2) can tell you more about that. I don't like that kind of discussions actually, because if another person hasn't been through the experience, it's almost impossible to talk about this, the more so since I'm not a native speaker of English. Tone production and tone projection; yes - that's my interest. Besides, there have been many, many topics on here (and on pianoworld.com) already asking the same kind of questions and the outcome is often worse than religious wars and family conflicts combined.

Paul

[pts1]

To my mind, one should put the hands on the piano in the same position as they hang down alongside the body. This means they will be only slightly curved (the fingers look kind of flat, but are not as flat as Horowitz' fingers). From there anything goes as dictated by the music, but you always go back to the initial natural position.

This is exactly correct.

Placing your fingers on E, F#, G#, A#, B (with both hands) you have the single most natural key configuration for the human hand. Chopin used this in teaching his students, as the most natural position.

The arm should be light, and "floating", then you simply pull the key down quickly with a tiny movement.

I believe the nature of the question causes problems in that it puts the cart before the horse.
You find the key cluster or grouping you need to play (and all musical passages can be narrowed down to groupings or clusters) and find how your hand fits most comfortably.

Depending on the "shape" of the key group dictates how curved your finger should be. The execution should always be the same... a quick pulling down of the key with the finger pad/tip
that travels only a few millimeters.

Horowitz, by the way, was not so "flat fingered" as you might think.
Veda Kaplinsky -- famous Julliard teacher who has a sub-specialty of helping students recover from injury -- reports that Horowitz's fingers had a bit of an unnatural curve upward at the tips, so that when he played they appeared flat, but in fact, he was doing what every other professional does. So unless your finger tips have an unusual curving up , then forget about emulating Horowitz.

[chopantasy]

many pianists additionally use a small extension (lengthening) movement from the "knee" (middle) joint.

In general that movement is not extensor based but it's a weakness (or voluntary weakness in Horowitz's case) of the flexors.  As an example - breaking in the nail joint will extend your finger but doesn't require the extensors.  

[p2u_]

many pianists additionally use a small extension (lengthening) movement from the "knee" (middle) joint.

In general that movement is not extensor based but it's a weakness (or voluntary weakness in Horowitz's case) of the flexors.  As an example - breaking in the nail joint will extend your finger but doesn't use the extensors.

No offense, but I did not use the term "extensor muscle". I basically don't like talking about muscles, because I couldn't care less where it all comes from. I just note what I see, but for the sake of semantics, I'll rephrase what I said: While the main impulse comes from the hand knuckle, they also make a slight allowing-to-unbend-the-"knee" movement for better key control. I doubt very much, though, that the picture of what they actually do has gotten any more understandable for the average layman.
P.S.: We should talk more in body mapping terms (where the movement is perceived), not in actual muscle terms. Too complicated for comfort.

Paul

[chopantasy]

P.S.: We should talk more in body mapping terms (where the movement is perceived), not in actual muscle terms. Too complicated for comfort.

Where it is perceived is fine but there's a big difference between extending your finger joints (stretching them out) and allowing an outside force (the key) to bend them back.  You must know which you are doing.  Whether you can say which a youtube pianist is doing is another matter - it takes a lot of expertise.

[p2u_]

Where it is perceived is fine but there's a big difference between extending your finger joints (stretching them out) and allowing an outside force (the key) to bend them back.  You must know which you are doing.  Whether you can say which a youtube pianist is doing is another matter - it takes a lot of expertise.

I won't bother the community with my impressive credentials that could prove that I kind of understand what I describe when I see something (Besides coaching people for exams and competitions, I also repair victims of the system for a living). They don't mean much on the Internet anyway.

Instead, I'll just forward you to a good source on this subject where anyone with questions can find all the answers:

The site is called Music and Health

The man discussing the subject is Richard Beauchamp. I think the description is enough to understand that the man knows what he is talking about - a professional concert pianist with a straight line to Godowsky himself.

The problem of curved fingers and tension is discussed here: Curved Fingers — and Tension?

The demonstration of various kinds of movement used by professional concert pianists is here: The Beast with Five Fingers.

Just click on the links and enjoy. You will need to have Flash player and scripts enabled to make it work.

Now in his description of "intrinsic" touch (the touch for max speed), the concert pianist says:

This is generally the best way to use the fingers when speed, precision and independence are a priority. I have exaggerated the movement a little to make it clear. Note that the finger flexes from the first knuckle (MCP joint) and extends at the middle one (PIP joint). There should be no active straightening out of the finger, but rather a feeling of allowing it to unbend naturally — like the way your knee unbends when you put your foot down.

Now time for the disclaimer/waiver: I suggest you contact the webmaster and express your concerns there. I hope you will be able to present something that proves your level of piano playing, otherwise the conversation won't last very long.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I'm well aware of Beauchamp's web - as you intimate some good some not-so-good advice.  I take from your post you know whether Horowitz is allowing the joint to break or actively extending it?  Have you an example? 

[chopantasy]

In opposition to Beachamp here's Schultz: '...The uses of the small muscles alone are, in fact, limited: most piano-playing demands a greater intensity than their unassisted power can produce.  Even passages of considerable velocity require some aid from the long flexors, the small muscles alone being reserved for extreme velocities of small tonal intensity.'

[p2u_]

I'm well aware of Beauchamp's web - as you intimate some good some not-so-good advice.

Please enlighten me. I'm always willing to learn.

I take from your post you know whether Horowitz is allowing the joint to break or actively extending it?  Have you an example?

If you read the topic carefully, it will be clear that I never mentioned Horowitz' technique as the norm. Yes, he extends actively at the "knee" joint (something Beauchamp does NOT recommend) and if you try to imitate him, you may end up with a hand surgeon. No need to show any specific clip to prove my point; the knuckle bridge (hand arch) is always up and he does stuff with his fingers in a weird way. Anybody can see that in any of his clips.

What I did do: I referred to Michelangeli. I think any clip by that pianist will do. Again, a video clip says nothing about the inner organization of the person. That's the difference between thinking in "body mapping" terms and "muscle talk". I don't care what muscles in his arm work or don't work.

In opposition to Beachamp here's Schultz: '...The uses of the small muscles alone are, in fact, limited: most piano-playing demands a greater intensity than their unassisted power can produce.  Even passages of considerable velocity require some aid from the long flexors, the small muscles alone being reserved for extreme velocities of small tonal intensity.'

That is the kind of passage that doesn't give much useful information (how many % of this, how many % of the other). Beauchamp says basically the same on his site; of course something in the arm (beyond our control) will also work, but in teaching we should tell the student what the main focus should be. If he/she focuses on the small muscles, then the bigger muscles will take care of themselves provided we keep our wrists and arms free, and don't lock anything.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Agreed, as long as you make clear to your students pure intrinsic use is nearly always undesirable.

[nyiregyhazi]

Agreed, as long as you make clear to your students pure intrinsic use is nearly always undesirable.

So what you are saying is that you are altogether ignorant about how the brain controls and instigates movement? You feel that the brain can send out individual signals to rationally selected muscles? You fear that his students will accidentally do the impossible, if he doesn't clarify a purely academic issue that has no bearing on the reality of how the brain instigates movement? It sends out compound signals. To make such a remarkably naive oversight, while adopting such a condescending and pseudo-authoritative tone simply beggars belief.

Why are you posting in this forum? You were banned. Seeing as you haven't changed either your tone or ability to process rational logic, you should not be posting here.

[nyiregyhazi]

Where it is perceived is fine but there's a big difference between extending your finger joints (stretching them out) and allowing an outside force (the key) to bend them back.  You must know which you are doing.  Whether you can say which a youtube pianist is doing is another matter - it takes a lot of expertise.

I extend mine. No doubt about it. With severely flat fingers, it's conceivable that it could be passive. With even a mild natural curve, it's quite impossible for friction to account for it. The fingers start sliding. Sorry, but there's no way it can be passive. It's the same issue on the Roy Holmes clips. If there were no active extension, the fingers would start sliding like crazy.

Subjectively speaking, there may be advantage in pretending it to be passive- but i'm doubtful even of that. I've found it important to practice the action in thin air, with a very clear active extension that creates length. If I isolate intent at the knuckle (back at the piano) it simply isn't the same movement. In particular, it doesn't serve to allow a feeling of "opening", as extension does. Anyone who tries too hard to make it literally passive will only end up teaching themselves a different movement altogether.

I don't believe that extending is ever dangerous- except when the arm jams hard from behind. Arm pressure is what overworks fingers-not simple movements from the hand itself.

[p2u_]

I don't believe that extending is ever dangerous- except when the arm jams hard from behind. Arm pressure is what overworks fingers-not simple movements from the hand itself.

I think that was indeed one of Horowitz' problems sometimes. I remember him saying somewhere he couldn't play Chopin's Etude op. 25 no 11 because "after two pages, my wrist and my arm feel as if they are going to fall off." If he mapped his movements only to the fingers/hands, then that sounds like a weird statement to make.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Why are you posting in this forum? You were banned.

!? Gosh.  Is that how you respond to everyone you disagree with?  I'm only agreeing with p2u - maybe take it up with him?

[nyiregyhazi]

!? Gosh.  Is that how you respond to everyone you disagree with?  I'm only agreeing with p2u - maybe take it up with him?

You did not agree with him at all. You rudely and condescendingly told him that it's necessary to tell his students about which muscles are involved. He already made it quite clear that he considers this irrelevant- and rightly so. The most basic understanding of how the brain causes movement reveals that it's not possible to accidentally isolate intrinsic muscles. The brain does not work by choosing individual muscles. It learns from results and works backwards from there.

If it's even physically possible to isolate intrinsic actions from tendons, it's not something that any student is going to do by accident due to ignorance of tendons (and neither would rational awareness of tendon issues contribute to change).

[chopantasy]

Well drat!  I thought I'd agreed with him.
 

The most basic understanding of how the brain causes movement reveals that it's not possible to accidentally isolate intrinsic muscles. The brain does not work by choosing individual muscles. It learns from results and works backwards from there.

That must be too basic for me - I don't understand a word.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well drat!  I thought I'd agreed with him.
 That must be too basic for me - I don't understand a word.

If you are ignorant about how the brain instigates movement via compound signals, I'd advise you to stop wasting your time on anatomy and learn about body-mapping. Especially if you want to preach to people about what it's supposedly necessary to tell their students. The brain cannot perceive sources of movement and neither can it separate muscles. It perceives movement around where it occurs- which is why the idea that you need to know about the tendons vs intrinsics that cause it is so deeply naive. This does not come into the brains processing and nor can it do so.

[counterpoint]

I would suggest, clearness of playing is not a question of round or flat fingers, striking keys from high or low, but  of when you release the pressed keys. It does not help to "sharpen" the keystroke by high fingers. But sometimes you have to strike a single note from high above - if it's a sforzato note in between a pp run for example.

[p2u_]

I would suggest, clearness of playing is not a question of round or flat fingers, striking keys from high or low, but  of when you release the pressed keys. It does not help to "sharpen" the keystroke by high fingers. But sometimes you have to strike a single note from high above - if it's a sforzato note in between a pp run for example.

Probably depends on what music you play, what effects you want, and what physical type your are. Grigory Sokolov, certainly one of the greatest pianists alive, tends to lift them a lot and with impeccable results. Of course, he also has a wide range of other movements at his disposal.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

I would suggest, clearness of playing is not a question of round or flat fingers, striking keys from high or low, but  of when you release the pressed keys. It does not help to "sharpen" the keystroke by high fingers. But sometimes you have to strike a single note from high above - if it's a sforzato note in between a pp run for example.

I don't think you strictly need to lift the fingers. However, it's a great way of forcing the finger that is depressing a key to stabilise well. This improves control of the next finger. It really can change the sound- and drastically. Time after time I've found that practising finger lifting improves my clarity- even after I stop doing it. The problem is that the fingers can slowly get lazy again though, if I only play from the key- so I have to keep returning to it for practise.

[pts1]

I don't think you strictly need to lift the fingers. However, it's a great way of forcing the finger that is depressing a key to stabilise well. This improves control of the next finger. It really can change the sound- and drastically. Time after time I've found that practising finger lifting improves my clarity- even after I stop doing it. The problem is that the fingers can slowly get lazy again though, if I only play from the key- so I have to keep returning to it for practise.

In the video you posted playing the Bach prelude with your right hand, you were practicing one thing slowly, but doing quite another when you played up to speed, i.e. flicking the tip of the finger on the key. P2U noted something else as well, as I recall, though I don't remember what it was.

Why the devil would you want to "lift" the fingers? Doing so you are literally practicing something you don't need, using muscles you don't need, and getting further from the goal, not closer.

By playing on the key, pulling the key down quickly and "letting go", the sound is clear, and the finger "pops" back into playing position ready for the next key pull, all with no effort whatsoever.

Lack of clarity is laziness of listening, not of the fingers.

I agree with P2U about disliking talking about these things, because its simply not possible after a certain point and is counter productive. It is simply too complex a subject well beyond anyone's intelligence to assimilate "on the fly" and all at once.

And why would you want to?

By focusing on the sound you wish to produce and shutting off the noise of pseudo-intellectual thought, the innate sophistication and wisdom of one's hands and fingers will guide you to the goal.

[thalbergmad]

By focusing on the sound you wish to produce and shutting off the noise of pseudo-intellectual thought, the innate sophistication and wisdom of one's hands and fingers will guide you to the goal.

That sums up my thoughts, not that I could have put it so well.

When playing Beethoven, I try not to think about how the brain instigates movement via compound signals, and I doubt if Beethoven thought about it that often either.

Thal

[j_menz]

That sums up my thoughts, not that I could have put it so well.

When playing Beethoven, I try not to think about how the brain instigates movement via compound signals, and I doubt if Beethoven thought about it that often either.

Thal

Indeed. I feel if Beethoven had thought about such matters, and had a forum like this to discuss them, he'd have never got past Opus 15 or so.

When playing Beethoven, or anyone else, I have enough to do thinking about the music. The rest, so long as it is working and feeling "natural", looks after itself.

[nyiregyhazi]

That sums up my thoughts, not that I could have put it so well.

When playing Beethoven, I try not to think about how the brain instigates movement via compound signals, and I doubt if Beethoven thought about it that often either.

Thal

I referred to compound signals precisely to illustrate how useless factual information with no practical consequences is. Not because awareness of it might help, while playing. However, the just think of the sound and get on with it approach is an approach that limits you to your present ability. It provides no scope for serious technical development, if foundations are not present. Nothing was limited more greatly than my ability to make the sounds I desire, during the many years I used such oversimplified and blindly optimistic thinking.

[nyiregyhazi]

When playing Beethoven, or anyone else, I have enough to do thinking about the music. The rest, so long as it is working and feeling "natural", looks after itself.

And if it's not? That is circular logic. It effectively says that as long as the technique is looking after itself then it will look after itself. What if it doesn't? Unless the results are on a par with the execution of Horowitz or Rubinstein, who is to say that there aren't technical issues holding you back from that something extra?

[nyiregyhazi]

In the video you posted playing the Bach prelude with your right hand, you were practicing one thing slowly, but doing quite another when you played up to speed, i.e. flicking the tip of the finger on the key. P2U noted something else as well, as I recall, though I don't remember what it was.

Why the devil would you want to "lift" the fingers? Doing so you are literally practicing something you don't need, using muscles you don't need, and getting further from the goal, not closer.

By playing on the key, pulling the key down quickly and "letting go", the sound is clear, and the finger "pops" back into playing position ready for the next key pull, all with no effort whatsoever.

Lack of clarity is laziness of listening, not of the fingers.

I agree with P2U about disliking talking about these things, because its simply not possible after a certain point and is counter productive. It is simply too complex a subject well beyond anyone's intelligence to assimilate "on the fly" and all at once.

And why would you want to?

By focusing on the sound you wish to produce and shutting off the noise of pseudo-intellectual thought, the innate sophistication and wisdom of one's hands and fingers will guide you to the goal.

The sound only reveals failures. It doesn't reveal the means of correction.

You are arguing against a strawman and not what I ever stated about finger lifting. Please re-read my words. To reiterate, I said lifting is unnecessary- BUT that practising it ensures the prior finger performs necessary actions that aid clarity of movement. If I do not practise lifting some of the time, my regular from the key approach becomes less successful most rapidly. Practising lifting refreshes the feel for actions that are necessary whether I am lifting or not. If you do not believe that I achieve a vastly clearer sound after practising this way (or that I listen exactly the same whether I have practised this way or not), I'm not going to bother arguing against something you are evidently not open-minded about.

Regarding the bach, I'll upload another film of that sometime. You are mistaking my arm movements for finger slips. I do not claim never to retract the tip at all, but the extent is very slight and most actions are of actively extending. I'll do another film that makes it 100% clear. In the bach, there are slight in and out arm motions that occur. However, virtually all finger actions extend. The dragging arm creates illusions. Even if the fingertip occasionally retracts slightly, this doesn't show that such an action is used at all times or even that it is the more common motion. My standard action is to extend. Slides are the exception.

[ajspiano]

And if it's not? That is circular logic. It effectively says that as long as the technique is looking after itself then it will look after itself. What if it doesn't? Unless the results are on a par with the execution of Horowitz or Rubinstein, who is to say that there aren't technical issues holding you back from that something extra?

I'm certainly not for overdoing it - too much science i mean - but i have to agree. Its all well and good for those who can intuitively adjust but that simply does not apply to everyone.

In saying that - I'm not all for describing in great detail exactly what should physically be done, so much as creating a model of what "comfortable free playing" feels like, and guiding someone (or oneself) to that by feel. Which usually does not take very long at all - and then you go right back to focusing on music..

[j_menz]

I'm certainly not for overdoing it - too much science i mean - but i have to agree. Its all well and good for those who can intuitively adjust but that simply does not apply to everyone.

In saying that - I'm not all for describing in great detail exactly what should physically be done, so much as creating a model of what "comfortable free playing" feels like, and guiding someone (or oneself) to that by feel. Which usually does not take very long at all - and then you go right back to focusing on music..

I have the luxury of not having to find comfortable playing for anyone but myself. I think that if I had to teach others how to do that, I'd be quite at a loss. That would make me a poor teacher indeed.  In my own case, finding that feeling does come rather intuitively, though I do have to make an effort at times to do it. Of the many things that are preventing me from being a Horowitz or whoever, that would seem not to be one of them (time and effort being the major ones, and perhaps a lack of natural talent).

[ajspiano]

I have the luxury of not having to find comfortable playing for anyone but myself. I think that if I had to teach others how to do that, I'd be quite at a loss. That would make me a poor teacher indeed.  In my own case, finding that feeling does come rather intuitively, though I do have to make an effort at times to do it. Of the many things that are preventing me from being a Horowitz or whoever, that would seem not to be one of them (time and effort being the major ones, and perhaps a lack of natural talent).

I do it fairly intuitively most of the time too -

Its a very different ball game when someone comes to you with 6 years of childhood lessons containing zero technical guidance and a repetitively built it physical technique that causes pain. At least it has been with the few of these I've dealt with.

[pts1]

The sound only reveals failures. It doesn't reveal the means of correction.

Not to me. The sound is the solution in disguise. By careful listening, and thinking in terms of what you wish to achieve, you can understand what you need to do physically to achieve the result.

This is not at all simplistic and anything like a "circular argument".
By being open to the wisdom of the hands/fingers linked with careful listening, you can figure out what it is you need to do to achieve your goals.

This is actually much more advanced that the rudimentary approach of constantly trying to figure out how to move the piano playing mechanisms.

Regarding the bach, I'll upload another film of that sometime. You are mistaking my arm movements for finger slips. I do not claim never to retract the tip at all, but the extent is very slight and most actions are of actively extending. I'll do another film that makes it 100% clear. In the bach, there are slight in and out arm motions that occur. However, virtually all finger actions extend. The dragging arm creates illusions. Even if the fingertip occasionally retracts slightly, this doesn't show that such an action is used at all times or even that it is the more common motion. My standard action is to extend. Slides are the exception.

Goodness... you've talked yourself into a fantasy here, insisting that you play by means of "extension".

So you don't "pull" the key down but "extend" your finger?
You attempted to demonstrate this in your video in slow motion, but then when you play the prelude up to speed you resort to natural mechanics pulling the keys down with flexion, and not the arm movements you claim.


This seems like the result of severe obsession to me.

You seem very much "stuck in your head".

I have been where you are... and for quite some time, and a miserable time it was.

I was convinced everyone else simply did not get how important these things were and that they were shallow and vacuous wanting to merely "make beautiful sounds" at the piano.

My particular problem was that no one really taught me technical method other than the old European notion of "weight playing" which constantly had me in and out of physical problems. So I became obsessed with "trying to figure out" how professionals played, and to make matters worse, I had a very good natural technique, and when I just "let go" and ignored EVERYONE's advice, things went really well. It was only when -- as a last resort -- I gave up all of that, started listening very carefully, and slowly but surely discovered the secrets to great technique.

So that's my excuse.... what's yours?

By virtue of experience I can tell you that as long as you insist on trying to convince yourself of these unnatural means of playing and your "intellectual" interventions and tinkering, you'll remain stuck.

[ajspiano]

Not to me. The sound is the solution in disguise. By careful listening, and thinking in terms of what you wish to achieve, you can understand what you need to do physically to achieve the result.

In my experience this assumes that a pianists technique, while perhaps not fully developed to a virtuoso level - is at least fundamentally sound, which of course may not be the case, even for those attempting advanced repertoire.

[pts1]

In my experience this assumes that a pianists technique, while perhaps not fully developed to a virtuoso level - is at least fundamentally sound, which of course may not be the case, even for those attempting advanced repertoire.

Right.

One must certainly have the fundamentals and have enough control to be free of having to think about basic movements. But even still, IMHO, I think I could have saved myself a great deal of grief and hand/arm pain had I followed my own advice when I was much younger.

For instance, I would tell someone who was struggling today to practice evenly and softly without pedal at a comfortable but somewhat restrained tempo, and to prize this over all other goals.

To be able to do this with say the Bach Invention No 1, you must play properly using the ears for feedback to control the fingers, and this is not easy.

But if you can do it, as well as other not too difficult repetoire, as well as all your scales and arpeggios, etc eventually at about 120, one will have discovered a great deal, have considerable control over the instrument, and have a basis for more difficult pieces.

One simply cannot play good even soft scales without pedal at 120 in all keys without playing correctly and listening well for continuous feed back.

And once a person can do this, that's most of the battle and enhancements such as dynamics and greater or lesser speed will evolve as a natural extension of this kind of discipline, IMO.

[ajspiano]

I think I could have saved myself a great deal of grief and hand/arm pain had I followed my own advice when I was much younger.

There's a lot of..

Advice given when its not needed
Advice that is just totally incorrect
Advice that is easily misinterpreted
Misinterpretations not picked up by teachers
Complete lack of advice when it is needed..
Emphasis on the visual rather than how the performer actually feels while playing

[p2u_]

Indeed. I feel if Beethoven had thought about such matters, and had a forum like this to discuss them, he'd have never got past Opus 15 or so.

When playing Beethoven, or anyone else, I have enough to do thinking about the music. The rest, so long as it is working and feeling "natural", looks after itself.

As a matter of fact, you would be surprised to know how aware some of the greatest pianists were and are of most anything related to their craft/art. The only golden rule is that a teacher/coach should not confuse the student with all that info, because the latter can't grasp it all.

Paul

[j_menz]

As a matter of fact, you would be surprised to know how aware some of the greatest pianists were and are of most anything related to their craft/art.

Some perhaps, but I suspect that most of them do quite a bit from instinct, or because it works and feels right, without any sort of mechanical analysis.

Incidentally, Beethoven apparently believed that a good solid grounding in Clementi was all that was required for good piano technique (at least up to a certain point). Insisted poor Karl play nothing but, and indeed always some handy himself.  Actually, I wonder if there's something in that. 

[thalbergmad]

Nothing was limited more greatly than my ability to make the sounds I desire, during the many years I used such oversimplified and blindly optimistic thinking.

Then I feel sorry for you. No doubt your "theories" are perfectly correct if applied to yourself, but they do not all apply to everyone. There have to be many pianists who can play difficult works superbly without caring if their joint has just collapsed or they are playing too much from the shoulder.

Thal