Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[ajspiano]

Something that is balanced can move within a range and stay balanced, at least in this example. - you are surely maintaining balance by moving, to avoid fixation.

Or rather, balance is maintained only by moving, because if you didn't move parts of the apparatus  would go off balance as other parts moved.

To reuse the walking example..  if you didn't move and maintain balance you'd either stiffen something or fall over, I don't see how this is different.

[nyiregyhazi]

Something that is balanced can move within a range and stay balanced, at least in this example. - you are surely maintaining balance by moving, to avoid fixation.

No, that's my point. It doesn't remain balanced in space at all. It doesn't need to and neither does it serve any purpose to. If I strive for minimal movement, it's much harder to coordinate effectively- and you easily end up stiffening, whether you intend to or not. If I strive to create substantial movement in the effective direction, I get much better key acceleration. It's possible to reduce this later- but it's not the case that stillness is "better". Reducing it is not an end in itself- unless it would hamper speed. If I want to get an outrageous "crack" on a single octave, the more movement I can generate via the hand, the better I can accelerate the key. I specifically want to be sending the knuckles up- not balancing them. When people claim fixation is better mechanically, even if they mean balance, it simply isn't true. There's a productive direction of movement- in which moving is actually vastly more conducive towards acceleration than staying balanced.

Even when speaking of balance, it's a myth that it provides better mechanical efficiency/energy transfer.

[ajspiano]

As you apply force in a given direction the point of balance changes. Without moving to accomodate the change you will either fix or collapse.

[nyiregyhazi]

Because as you apply force in a given direction the point of balance changes. Without moving to accomodate the change you must either fix or you will collapse.

I assure you that this is not true at all. If you're moving in the opposite direction to collapse, you cannot be collapsing. It's not fixing or balancing. It's moving- which could scarcely be more different.

I missed this bit before:

To reuse the walking example..  if you didn't move and maintain balance you'd either stiffen something or fall over, I don't see how this is different.

If you want to create a large force against the floor, your're better off squatting down and raising yourself up with a violent push- causing a big downward reaction. When already standing upright, you're hard pushed to exert any force beyond your dead weight. Where is the "fixation or "balancing" anything in space in the former? You start down and push everything up. We're talking about the act of sounding the key- not balancing after, here. Nothing need be fixed to do it effectively. It's 100% myth.

[ajspiano]

If you want to create a large force against the floor, your're better off squatting down and raising yourself up with a violent push- causing a big downward reaction

Perhaps, but legs are made for jumping, or climbing..

How is that physiologically applicable to fingers? They may be able to move that way, but they aren't designed for heavy use of it - nor is my objective as a pianist to exert the largest amount of force possible on every note.

[nyiregyhazi]

Perhaps, but legs are made for jumping, or climbing..

How is that physiologically applicable to fingers? They may be able to move that way, but they aren't designed for heavy use of it - nor is my objective as a pianist to exert the largest amount of force possible on every note.

No, but the point is that movement is the more mechanically effective way to transmit force- compared to the myths that fixation is superior or (supposedly even necessary). I didn't say you always want maximum. It's just that if we're talking about supposed mechanics of efficient energy transfer, upper extremes are one of the natural things to look at. Just as the legs create more force with greater ease when going from down to up- active hand movement does a good deal more to contribute to quality key acceleration than arm force through a stationary hand. If quality hand action moves these points in the right direction, it's just fine. There is no mechanical benefit to the "fixed" or even balanced "fulcrum"  that pseudoscientists have often portrayed as necessary. Did you see the film on my blog? There's also a much softer landing when the hand moves (from down to up) than when it fixates.  It redirects momentum away from impact and also provides highly effective tone production.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]


This is an exaggerated version, but without intent at some of that movement, there's no possibility but fixation (which is a lot of more effort for a lot less sound).

[chopantasy]

Here's Dr John Petrie Dunn (if only we'd had seat belt laws in those days!):

'In depressing the key, the finger acts as a lever.  This, however, to be efficient must possess 'leverage'; in other words, it must have a fulcrum - a rigid and resistant point - against which its one end works upwards while the other end works downwards.  Therefore to deliver an effective thrust downwards against the key the finger must bear upwards against the fulcrum supplied by the knuckle-joint.  But we have seen that under the circumstances described, the knuckles do not yeild a thoroughly efficient fulcrum, for instead of remaining immovable they give way upwards in response to the down-thrust of the finger against the key...The fulcrum is now shifted back to the wrist.  We have in fact two fulcra: the wrist and knuckles, which form the necessary bases of resistance or leverage for the hand and fingers respectively.'

[p2u_]

I'd really like to take the topic back to what the topic starter initially asked, especially, since he is disappointed with "all those who just ignore muscle talk". Therefore I'd like to quote this post:

My point is that I have the answer: for me this is improved by reduce the use of forearm muscles, and increase the use of interossei and lumbricales. I palpate the forearm muscles easily when they are in action, and I can find out how my movements should be in my fingers and the MCP etc., so that the forearm muscles is less used. By doing that I get less tired, and my wrist is more flexible. All this extensive use of forearm muscles makes the wrist very stiff. This requires some anatomical awareness, and I'm somewhat "disappointed" with all those who just ignore muscle talk, because that's the foundation and explanation for all this "feeling" and "intuitive and natural things" etc.

How are you going to make the student realize the difference in coordination unless you give him/her specific tasks that do the job (the EXPECTED SOUND RESULT through a POSITIVE movement with the fingers, AVOIDING THE VIVISECTION THING)? Am I mistaken when I say that it would be wrong to tell him/her: oh, dear, you are using the Flexor Digitorum Profundus Muscle too much! You'd better not do that. Relax! Now, go home and look for your Interossei and Lumbricals? From my experience, the very words "relax this and relax that" are sure causes for lots of trouble, because they are negative commands that the subconscious objects against. The outcome will be even more tension in the student than he/she initially had.

Paul

[j_menz]

The outcome will be even more tension in the student than he/she initially had.

You could give them a copy of this whole thread to read. They's be so tense by the end their ears would snap off.

[p2u_]

You could give them a copy of this whole thread to read. They's be so tense by the end their ears would snap off.

Hey, surely not from the things I wrote in it?! Relax your ears and your eyes, man!

Paul

[j_menz]

Hey, surely not from the things I wrote in it?! Relax your ears and your eyes, man!

Haha, without naming names, you're not amongst those I had in mind.

And I actually find these sort of arguments strangely soothing.  Of course, I read old theological disputations and court transcripts for fun, so I accept I may be thought to have strange tastes in such matters.

[chopantasy]

All this extensive use of forearm muscles makes the wrist very stiff.

There's no evidence for that anyway.  Telling students they can operate a lever without a fulcrum - now that's misleading and potentially harmful.

[ajspiano]

You could give them a copy of this whole thread to read. They's be so tense by the end their ears would snap off.

+

surely not from the things I wrote in it?! Relax your ears

This thread makes me want to play tri-tones against minor 9ths.

[p2u_]

play tri-tones against minor 9ths.

I must be doing something wrong. On my silent keyboard it's OK, but as soon as I do it on a real piano, my rhomboid muscles (you know those that are associated with the scapula and that are chiefly responsible for its retraction) start acting up. Is that what they mean when they say that you should play with your ears? No pain, no gain?

Paul

[chopantasy]

Healthy rhomboids very are important for piano playing   .

Of course, the real problem in this thread is the insistence on 'pure' use of muscle groups.  The body is just not stupid enough to work that way.  All muscles contribute whenever they can.  As Schultz above says there must some flexor use with intrinsics - it's a matter of how much.  Obviously the intrinsics are not dormant during flexion either!

[chopantasy]

Oh, and one last one:  Lawrence Schauffler -

'To every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Whenever we make a stroke, whether of the finger, hand, or arm, we must provide for the upward reaction.  Thus in a light finger stroke, the finger reacts against the hand - in a heavy stroke, against the hand and arm.'

Oh, silly man - if only he was still alive to read your blog and learn the laws of Newton no longer need apply to piano playing!

[p2u_]

Oh, and one last one:  Lawrence Schauffler -

'To every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Whenever we make a stroke, whether of the finger, hand, or arm, we must provide for the upward reaction.  Thus in a light finger stroke, the finger reacts against the hand - in a heavy stroke, against the hand and arm.'

So? Isn't that basically why we should keep everything above the hand free of tension to absorb such reactions?

Paul

[chopantasy]

So? Isn't that basically why we should keep everything above the hand free of tension to absorb such reactions?

Paul

Where then is your fulcrum mate?  Do you figure you can play the piano with a pot of porridge?

[p2u_]

Where then is your fulcrum mate?  Do you figure you can play the piano with a pot of porridge?

The fulcrum as I perceive it is my torso, the bench I'm sitting on, the floor even; stuff I have no direct influence upon. The only thing I can do is sit correctly, keep my posture like Artur Rubinstein did. I wouldn't think of locking anything in my body, actually...

Paul

[chopantasy]

Mr Schauffler continues:

'The mass (or inertia) of the hand or arm, supported over the keys by its lifting muscles, is of help in taking up the reaction but some added downward muscular exertion, also, will always be necessary if the fulcrum is held still.  The fixation for taking up the reaction of the stroke should always be as slight as possible.  It should be released between strokes, if there is time, because it is fatiguing and because the joint may be needed to make a free, rapid stroke itself, as when single notes follow chords.'

As for starting the fulcrum at the torso - your wrist will go up instead of the key, then your elbow will move, then your shoulder will go up, then, maybe your torso will stay still!

[p2u_]

As for starting the fulcrum at the torso - your wrist will go up instead of the key, then your elbow will move, then your shoulder will go up, then, maybe your torso will stay still!

I have no such problems. Maybe nature does everything right in my body and I would be stupid if I tried to interfere consciously by changing anything in my conception of true piano playing? I said before: the focus of my attention is my fingers + expectation of the sound result (again to adjust the workings of my fingers). I really don't care about the rest.

Paul

[chopantasy]

I have no such problems. Maybe nature does everything right in my body and I would be stupid if I tried to interfere consciously by changing anything in my conception of true piano playing? I said before: the focus of my attention is my fingers + expectation of the sound result (again to adjust the workings of my fingers). I really don't care about the rest.

Paul

I do know what you're getting at.  If, as Mr Schauffler recommends, you use the least amount of fixation at each joint you'll feel it all the way back to the lower abdominals.  That's genius technique!   There used to be a poster at PW with the tag - Sing from your belly!  Play from your belly!  (or was it the other way round?)

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's Dr John Petrie Dunn (if only we'd had seat belt laws in those days!):

'In depressing the key, the finger acts as a lever.  This, however, to be efficient must possess 'leverage'; in other words, it must have a fulcrum - a rigid and resistant point - against which its one end works upwards while the other end works downwards.  Therefore to deliver an effective thrust downwards against the key the finger must bear upwards against the fulcrum supplied by the knuckle-joint.  But we have seen that under the circumstances described, the knuckles do not yeild a thoroughly efficient fulcrum, for instead of remaining immovable they give way upwards in response to the down-thrust of the finger against the key...The fulcrum is now shifted back to the wrist.  We have in fact two fulcra: the wrist and knuckles, which form the necessary bases of resistance or leverage for the hand and fingers respectively.'

Once again, it's a load of old bull. When you use a hammer to lever out a nail, tell me, where is your "fixed" fulcrum? The contact between hammer and nail does not move in space? And precisely what scientific source or calculation evidences this bunch of old guff about their needing to be one? The act of moving a key corresponds to none of the strict simplistic lever definitions. Also, the fulcrum ought to be viewed as where finger meets key. Who describes the end of the lever that they pull as the "fulcrum"? Nobody. You can quote a million sources spouting the same nonsense. They are writing pure pseudoscience, without any authority of grounding for such small-minded and ill thought out assertions. There's simply no problem with a moving fulcrum- unless it moves so much as to disadvantage the hand in its position for the next key. Rationalisations about mechanical efficiency of energy transfer are just fiction.

[chopantasy]

Once again, it's a load of old bull.

Don't expect any consideration of your views if that's your attitude towards so many of the great and good.

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh, and one last one:  Lawrence Schauffler -

'To every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Whenever we make a stroke, whether of the finger, hand, or arm, we must provide for the upward reaction.  Thus in a light finger stroke, the finger reacts against the hand - in a heavy stroke, against the hand and arm.'

Oh, silly man - if only he was still alive to read your blog and learn the laws of Newton no longer need apply to piano playing!

Keep the strawman to yourself. Reaction absorption is precisely why you must not fight reactions with fixation. Fixated joints are only less stable. Fix the wrist in an octave and the whole arm must go up and down. Keep it free and it can remain well balanced. The "provision" is not to make the error of fixation.

This source runs entirely contrary to every one of those that advocates fixation. Cherry-picking sources to agree proves nothing (especially if you're not even careful enough to succeed in doing so with any consistency).

[nyiregyhazi]

Don't expect any consideration of your views if that's your attitude towards so many of the great and good.

I'm not interested. Some pillock who would refuse to acknowledge a hammer levering a nail out, simply due to the moving "fulcrum" (if we use their definition of what supposedly counts for one) knows bugger all about mechanics. Certainly not enough to make claims about the necessity of fixing a fulcrum (that is not even a fulcrum).

[ajspiano]

...feel free to tell me why its labelled wrong or does support your point, I'm not going to look up strict definitions or read into it right now.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just saying...


...feel free to tell me why its labelled wrong, I'm not going to look up strict definitions.

You misunderstand my point. If we define the knuckle as a supposed "fulcrum", we should be regarding the hand on the hammer or hammer on nail as a "fulcrum".

The closest thing to a fulcrum is fingertip on key. If the knuckle is a fulcrum, what one of the three lever classes is supposedly going on? And how do we explain the sliding/extending fingertip that may occur? It's not a basic lever movement, but something more complex. The closest to a lever is if the knuckle moves in an arc around a flat finger that contacts the key. But it clearly would make 1000x more sense to view that contact between finger and key as the fulcrum- merely to come even near being described as a levering act. Once the knuckle is to be fixed, we must have sliding or extension against the key. The lever premise is out the window.

The whole premise that the knuckle must be fixed comes from misinterpretation of the action as fitting basic leverage- which it does not comply to. It's a case of labelling something as a lever, calling something a fulcrum when it clearly is not and then saying that because it's a fulcrum and lever situation, the knuckle must be fixed in space. In reality it does not correspond to ANY of the three lever classes and cannot be synthetically supposed to comply with their laws. It's circular logic- where the knuckle is only claimed to require fixation because it was misidentified as the fulcrum that it is not.

[ajspiano]

Just to clarify, I don't agree that anything must be strictly "fixed" - and I think that anyone who uses that word in reference to piano pedagogy is using a loose definition.

I tend to think their meaning is only that some amount of force must be applied at that point, so as to not have the joint collapse.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just to clarify, I don't agree that anything must be strictly "fixed" - and I think that anyone who uses that word in reference to piano pedagogy is using a loose definition.

Perhaps, but as long as they fail to make that clear, they risk polluting minds with a fallacious premise that can do substantial harm. I don't think many of these pedagogs even knew what they meant. They clearly didn't understand the first thing about levers- which makes it all the more bizarre that they were more concerned with making it appear to fit to a scientific model (that does not accurately fit in the least, except when the fulcrum is regarded as the contact with the key). It's absolutely baffling that they were more concerned with preaching fixation than listening to their senses- in order to realise that no such thing was needed. Either these "authorities" must have been very stiff pianists, or they were truly clueless about what they were doing. The more I think about the severity of this gaffe (ie an misidentified fulcrum), the more it beggars belief that such a schoolboy error of judgement is so widely repeated by supposed experts.

[p2u_]

I tend to think their meaning is only that some amount of force must be applied at that point, so as to not have the joint collapse.

That is clearly not applicable to all cases, and I don't think I have to prove that scientifically, because we have not only muscles, but also bones, which we can align correctly for "transmitting" energy. Something in the arm may, of course contract to keep the joints together, but that doesn't have to be a conscious act.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Something in the arm may, of course contract to keep the joints together, but that doesn't have to be a conscious act.

I sure as hell don't do it with conscious thought - but it certainly must be there.

Which is why I tend to think "balance" is a better word..  because at least to my mind it represents a changing and appropriate amount of force over time in the relevant direction and from the relevant source to prevent the joint from collapsing. And it is instinctive, I don't see how I can quantify it and give a mechanical explanation of what's required by what muscle.

[p2u_]

I sure as hell don't do it with conscious thought - but it certainly must be there.

Which is why I tend to think "balance" is a better word..  because at least to my mind it represents a changing and appropriate amount of force over time in the relevant direction to prevent the joint from collapsing. And it is instinctive, I don't see how I can quantify it and give a mechanical explanation of what's required by what muscle.

I already gave everybody a clue as to what one should do in reply # 102 (my example of walking).
You don't lock your hips, your knees and your ankles consciously; it just happens by itself in the necessary amount to carry out the task at hand. The only thing you should do is coordinate your step towards the ball of the foot and keep your posture straight. Nature does the rest.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Well you and I at least are in agreement then.. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I sure as hell don't do it with conscious thought - but it certainly must be there.

Which is why I tend to think "balance" is a better word..  because at least to my mind it represents a changing and appropriate amount of force over time in the relevant direction and from the relevant source to prevent the joint from collapsing. And it is instinctive, I don't see how I can quantify it and give a mechanical explanation of what's required by what muscle.

I think there are premises that contribute. If everything gets stuck forward, you get screwed quickly. If there's a slight sense of pulling back from the shoulder, the joints in between are kept taut without localised efforts. Those who stiffen are too caught up in trying to immobilise with muscles around the joint itself. All you need to do is create a sense of length and then the joints stabilise automatically. In accomplished players, I think the adaptations are much less- because the taut chain of joints is mostly self stabilising.


I agree with you about balance for the norm, by the way. I just think it's important to dispel the myth that still "fulcrums" (that are truthfully no such thing) necessarily transfer energy better. The reason we usually have to find balance is to stay prepared for the following notes. In cases where we don't, we neither need to worry about balancing things in space or fixing them. We just need to find the useful path of movement.

Even intent to stay balanced can lead to fixing, when it comes out without intent to move. If I strive for a "balanced" hand in octaves, I might as well intend to brace it. Only when I strive for movement am I truly free and able to reach high speeds. The relatively stillness on the surface is merely incidental to how I must think to achieve it.

[chopantasy]

Just to clarify, I don't agree that anything must be strictly "fixed" - and I think that anyone who uses that word in reference to piano pedagogy is using a loose definition.

I tend to think their meaning is only that some amount of force must be applied at that point, so as to not have the joint collapse.

Exactly.  Many players over compensate.  To be sensitive to what all your joints are up to all the time is the goal (including even the toes).

[chopantasy]

It's a case of labelling something as a lever, calling something a fulcrum when it clearly is not and then saying that because it's a fulcrum and lever situation, the knuckle must be fixed in space. In reality it does not correspond to ANY of the three lever classes and cannot be synthetically supposed to comply with their laws.

A way of playing the piano without any levers!  Total genius!  Newton must be rolling in his grave that he never thought of it.  Next I'd go for a perpetual motion machine if I were you, you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams (though thinking about it - your dreams are already pretty wild).

[p2u_]

Newton must be rolling in his grave that he never thought of it.  

Correction: It was not Newton who applied his own laws to piano playing. It was other people who thought they understood his laws.

Paul

[chopantasy]

There were levers long before there was Newton.

[p2u_]

There were levers long before there was Newton.

As a matter of fact, I'd rather hear Newton himself on the subject than any explanations I've seen so far. Actually, I think N. is not so very far from the truth. You can cancel out certain negative effects of the laws by moving in certain ways. Unfortunately, that stuff doesn't really interest me much, because I have been able to manage rather well without even thinking about those laws...

Paul

[chopantasy]

You're certainly welcome to join his delusion of putting down a key without a lever.  Blaze a trail why don't the two of you!

[p2u_]

You're certainly welcome to join his delusion of putting down a key without a lever.  Blaze a trail why don't the two of you!

Well, since only 50 grams is required (if it's not a Soviet stand-up piano), I think N. will do just fine on his own.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

A way of playing the piano without any levers!  Total genius!  Newton must be rolling in his grave that he never thought of it.  Next I'd go for a perpetual motion machine if I were you, you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams (though thinking about it - your dreams are already pretty wild).

There are still levers in a sense. Just not the simplistic lever scenarios that pseudoscientists have tried to apply. It's a case of deciding that the rules of the simplistic lever apply and then using that to "prove" that the fulcrum must be fixed. It's circular logic- using something to prove itself. When you stand up, are you using a simplistic single lever action, or are you using a more complex combination? Casual over-simplification does not speak for the limits of what is possible. My finger contains three levers- not just one. I use them all in different roles.

The finger is not a single fixed structure and neither are pianists limited to the possibility of scraping back across the key. You cannot start with a proof of anything by casually deciding that other possibilities are to be ruled out without consideration. The lever model only works if you start from the unproven assumption that movements takes place in such a specific fashion. I think we're far more likely to see perpetual motion-machines from the idiots who didn't bother to explore the true nature of possibility, before insisting that they'd found the only viable means. My primary means of movement is one that they were either too lazy or naive to consider, before leaping to their narrow-minded conclusions.

[chopantasy]

There are still levers in a sense.

I'm afraid mechanics doesn't work like that - it's either a lever or it's not.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm afraid mechanics doesn't work like that - it's either a lever or it's not.

Well indeed. And in this case, it's very much not "a lever" but a series of "levers"- that are subject to completely different mechanical laws that those that the ultra-ignorant have missed, when trying to draw rules about the limits of possibility. You might as well claim that you can calculate the exact path of a bullet, without bothering to consider the nature of air resistance (and worse still, claim that it's impossible for the bullet to ever trace a different trajectory). Unsupportable simplifications produce bogus results- that prove nothing but the ignorance of the person who casually made them, without considering the consequences.

[chopantasy]

Well indeed. And in this case, it's very much not "a lever" but a series of "levers"- that are subject to completely different mechanical laws to those that the ultra-ignorant have to tried to draw rules about the limits of possibility from.

Now we're into Sci-Fi - 'subject to different mechanic laws'!?  Nothing, as far as I know on Earth, is subject to different mechanic laws.

[nyiregyhazi]

Now we're into Sci-Fi - 'subject to different mechanic laws'!?  Nothing, as far as I know on Earth, is subject to different mechanic laws.

Funnily enough, there is indeed more than one single mechanical law. There's a law for a singular rigid lever and there are different laws for what occurs when there are many acting in tandem. Stop trolling like such a fool...

[chopantasy]

Funnily enough, there is indeed more than one single mechanical law.

And everything (including every lever) is subject to all of them!

[nyiregyhazi]

And everything (including every lever) is subject to all of them!

Thanks for that revelation. Am I supposed to involve the rules that govern projectiles when looking at a lever then, perhaps? Or should I apply the rules of a single lever to a collection of many- like all those idiots in the sources you have been quoting? Obviously scientists have been getting it all wrong...

Stop trolling like such an ignorant buffoon and stick to the topic.

[cazico]

Just to clarify a couple of things:

1) I'm not a teacher, so my original question is not about what I should teach to others.

2) My "method" doesn't say that only intrisics should be used. Several muscle groups have to be used, it's a matter of how much (as even chopantasy correctly says).


My own experience is that I've got success in the last months when I've consciously tried to relax more in the forearm. I don't say that I previously had a really tense forearm and got muscle cramps, but I'm relaxing it even more, particularly when I play scales very fast. I try to flatten out my fingers a little bit so that I don't use the flexor digitorum that extensively. I see no point to use both the flexor digitorum and extensor digitorum extensively at the same time, since they have some opposite functions. I think it is a bad habit to do so, and that's explained anatomically. So instead I relax the flexor digitorum, and rely more on intrinsic muscles in the hand when I play. So far I really think this has helped me. I think I can practice heavily Chopin 10-12 with the left hand in a longer period of time before I have to switch to right hand.
For me these things requires antomical awareness.
But as I said, this is my own personal experience.
What's your thought on this? Do you some of you have the same thoughts, or do some of you object to this?