Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[j_menz]

The trouble is: you *can't*, and beautiful piano sound is not the only thing in this world that can't be explained. The very idea of trying to explain this stuff puts you in an awkward position, because the premises and the assumptions will always be limited, not to speak of the limitations of your technical equipment. Therefore, any argument about the subject will never hold.

Paul

Sadly, that truth has failed to deter many from trying.

[j_menz]

...besides if you are denying the wrist needs to be fixed as long as you apply force to the key (to counter the key thereby applying it's force back) it's Newton you have an issue with. 

Oh goodie!! I'd love Newton to be in on this thread.  Perhaps he could put in a mention for his other two laws of motion, which would seem to be equally relevant.

[p2u_]

...besides if you are denying the wrist needs to be fixed as long as you apply force to the key (to counter the key thereby applying it's force back) it's Newton you have an issue with.

I'd rather leave Newton alone, especially since he's long been dead. You don't have to fix your wrist deliberately to get a key down. I know that from my own experience and I wouldn't bother to disturb the poor man's peaceful rest.

P.S.: I'm not saying nothing happens in the wrist at any time. It's just that it shouldn't have our attention. That's again the differentiation between body mapping and muscle talk. Lots of things happen when you walk, but nobody (I hope) would think of DELIBERATELY locking their hips, knees and ankles in the process. Instead, in order not to damage your spine, you walk with a coordination towards the ball of the foot (not bouncing on your heels!) and you keep your posture up. The rest is for nature to take care of.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Physiology does not countermand mechanics - I refer you to Newton's third law of motion: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (1687)  In other words the key forces the wrist up with a force equal to that forcing the key down. Physiology doesn't enter into it.Presumably you live in some weird pre-Newton world.

Yes, I'm sure it's all very witty to cite the very law that you know full well I consider in my mechanical analysis. However, if you want to use mechanics, then you need to understand them. A misunderstood citation does not make for a proof.

What you have failed to consider is that Newton's law is directional and that the arm is a whole chain of joints that is not vertical but primarily horizontal. In fact, press the key down via the arm and the wrist naturally goes down, not up. If you're thinking that the key goes down and therefore a reaction must push the wrist up in the opposite direction, your model is grossly oversimplified to the point of being plain embarrassing. It depends entirely on specific directions of a whole chain of forces.

If the finger could only pull back in an arc, the reaction would drag the wrist forward and up. Stiffening the wrist is little use to resist that. Pulling back from the elbow means the whole arms mass is involved in keeping alignment- not a tiny sensitive muscle. Even in this scenario your 'proof' for needing wrist stiffening is founded on short-sighted pseudoscience. There is a more than credible alternative.

However, extension actions can also aim marginally forwards. The reaction to this actively pushes the wrist back-encouraging it to straighten. No need for fixation whatsoever.

If you want to keep digging your own grave by using bogus rationalisation to "prove" your own crippling tensions are necessary, go ahead. But keep Newton out of the ill-considered pseudoscientific proofs.

[nyiregyhazi]

...besides if you are denying the wrist needs to be fixed as long as you apply frce to the key (to counter the key thereby applying it's force back) it's Newton you have an issue with.  

No, it's your ignorant attempt to use ill-understood knowledge to prove something that it does not do so. If you want to use Newton, start with a foundation course in mechanics. From there, you'll be in a position to consider chain reactions with potential accuracy- rather than leap to automatic assumptions that Newton's laws probably mean what it is most convenient to your arguments for them to mean. They mean no such thing.

When a reaction pulls at the wrist it gets pulled up (unless lower than the knuckles, in which case it merely goes forwards). When a reaction pushes back through it, there is nothing acting to raise it. Your whole premise is founded on ignorance about how to apply Newton.

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh goodie!! I'd love Newton to be in on this thread.  Perhaps he could put in a mention for his other two laws of motion, which would seem to be equally relevant.

Newton's law is phenomenally relevant to piano playing. It's specifically why bad pianists are so stiff in virtually all cases- because they feel a reaction and clench against it. The problem is simply that he's using a bogus interpretation to claim that amateurish wrist fixing is the only possible way to play. In reality, all good pianists learn how to absorb Newton's reactions into a loose arm- not to fixate. When you get it right, it is ironically more stable to stay loose than to clench joints.

[p2u_]

Newton's law is phenomenally relevant to piano playing.

Very true. You only have a practical problem: your audience can't handle your detailed description of HOW exactly it is relevant to piano playing. That's why their reaction to better "throw away the baby with the bath water" than try to understand what you actually mean is natural. If it's too much to grasp in one sitting (I think I needed 5 sittings for some of your posts, but I'm very stubborn if I want something ), then, automatically, what you propose as a way to play (which is actually not that difficult) will also be "too much". That is the weakness of a 1000 words, where 1 simple video clip, showing the right movement (maybe exaggerated a bit for good effect) could have worked miracles.

That's exactly why I said that it would be preferable to leave the poor man alone OR keep the description of the relevance of his theories for piano playing to a minimum.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Very true. You only have a practical problem: your audience can't handle your detailed description of HOW exactly it is relevant to piano playing. That's why their reaction to better "throw away the baby with the bath water" than try to understand what you actually mean is natural. If it's too much to grasp in one sitting (I think I needed 5 sittings for some of your posts, but I'm very stubborn if I want something ), then, automatically, what you propose as a way to play (which is actually not that difficult) will also be "too much". That is the weakness of a 1000 words, where 1 simple video clip, showing the right movement (maybe exaggerated a bit for good effect) could have worked miracles.

That's exactly why I said that it would be preferable to leave the poor man alone OR keep the description of the relevance of his theories for piano playing to a minimum.

Paul

I see your point-but is it really THAT hard to understand the fact that reactions occur and that to fight them equals tension? It's scarcely more complex than knowing that you need to perceive responses to your movements. Is understanding this basic premise really more difficult than performing hours of finger exercises, or hours of weight exercises? Or to be slightly prodded by your teacher week after week until you finally move well without knowing how (if it ever happens). Personally I think that understanding the basic concept of perceiving reactions is the simplest route of all. Just because it's very different from standard approaches (to the point of initially seeming quite strange), it doesn't mean it isn't ultimately simpler. Sure, good teaching is important- but what happens when the teacher is not there? Being aware of conscious issues makes it way easier to keep progressing- compared to having a go at something that you can neither yet feel or understand.

My posts so far have largely covered background issues (aside from the thumb one, that scarcely involves the science at all). When I get on to the next few about finger movement, you might be surprised at how basic any background science is. I've done most of the background proofs. Most of the rest is just practical application.

However, the problem with going only practical is it comes back to the old copying the surface issue. The easiest way not to fight reactions (with either arm pressure or stiffness) is first to KNOW about them and PERCEIVE them with the senses. Demonstration videos are usually so limited because they reveal nothing of how to do so. They don't even mention this defining issue- that specifically causes such classics as the stiff wrist. You're left with a superficial demonstration that conveys nothing of the most important issues with the regard to possibility of success. The only way to convey how to do finger technique by long distance, without a stiff wrist, is to lift the lid on the internal reactions. Once awareness is there, it's already half the battle. It's a lot easier to perceive what tensions are fighting against, than the tension itself. I think this makes for way easier solution than merely striving not to be stiff (while clueless as to what makes you stiff).

[cmg]

This discussion has raised many important points, but the intellectualized approach to examining technique, etc. reminds me of the time I studied with a protege of Abbey Whiteside.  Literally every gesture at the keyboard in lessons was micro-analzyed as if I were indeed a robot with nothing but levers.  Particular, formalized gestures for every note pattern were insisted upon.  Alberti bass became a preoccupation that haunted me for weeks.  When I did grasp the "only way" to play Alberti bass, I realized it was simply the most efficient way, i.e. rocking the hand back and forth, to and fro, and not side to side.  That is, in MOST cases, but not all.  Beneath all of this detailed vivisection was the thing I came away with:  avoid stiffness at all costs and the correct way to play will arise right in front of your own eyes, ears and nose.  And, of course, such microanalysis will kill the music you're playing as surely as I'm typing this right now.

The more you think about it, and the less you let yourself truly FEEL what your body is doing, the more trouble you get into.

And, I think all participants here are basically arguing this same point.

Or, have I lost the thread to this thread two days ago? :-)

[nyiregyhazi]

This discussion has raised many important points, but the intellectualized approach to examining technique, etc. reminds me of the time I studied with a protege of Abbey Whiteside.  Literally every gesture at the keyboard in lessons was micro-analzyed as if I were indeed a robot with nothing but levers.  Particular, formalized gestures for every note pattern were insisted upon.  Alberti bass became a preoccupation that haunted me for weeks.  When I did grasp the "only way" to play Alberti bass, I realized it was simply the most efficient way, i.e. rocking the hand back and forth, to and fro, and not side to side.  That is, in MOST cases, but not all.  Beneath all of this detailed vivisection was the thing I came away with:  avoid stiffness at all costs and the correct way to play will arise right in front of your own eyes, ears and nose.  And, of course, such microanalysis will kill the music you're playing as surely as I'm typing this right now.

The more you think about it, and the less you let yourself truly FEEL what your body is doing, the more trouble you get into.

And, I think all participants here are basically arguing this same point.

Or, have I lost the thread to this thread two days ago? :-)

The implication being that feeling and thinking are mutually exclusive polar opposites? They are not. If thinking is so bad, do you propose that teaching is only done through touch? Are all words harmful?

Sorry, but I find it silly to present a dichotomy where it is clear that none exists. The reality is always a balance. Thinking does not preclude feeling. It should be used to actively educate the senses. Ask yourself, if you never had any advice except to try to stay loose, and could you play as you do now? It's easy to say that in hindsight. You've already done the work that has made that attitude effective.

[cazico]

No offense, but that is exactly why topics like this one always go in the same direction: everybody cares about tendonitis, but nobody really cares about what the other person is saying about the subject.

Believe me, man. I've tried to express my gratitude to all feedback, opinions and comments from the first reply. I really care about what others are saying, particularly since there are many highly accomplished musicians on this forum.

When you use the tactically incorrect "You are wrong", the client will go into the defense and you can forget about communication. Don't you care about that? If you don't, then I suggest everybody here reiterate their arguments before a mirror at home; very effective therapy...

I really didn't see the problem, but now I think that this has to do with my bad english. I apologized in my first contribution to this thread, and I do it again. In my country we are probably expressing ourselves a little bit more directly, because such things would never attract attention in a discussion forum in my language.  

As I said, I'm just trying to justify the relevance of my questions, regarding elegant and ergonomically correct piano technique based on some anatomical foundations.

[cazico]

So I hope you gather from my somewhat rambling conversation that I'm not at all anti-muscle talk, its just that [...]

I gathered a lot from that reply. Thanks. 

[cazico]

Physiology does not countermand mechanics - I refer you to Newton's third law of motion: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (1687)  In other words the key forces the wrist up with a force equal to that forcing the key down. Physiology doesn't enter into it.Presumably you live in some weird pre-Newton world.

Newton's elegant laws don't change the fact that muscles that go through the wrist and also acting on the wrist stiffen the wrist in a much higher degree than intrinsic muscles in the hand acting on the fingers (and not going through the wrist and not directly acting on the wrist).

I think there is no doubt that by relaxing the forearm muscles which are going through the wrist (and rely more on the intrinsic muscles of the hand) you make the wrist more flexible.

[chopantasy]

It's tendons not muscles that go through the wrist.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's tendons not muscles that go through the wrist.

Yes, never mind the issues of consequence. Let's focus on a minor issue of terminology and ignore all of relevance to the wrist issue.

[cazico]

I'm really impressed by all you spending time on these important issues. I have to use some more time to peruse everything in this thread and extract the most important. So far nyiregyhazi is probably closest to my opinions and understandings and somehow seems to have the least arrogant approach on this, but of course all opinions are highly appreciated!  

Because english is not my native language I don't feel qualified to "contaminate" this forum too much by repling everything.  

[chopantasy]

Yes, never mind the issues of consequence. Let's focus on a minor issue of terminology and ignore all of relevance to the wrist issue.

If someone is interested in the anatomy of playing and thinks 'muscles go through the wrist' it's hardly minor.  Why don't you stick to the OT instead of making snide sarcastic remarks?

[cazico]

It's tendons not muscles that go through the wrist.

I don't want to reveal too much about my background, but what I can tell you is that I actually have studied anatomy quite extensively (but never in relevance to piano technique though). I'm sorry that I wrote "muscle" instead of "tendon of the muscle". However, it doesn't change my statement.  A tendon functions to transmit forces; Where the contraction per se occurs is irrelevant in this particular case.
So I don't see your point, chopantasy.

[cazico]

If someone is interested in the anatomy of playing and thinks 'muscles go through the wrist' it's hardly minor.  Why don't you stick to the OT instead of making snide sarcastic remarks?

The action of the muscle is transmitted by the tendons. You should know that obvious fact. Anatomists talking about muscles say that e.g. the extensor digitorum muscle has its origin in the lateral epicondyle of the elbow and that this muscle has its insertion in the phalanges of the fingers. It is really no big deal if we say that the muscle go through the wrist, since the insertion point of the muscle and the origin point of muscle are placed so that the wrist is in between.
Where the myocytes with their actin and myosin action is placed is irrelevant in this case.

And I'm now very curious about those "wrist muscles" you talked about. Let me hear! I'm interested in anatomy. 

There is no doubt that the extensor digitorum muscles as well as several other forearm muscles act on the wrist, while interossei and lumbricales do not (at least not directly and as much as the forearm muscles).

[chopantasy]

Good.  Now wave your hand as if saying goodbye to someone then do the same while clenching and unclenching a fist - any difference in the wrist?

[cazico]

Good.  Now wave your hand as if saying goodbye to someone then do the same while clenching and unclenching a fist - any difference in the wrist?

I don't understand what your point is.
However, I'll prefer to use my time by my piano, so I'll rather back off this discussion, but to make it clear:
My "theory" is that:
- when the wrist is stiffened, it is caused by forearm muscles
- forearm muscles act on the wrist (including extensor digitorum and flexor digitorum)
- interossei and lumbricales do NOT directly act on the wrist
- by relaxin the forearm muscles, there are less forces acting on the wrist
- by increasing the use of interossei and lumbricales combined with reduced forearm tensions, we reduce the forces acting on the wrist, making it more flexible and less stiff.

[nyiregyhazi]

Good.  Now wave your hand as if saying goodbye to someone then do the same while clenching and unclenching a fist - any difference in the wrist?

Your implication being that piano playing is founded upon clenching the fist?

My technique isn't. I use a third option. The smaller joints unbend while only the knuckle itself closes. This offers the same wrist freedom as the unclenching fist. I suggest that you stop to fully explore the rational options, rather then portray the hand as something that can only be universally closing or universally opening. When the smaller joints unbend, the knuckles can activate inwards just fine without causing the wrist tension.

[chopantasy]

I don't understand what your point is.

Can't wave your hand and grip at the same time?  Maybe you do have stiff wrists!

[chopantasy]

My technique isn't. I use a third option. The smaller joints unbend while only the knuckle itself closes. This offers the same wrist freedom as the unclenching fist.

You totally miss the point.  Clenched or unclenched fist hardly affects the wrist at all!  Whatever your 'magic formula' for lowering the key, you cannot escape Newton's third law - the wrist extensors must contract (tense) or the wrist goes up instead of the key going down.

[nyiregyhazi]

You totally miss the point.  Clenched or unclenched fist hardly affects the wrist at all!  Whatever your 'magic formula' for lowering the key, you cannot escape Newton's third law - the wrist extensors must contract (tense) or the wrist goes up instead of the key going down.

I don't use this word lightly, but that's plain bullshit. All you need to do is use grindea's wrist flop, as an counterexample. Let the wrist collapse limp and the key goes down, not up. No need for tension anywhere. It's not a favoured movement of mine, but it illustrates the complete fallacy of that ludicrous premise. Where on earth did you get such self-evident nonsense from?

You need to actually learn some premises of mechanics, if you wish to use it. Making speculative interpretations of second hand ideas carries no sway- especially if you don't actually understand any of the principles yourself. You argue as a lawyer- looking for things to support prejudiced conclusions. True science does not support your assertion at all. You have no business portraying your own error as stemming from Newton. His laws do not lead to such readily disproven nonsense.

Please go and do some study before portraying such casual armchair claptrap as being mechanical law.

[p2u_]

I see your point-but is it really THAT hard to understand the fact that reactions occur and that to fight them equals tension? It's scarcely more complex than knowing that you need to perceive responses to your movements. Is understanding this basic premise really more difficult than performing hours of finger exercises, or hours of weight exercises? Or to be slightly prodded by your teacher week after week until you finally move well without knowing how (if it ever happens).

I think everybody is capable of understanding that reactions occur and that it is better not to fight them.

The complexity, though, is not in that idea; the complexity is in the verbal concretisation of that idea. It is VERY, VERY difficult to describe it all in a piano-playing context, and it is EVEN MORE difficult for an outsider to understand it exactly the way you intended it. Besides, you've been through lessons with Alan Fraser, you have developed a certain awareness of movement that your opponent may not have. This makes communication even more complicated.

It takes experience to learn to avoid redundancy. Ideal would be to describe very difficult stuff so, that a 10-year old could even understand everything without thinking twice. That's the difference between a junior-specialist and an expert, you see. A junior-specialist has just begun, still has a lot to go through and uses many, many, too many words. An expert is not only capable of lying in the direction of any paying party about his subject; he can also explain very complicated stuff in a very simple way that does not confuse anybody.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I don't use this word lightly, but that's plain bullshit. 

I take it Thomas Fielden is also talking 'bullshit' here?

'Similarly, the bones at the lower extremity of the arm those of the wrist and metacarpal bones in the hand, act as anchorages to enable the fingers and hand to perform their function as levers; and these in their turn call on extra muscular exertion to secure rigidity according to the demands of the varying forces of leverage.'

[nyiregyhazi]

I think everybody is capable of understanding that reactions occur and that it is better not to fight them.

The complexity, though, is not in that idea; the complexity is in the verbal concretisation of that idea. It is VERY, VERY difficult to describe it all, and it is EVEN MORE difficult for an outsider to understand it exactly the way you intended it. Besides, you've been through lessons with Alan Fraser, you have developed a certain awareness of movement that your opponent may not have. This makes communication even more complicated.

It takes experience to learn to avoid redundancy. Ideal would be to describe very difficult stuff so, that a 10-year old could even understand everything without thinking twice. That's the difference between a junior-specialist and an expert, you see. A junior-specialist has just begun, still has a lot to go through and uses many, many, too many words. An expert is not only capable of lying in the direction of any paying party about his subject; he can also explain very complicated stuff in a very simple way that does not confuse anybody.

Paul

Just wondering, did you find my post on thumb movements complex? As I say, most other posts are on background issues- and heavily focused towards proof of the major errors in many pseudo-objective explanations. I think you may be surprised quite how simple my posts on basic finger movements are going to be. There's very little complexity. I've used the science to refine it to the key features for the foundations in technique.

[nyiregyhazi]

I take it Thomas Fielden is also talking 'bullshit' here?

'Similarly, the bones at the lower extremity of the arm those of the wrist and metacarpal bones in the hand, act as anchorages to enable the fingers and hand to perform their function as levers; and these in their turn call on extra muscular exertion to secure rigidity according to the demands of the varying forces of leverage.'

What training did he have in newtonian mechanics? Any more than you? He too has missed the fact that a slight forward extension in the finger can stop the wrist getting pulled up. Also, the fact that it's perfectly possible to apply energy efficiently in a way that sends the wrist slightly up. I have little interest in short sighted assumptions no matter who the author. If he thinks wrist locking is the only means, he is wrong. Quoting old texts will not create a rule where none lies. Perhaps he favoured stiff wrists for loud chords, like Brendel. His failure to appreciate that the existence of alternatives does not set a rule about what is physically possible in general.

You'll see a demonstration of a free wrist in action in my most recent blog post. Any "need" for fixing is shortsighted bullshit. You can transfer abundant energy without a single thing in the wrist clenching. Only specific paths of movement are aided by a stiff wrist. I avoid such paths.

[p2u_]

Just wondering, did you find my post on thumb movements complex?

No, I didn't,because by the time I read that, I had already accustomized myself to your style through extensive reading on the Piano World forums (It was reading the posts there for the first time on that forum that caused me difficulties). Besides, what you describe in terms of movements, reactions and remedies is already an open book for me, which gives me a head start. I am exclusively talking about the experience of someone who is not a native speaker of English, and I am also trying to sense how anybody without my knowledge (even a native speaker) may interpret your posts. I am a bit pessimistic about what it does to people. I suspect some think that you have to be Einstein to play the piano, and they just quit after trying to read the first few paragraphs. Of course, next time, they won't even bother...

Paul

[chopantasy]

What training did he have in newtonian mechanics? Any more than you? He too has missed the fact that a slight forward extension in the finger can stop the wrist getting pulled up.

He can't possibly have 'missed the fact' because it's just some fantasy of yours.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, I didn't,because by the time I read that, I had already accustomized myself to your style through extensive reading on the Piano World forums (It was reading the posts there for the first time on that forum that caused me difficulties). Besides, what you describe in terms of movements, reactions and remedies is already an open book for me, which gives me a head start. I am exclusively talking about the experience of someone who is not a native speaker of English, and I am also trying to sense how anybody without my knowledge (even a native speaker) may interpret your posts. I am a bit pessimistic about what it does to people. I suspect some think that you have to be Einstein to play the piano, and they just quit after trying to read the first few paragraphs. Of course, next time, they won't even bother...

Paul

I don't believe I used much technical language in the thumb post, if any at all. In the upcoming posts, any science will be extremely brief (but with links to the proofs and deeper explanations of prior posts included). Quite honestly, I haven't even really started yet, when it comes to the the big issues. The exercises I have provided so far are about encouraging people to challenge a lot of prevailing views about arm-weight etc.- not the core of technique. I have deliberately held that back- in order to make it as simple as possible, once writings about that appear. My hope is that people will start from the following few posts and then be encouraged to find deeper understanding of what lies beneath them, by looking back through older posts.

[nyiregyhazi]

He can't possibly have 'missed the fact' because it's just some fantasy of yours.

The fact that a possibility lies outside of your field of awareness does not make it a fantasy. Anyone who speaks for the nature of possibility in general (without bothering to explore the range of possibility that actually exists) has no business doing so. There are countless ways of moving effectively without fixation. Refusing to consider them does not make a bogus "rule" about what supposedly is and isn't possible to stand (especially when the science of mechanics involves no requirement of fixation in energy transfer whatsoever).

Anyone, I'm tired of your closed-minded trolling. If you want to keep playing with stiff wrists (because some a few ancient and factually erroneous texts claim it's the only possibility) then keep digging your own grave. I'll get on with keeping my wrists loose.

[chopantasy]

...and here's ol'bullshit Ortmann:

'If the... hand were not held fixed (by appropriate fixation of the wrist), as the finger tip strikes the piano key the hand knuckle would be pushed up.  In order to permit maximum functioning of the finger tip, the knuckle must remain fixed during movement.'  

[nyiregyhazi]

...and here's ol'bullshit Ortmann:

'If the... hand were not held fixed (by appropriate fixation of the wrist), as the finger tip strikes the piano key the hand knuckle would be pushed up.  In order to permit maximum functioning of the finger tip, the knuckle must remain fixed during movement.'  

Very shortsighted. Here's a film that shows otherwise:

The drooping action is inefficient and wasteful. However, you can transfer energy most effectively, in those that raise the knuckle up. The only problem lies in playing a series of notes in succession. Here the knuckle need be balanced, not fixed. The issue is not that it's causes a problem in key depression, for the knuckle to be pushed up. This actually transfers energy very well indeed. It's just that you need to BALANCE (not "fix") the knuckles in a predictable position to play with predictable control. 

If Ortmann though that an ascending knuckle hampers energy transfer, he was not half the scientist he believed himself to be. It's a shame that he made this blanket statement without a word of justification. We could understand his error a lot more easily had he bothered to show his working- rather than simply make a bogus and thoroughly refutable assertion of fact, without a jot of supporting mechanical evidence.

[p2u_]

I don't believe I used much technical language in the thumb post, if any at all.

It's not so much the technical language that confuses people, I think. As a matter of fact, there is not so much there. The problem is in understanding of what exactly it all means in terms of movement. In other words, the impression is: "Let's get it over with: What movement do you want me to make with my finger?" People basically don't want to hear the rest. That is my intuition. I may be wrong.

Besides, you have a convoluted style, if I may say so. It's really not easy to grasp what you are saying sometimes.

May I suggest you an article I, as a non-native speaker of English, had no trouble reading at all ? It's by Graham Fitch: On Passagework.
Reactions by board member pts1 are guaranteed.

P.S.: This is not to show what I endorse as the right way of playing or practising; it's just for linguistic purposes.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

It's not so much the technical language that confuses people, I think. As a matter of fact, there is not so much there. The problem is in understanding of what exactly it all means in terms of movement. In other words, the impression is: "Let's get it over with: What movement do you want me to make with my finger?" People basically don't want to hear the rest. That is my intuition. I may be wrong.

Besides, you have a convoluted style, if I may say so. It's really not easy to grasp what you are saying sometimes.

May I suggest you an article I, as a non-native speaker of English, had no trouble reading at all ? It's by Graham Fitch: On Passagework.
Reactions by board member pts1 are guaranteed.

Paul

It's easy to read, but how much does it convey? If people are too lazy to stop and think below such superficial issues, how much can they expect to learn? He does the usual "release effort at the keybed". This was specifically responsible for many of my problems over the years. It conveys almost nothing, from a distance, without a teacher to help and monitor. I used to practise Dohanyi that way- with an overly heavy contact followed by a genuine relaxation that allowed the arch of the hand to droop into utter dysfunction- rendering the next finger movement needlessly difficult and effectively screwed before it even began.

I saw another film by him on youtube, where he shows a finger lifting/overholding exercise. He shows how the exercise works, superficially, but he shows almost nothing of the key subtleties to movement. His own hand stands up masterfully, with little arm pressure- yet he tells the viewer to "relax the fingers" at the keybed. His own fingers visibly continue to perform a specific positive task (creating a stable arch). They do not relax at all, but continue to act lightly to from the the shape. Today, I understand the subtleties of what he is really doing, despite his very simplistic explanation. However, many beginners would view that and do the same awful movements I used to do in Dohanyi ie. stab at the keys and then droop out of the arch (forcing the forearm to tighten in compensation). It could actually be very harmful, due to its oversimplified tone. I'd even go so far as to say that almosts anyone who has less than impeccable fundamentals will find themselves being taken further away from effective technique, due the claim that you should literally look to relax as far as possible. He needs to add the importance of retaining enough activity to keep the knuckle raised- or virtually all pianists are just being encouraged into drooping.

I believe in simplicity where it does not mislead- but in many cases you have to be willing to do more than superficially wave your finger approximately as you think someone else is doing. Without getting beyond the mere surface issues, there's no guarantee of doing anything remotely well. The only thing he advises to feel is relaxation- with not a word about the key element of balance. Virtually every pianist I see as a teacher neglects to balance effecitvely yet comfortably at the keybed. Too simple and you'll mislead more people than you can ever assist. If someone doesn't have patience, they're welcome to try simplistic explanations, but I think they might learn a whole lot of more by being willing to think about what is really going on- before adopting an explanation that is clearly 100% subjective.

[counterpoint]

There are so many ways of playing in every special situation - with small/large movement, heavy or light weight, with fixed joints or with flexible joints - so the claim of one special "fundamental piano technique" is creating more problems than it is helpful.

[p2u_]

It's easy to read, but how much does it convey? If people are too lazy to stop and think, how much can they expect to learn.

You forgot already that I was talking about people who are NOT native speakers of English and who are not familiar with your terminology or your conceptions like "arch", "extension", "slipping", "drooping", "standing", "gripping", etc. I would not dare call them "lazy", because they may actually be trying very hard, but just misunderstand you. For example, when you say, that this or that should not collapse, then this may be interpreted as "muscle tension", although you may well be talking about skeletality, and not about muscles.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

You forgot already that I was talking about people who are NOT native speakers of English and who are not familiar with your terminology or your conceptions like "arch", "extension", "slipping", "drooping", "standing", "gripping", etc. I would not dare call them "lazy", because they may actually be trying very hard, but just misunderstand you. For example, when you say, that this or that should not collapse, then this may be interpreted as "muscle tension", although you may well be talking about skeletality, and not about muscles.

Paul

I see your point, regarding non English speakers, but there should be translation programmes surely? I'd sooner leave it as being a little more tricky for a non-native speaker, than compromise the clarity with which it comes across to an English speaker (which is the overwhelmingly majority of readers). I don't like to use severe jargon, but I don't think I could replace any of those specific words without feeling that I'm seriously compromising my meaning. At best, I'd have to use a hell of a lot more words to convey the same meaning.

When it comes to not collapsing, I'm going to go into notable detail about the mental processes that allow it to be refined to the minimal amount of necessary activity- rather than excessive clenched muscle tension.

[thalbergmad]

I seem to be suffering from a tense forearm after extended banjo tremelo practice.

I feel a new thread coming on.

Thal

[p2u_]

I see your point, regarding non English speakers, but there should be translation programmes surely?

Oh, those will hardly help. When I translate a very simple phrase from Russian into English, let's say:
"Our cat gave birth to three kittens; two whites and one black."
the robot (if it's a good one) says:
"Our cat gave birth to three kittens; two whites and one ... African American."
You can imagine what it produces when we talk about the process of piano playing, something even a human interpreter will hardly be able to do if he is not familiar with your specific terminology and if he doesn't play the piano himself.
P.S.: Are you sure native speakers of English always understand what you mean?

Paul

[chopantasy]

And how about Coviello?  Another bullshitter?

'...and the point that must be grasped is that, ..there is an equal reaction back against the fulcrum [his italics].  This may be K, W, E or S, according to whether we are using finger, hand, forearm or arm.  To put it another way, the work we can do with any selected lever is limited by the stability or rigidity of the fulcrum.'

But heck, who needs these old books anyway?  Maye it's time to burn down the libraries!  Turn them into internet chat rooms then we can all agree on the truth instead.

[chopantasy]

And then of course here's William  S. Newman - I really like him as a writer:

'As the student practices each successive lever - from finger, to hand, to forearm, to upper arm, - he not only must watch that the base beyond remains stationary each time but he must also take increasing pains to keep each lever intact as a single locked [my bold] unit.'

Then there's a lovely chart in a Ching book where he states finger movement's 'Immediate Joint of Basic Stabilisation' is the wrist.

Still, all 'bullshit' no doubt!

[j_menz]

I seem to be suffering from a tense forearm after extended banjo tremelo practice.

I feel a new thread coming on.

Thal

The very thought is causing me tension in all sorts of places!

[nyiregyhazi]

And then of course here's William  S. Newman - I really like him as a writer:

'As the student practices each successive lever - from finger, to hand, to forearm, to upper arm, - he not only must watch that the base beyond remains stationary each time but he must also take increasing pains to keep each lever intact as a single locked [my bold] unit.'

Then there's a lovely chart in a Ching book where he states finger movement's 'Immediate Joint of Basic Stabilisation' is the wrist.

Still, all 'bullshit' no doubt!

Yes, indeed. It's utter bullshit. The science of mechanics does not support any such need. It's complete pseudoscience to say that anything need be locked in space for effective energy transfer. If you disagree then please provide a specific explanation of the problem it causes in my video- where my hand and wrist are not fixated but freely moving during depression. You'll see the same when Rubinstein descends from great height. His wrist never lands in fixation. To advise that is plain barmy.

Imagine if your body were suspended over a pressure plate, via a chin-up bar with the knees bent. It would be far easier to depress that plate with the legs if you were free to involve the mass of your body by pushing it upwards. Being fused into a fixed spot does not improve quality of energy transfer- particularly as the physical tensions required to do so in piano playing directly impair the movement in general. When the whole body is free to be resting on top, the legs can generate more force. It is necessary to time release of the arms, to generate maximum acceleration- not to keep the upper body fixed into a locked position. If they fail to release, the legs are limited in their acceleration. Similarly, a finger can produce vastly more acceleration when properly connected to the stabilising mass of the arm. That's why it's very strenuous to play loudly from the fingers if you clamp the wrist in place with the other hand. Fixation is a poor alternative to freedom of response to reaction forces (which can never pull the wrist forwards and up, if you aim the fingers lightly forwards- seeing as the reaction pushes the wrist back towards you).

I don't care how many sources can produce that state short-sighted nonsense (without a shred of supporting evidence for their assertions). It is not necessary to fix the wrist and anyone who said so failed to consider the true wealth of possibility. I do not depend on doing so and neither do countless other pianists. All the rationalisation in the world will not turn this appalling effort into "good technique":

p3kmw&index=8&feature=plcp

Neither will it ever permit you access to virtuoso octaves, with such shockingly counterproductive stiffness. I doubt if I'll need to add any more, as that single film speaks more than 1000 words about how foolish it is to found an approach upon the supposed validity of stabilising wrist tensions. If you want to add any more archaic sources, I'll respond simply by posting that video once again.

[ajspiano]

p3kmw&index=8&feature=plcp

Made all the more hilarious by the "nyiregyhazi is a git" caption that appears upon playing.

[nyiregyhazi]

And how about Coviello?  Another bullshitter?

'...and the point that must be grasped is that, ..there is an equal reaction back against the fulcrum [his italics].  This may be K, W, E or S, according to whether we are using finger, hand, forearm or arm.  To put it another way, the work we can do with any selected lever is limited by the stability or rigidity of the fulcrum.'

The short-sightedness of this bilge actually beggars belief. Who wrote this drivel? To describe even the knuckle as a fulcrum is somewhat dubious- with regard to stricter mechanics of levers. It would make more sense to view the contact between finger tip and key as the fulcrum around which the lever moves. Otherwise his claim of a supposed equal reaction "against the fulcrum" only stands so much as almost true- if everything between "fulcrum" and fingertip is literally fused into perfect rigidity. To describe the wrist or any of the others as a fulcrum is outright nonsense. When was the last time you saw a pianist produce tone by locking his forearm in space and pulling his hand down via the wrist (supposedly without the wrist even moving in space, when it would be physically impossible not to)? And quite what the elbow is supposed to do as a "fulcrum" is quite beyond me (unless you're planning on doing a sideways karate chop into the piano). I am truly bewildered by the fact that anyone could take such a heap of ill-considered nonsense seriously. Who is this guy supposed to be? What credentials is he supposed to have in mechanics? He is completely clueless.

I don't know whether all these guys who are obsessed with fixation all borrowed the idea from the same source or simply came to same ignorant, amateurish conclusion for themselves. I suspect this guy was regurgitating Ortmann- as he evidently does not understand a thing about accurate mechanics. Either way, mechanics does not support the idea. As we see in your film, a locked wrist gets thrown around all the more- not less.

[ajspiano]

To put it another way, the work we can do with any selected lever is limited by the stability or rigidity of the fulcrum.'

I'm not interested in a mechanics arguement or discussion on whether or not any of these are correct overall.

Curious though N. - you're concerned about "fixing" and rather you argue for balance..

"the work we can do with any selected lever is limited by the stability (balance) OR rigidity (fixation) of the fulcrum"

just how I read it ofcourse, but I don't see how you're arguing for something different within that isolated example. His statement sounds more like the fulcrum must be either balanced OR fixed or energy will not transfer properly. Which is a pretty reasonable assessment, mechanically speaking...  without considering which option may be better for a pianist of course.

Baring in mind I make no attempt to claim expertise over mechanics as a science.

[nyiregyhazi]

just how I read it ofcourse, but I don't see how you're arguing for something different within that isolated example. His statement sounds more like the fulcrum must be either balanced OR fixed or energy will not transfer properly. Which is a pretty reasonable assessment, mechanically speaking.

You misunderstand. This is exactly what cannot be supported by mechanics. It's totally untrue.
Did you see the film in my most recent blog post? The movement I use is literally one that raises the knuckles and wrist in the air- partially via the hand and partially via a slight forward arm press. I do a very exaggerated version for display, but even when reducing it I like to make it significant movement rather than mere balance.

The only issue is whether you have time to keep raising yourself up between notes. Obviously, in rapid finger work it's better to find a balanced state for the knuckles and stay there. But it's utter nonsense to assert that the most effective energy transfer requires the knuckles to be still- whether they be balanced or locked. The reason balance is desirable is purely one of convenience for a series of rapid actions. For a single loud sound, there is literally zero requirement of fixation OR balanced knuckles. You simply need to make sure nothing sags down. The opposite direction of movement can be exceedingly productive. It's a case of move in the good direction- not the bad direction. Neither fixation nor balance is a requirement.

I explain much of the background here:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/theres-hole-in-my-bucket-issues-of.html

Ortmann realised that certain movements have a bad impact. What he didn't realise is that simply moving in the opposite direction has a positive impact. His idea of fixing against bad movements is a completely unsupportable schoolboy error. He just hadn't considered movement in the opposite direction- hence his bullshit false conclusion.