Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[ajspiano]

Covered in glory.... Sorry if you don't follow the references.

no apology necessary..  there are age and/or culture gaps everywhere on this forum.

[jmanpno]

Lucy Hickenlooper has been dead for nearly 65 years?

[ajspiano]

Lucy Hickenlooper

now google is my friend.

[j_menz]

I'm completely lost. What has the former Mrs Stowkowski got to do with anything (other than that she favoured curved fingers)?

[jmanpno]

We got side tracked, I'm afraid!  I was referring to my state of religious fervor yesterday, when I, like Olga, seemed to have been covered in glory.  Incidentally "covered in glory" is how she described herself after concerts, after performances, and after recitals.  Something of a recurring theme I'm afraid. 

Anyways....

To make this post "legal" stay within a comfortable range of motion with your fingers.

[pts1]

Oh, to be rescued from this thread of a piano pooper and realize that once there really was a Lucy Hickenlooper!

[marik1]

Sure-but it's symptom, not underlying cause. I wrote about this in my most recent blog post. Only hand movements can prevent the need for a braced wrist. By slipping I mean sliding back across the key and by braced I mean immobilised. A relaxed hand in Rubinstein's position will give way at the knuckles- unless either fixated or using movement. If he used an indirect knuckle arc, his fingers would slip back along the keys. When he plays from height this is not to be seen. So either he uses a fixated hand (which itself needs a tightened wrist) or he just uses the more direct line of action I illustrate.

Sorry, it is very hard to visualize what you mean. In the end the entire technique is all about relation between you and keybed and finger tip sensitivity plays primary role in it. It is hard to see, but Rubinstein even when dropping his hand from behind his head still knows precisely where is the keybed and focused energy of the entire structure stops right there, hence not finger collapse or harsh unpleasant sound.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry, it is very hard to visualize what you mean. In the end the entire technique is all about relation between you and keybed and finger tip sensitivity plays primary role in it. It is hard to see, but Rubinstein even when dropping his hand from behind his head still knows precisely where is the keybed and focused energy of the entire structure stops right there, hence not finger collapse or harsh unpleasant sound.

Best, M

It's the fact it doesn't stop there that is so important. A dead drop causes impact (especially when done to the extent that Rubinstein did it). Generation of movement within the hand redirects energy away from causing impact- springing everything back up, rather than down into a heavy stop. Trying to stop at the keybed is exactly what tends to cause the stiffest of motions and the heaviest of landings.

I appreciate that you can likely "feel" how to do what Rubinstein does, but I believe that what lies beneath the surface must always involve this style of action. There's no magic that makes all that energy suddenly vanish, upon contacting the keybed. Only an action can prevent impact. Years of striving for a loose wrist etc. never got me near this- until I learned a simple hand movement.

I'll upload a short video later to show exactly what I mean about the finger.

[marik1]

It's the fact it doesn't stop there that is so important. A dead drop causes impact (especially when done to the extent that Rubinstein did it). Generation of movement within the hand redirects energy away from causing impact- springing everything back up, rather than down into a heavy stop. Trying to stop at the keybed is exactly what tends to cause the stiffest of motions and the heaviest of landings.

I appreciate that you can likely "feel" how to do what Rubinstein does, but I believe that what lies beneath the surface must always involve this style of action. There's no magic that makes all that energy suddenly vanish, upon contacting the keybed. Only an action can prevent impact. Years of striving for a loose wrist etc. never got me near this- until I learned a simple hand movement.

Everyone makes his/hers own way to make things work. That is not a "dead drop", but very well controlled one, with perfectly calculated landing point--exactly like some birds drop down from half a mile just to pick a tiny mouse in a grass--they don't smash themselves.

Best, M

[chopantasy]

In the end the entire technique is all about relation between you and keybed and finger tip sensitivity plays primary role in it. It is hard to see, but Rubinstein even when dropping his hand from behind his head still knows precisely where is the keybed and focused energy of the entire structure stops right there, hence not finger collapse or harsh unpleasant sound.

Yes, yes and yes!  The pianist inhabits his world from his finger tips (i.e. the most sensitive part of his body).

[p2u_]

Everyone makes his/hers own way to make things work. That is not a "dead drop", but very well controlled one, with perfectly calculated landing point--exactly like some birds drop down from half a mile just to pick a tiny mouse in a grass--they don't smash themselves.

I can't verify, of course, but I was told that Michelangeli had his students do the following as a preporatory exercise for octaves and chords: lift their hands into a loose fist and drop them (the hands), opening them as a parachute. Of course, this is also not really a "dead drop" (it's quite controlled), but the element N. describes *is* present. Feels good by the way. I recommend it for people who don't have big hands.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

Everyone makes his/hers own way to make things work. That is not a "dead drop", but very well controlled one, with perfectly calculated landing point--exactly like some birds drop down from half a mile just to pick a tiny mouse in a grass--they don't smash themselves.

Best, M

You misunderstand the crux of my point. Whatever the arm does (be it dropping in true free fall, controlling the descent or even actively propelling the hand into movement) a hand that goes through such a huge movement before arriving at the key is carrying SERIOUS energy.

Passivity does not prevent energy going into impact. A truly passive hand gets squashed and then falls palm first into a cluster. So, it can be said with factual certainty that a hand which does not spiral into a cluster is doing something. Trying to turn off at the keybed means nothing- any more than cutting the engine of a car during the instant of a crash can be of any assistance in reducing impact. The basic energy is still present and not about to vanish.

The only question that can follow up is- does the hand merely brace through the key to keep shape, or does it attempt to move? Bracing to keep structure makes for impact. Moving through landing sends the energy in a new direction- not into a crash. So it's trying to turn off the hand that is the worst approach of all. It leaves it with no choice but to either stiffen or collapse into a cluster. Only movement can make for a safe landing. It doesn't surprise me that I suddenly acquired the ability to do what Rubinstein does (at the exact time I stopped trying in vain to "turn off" energy and instead started using hand movements to send it elsewhere) . There's a very small range of possible ways to do it without impact. Either you spring away or you land heavily.

It's very interesting to hear of michelangeli's exercise. Nothing but hand movement can make for anything but either clusters or a hard landing into a fused hand.

[pts1]

Nyiregyhazi

Your problem -- whatever that is -- is not with the piano.

It is with your mind.

By now, you should not find it necessary to obsessively dissect piano technique the way you do.
You should be able to think of what it is you wish to express and go about doing it.

I was reading a bit on the internet and ran across old posts from you arguing with Alan Fraser several years ago about THE VERY SAME THINGS!

He did not agree with a good deal of what you said, though he was very polite about it, and as usual you basically said he was wrong.

This is your modus operandus, i.e. to attempt to elevate your appearance of competence by attempting to dissuade or out right "debunk" the opinions of others if you have the slightest inkling they don't concur with you fully.

This has never worked for you, doesn't work, and never will, and yet you persist?

I'm fairly certain, the participants in this thread would agree that you WAY over think everything, and this is not superior at all, but keeps you stuck.

So your problem is mental/psychological, and I do not mean this as a put-down: I was stuck in a similar "pianistic hell" when I was much younger of being determined to figure everything out and understand everything, and thank goodness I was able to mature and "outgrow" it.

For some reason you have not.

Not only is it NOT necessary to figure everything out about piano playing physics, it is NOT POSSIBLE.

And yet you persist -- and this in spite of indications from others that you are on the wrong track.

This is why I say your difficulties are mental/psychological.

So what is the way out?

To begin trusting yourself, let go and silence the voice in your head.

Just practice and play the piano and try to move beyond the novice state of "having to know everything".

This will be extremely difficult for you, I suspect, as I found it difficult, though you have a worse case of "piano mechanics obsessive disorder" than I ever did.

I'm saying this in this public forum, since all that you have said and manifested has been public, and perhaps with this awareness you can ask others about their opinions since they're aware of what's going on with you and offer help/insight.

With this in mind, I think communicating with you in terms of "mechanics" is not at all helpful, so I think I'm going to confine my future exchanges with you to musical issues.

I hope you find your way out of this maze.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please keep the personal stuff to yourself. It's of little interest to me. I'll remind you that I'm a teacher who has to show others how to progress and also that my explorations have led to leaps and bounds in my own technique. Your suggestions that I should just get on with playing (as I already do- seeing as my practise involves both analytical work and the same instinctive work that I used to be limited by sole dependence on) and the idea of dropping thought has been both taken on board and then altogether disregarded. I've done it regularly- and always fallen backwards again. I have not yet had enough time to make effective movement automatic and hence must continue to work consciously at reprogramming my instincts, until the improvements are ingrained. If you don't like discussion of technique, you are free not to join in, but I have no interest in blind-optimism approaches than I've been through repeatedly over my entire life as a pianist. I'm interested only in things that produce improved results, sorry.

Yesterday I was working with a student on chopin's c minor prelude. He did the usual shoving the arm down through a collapsing and stiff hand. After just a few minutes work on actually moving the fingers (opening them through the keys) his depth of sound was transformed and the individual fingers came out as individual voices- rather than each chord as a coarse slab of noise. At this point I had yet to even mention musical issues. It would have been pointless. He listens widely to great pianists and knows what musical playing sounds like. However, he needed to feel the means to control the sound first. Only from there did I begin to deal with musical issues directly.

Also, disagreements with Alan Fraser were ultimately very useful for both of us. He has an open mind and so do I. What ultimately came out of it was that his conception involves finger straightening- not the indirect line of knuckle pull that you and Roy Holmes describe. The latter had been limiting me. When I stumbled across this key objective difference, I gained access to the situation where the arm is not continually being forced out of alignment by reaction forces, that it must fight against to be stable. I had to change my model of basic finger movement altogether, before I could put myself in a position to understand how his stance on gravity issues could begin to work for me.
U

[nyiregyhazi]

As for the implication that it's somehow wrong to strive to debunk advice that is severely flawed, are you serious? In my opinion, any form of advice which necessarily fails, if you succeed in following it to the letter, should come with a severe disclaimer. Apologies if it's somehow unacceptable for someone to wish to point out that intrinsically flawed explanations (that can cause notable harm to those who are not coming from the right place) are problematic. I'm in favour of applying suitably chosen subjective exercises to help with specific types of problems. I'm not in favour of portraying false realities, however, that can actively hinder other pianists from acquiring things that are objectively necessary for success. Subjective descriptions (that are definably impossible) are never any poorer for being compared to objective reality. You don't need to be under that the delusion that a piano is literally a naked woman, to imagine caressing it like one. The difference between fantasy and reality should always be identified.

[pts1]

Please keep the personal stuff to yourself. It's of little interest to me.

Lol. Oh, really? You busted down that door early on.

I've done it regularly- and always fallen backwards again. I have not yet had enough time to make effective movement automatic and hence must continue to work consciously at reprogramming my instincts, until the improvements are ingrained.

Then I feel sorry for you... somewhat.

You really don't seem particularly interested in music.

Maybe the piano is not for you.

If you don't like discussion of technique, you are free not to join in, but I have no interest in blind-optimism approaches than I've been through repeatedly over my entire life as a pianist.

(sigh) You're doing the same thing again: your imperious attitude attempting to raise yourself by diminishing others.

Ironically, you are the blind optimist, believeing that doing essentially the same thing over and over will yield different results.

As for not liking the discussion of technique, the subject has been pretty well exhausted, not just in this thread but in every thread in which you participate or interject yourself. I have not noticed people lining up to continue this "discussion" with you.

Don't you find it the least bit unusual that with all your thinking and efforts over the years, you've yet to sucessfully solve basic techique issues? (and this question is for you to think about, not to answer)

Your battle is with no one here, it is with yourself, and you have constructed a perfect world of castles, moats and armaments to fend off all threatening perceptions.

You are truly your own worst enemy.

Carry on.

[nyiregyhazi]

Lol. Oh, really? You busted down that door early on.

Then I feel sorry for you... somewhat.

You really don't seem particularly interested in music.

Maybe the piano is not for you.

(sigh) You're doing the same thing again: your imperious attitude attempting to raise yourself by diminishing others.

Ironically, you are the blind optimist, believeing that doing essentially the same thing over and over will yield different results.

As for not liking the discussion of technique, the subject has been pretty well exhausted, not just in this thread but in every thread in which you participate or interject yourself. I have not noticed people lining up to continue this "discussion" with you.

Don't you find it the least bit unusual that with all your thinking and efforts over the years, you've yet to sucessfully solve basic techique issues? (and this question is for you to think about, not to answer)

Your battle is with no one here, it is with yourself, and you have constructed a perfect world of castles, moats and armaments to fend off all threatening perceptions.

You are truly your own worst enemy.

Carry on.

Your post is so loaded with conjecture that I could scarcely even begin to address each point.

My current conception of finger action is less than a year old. It's all the prior years that were wasted. Right now, I've finally fixed serious issues with wrist alignment- in that last year. Doing the same thing over and over? Precisely what is that assumption based on? Doing the same thing over and over is what happens when a person simply plays without ever stopping to think about what is restricting them, or how they can makes improvement to that. I've changed more than I could begin to list- in the past few months alone. And you don't think that the reason I want to improve my technique might be to execute my musical intentions better? That's too big a stretch of the imagination to be a possibility, in the reality that you have constructed?

Your seemingly random assumptions and conjectures are pretty tiresome- especially when you falsely attributes opinions directly to me, that I do not hold. I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of them. Believe as you wish.

[jmanpno]

Quite frankly Ny, I watched some videos of you playing on your website.  You are rather coordinated.  Nevertheless some more work is needed which I could easily fix without all these mental contortions you put yourself through. 

[p2u_]

Guys, can we please talk about the subject, and leave N's or anybody else's personality out of this? He is in a process and as far as I can judge, he's doing quite well in his own development. Thank you.

Paul

[chopantasy]

Guys, can we please talk about the subject, and leave N's or anybody else's personality out of this? He is in a process and as far as I can judge, he's doing quite well in his own development. Thank you.

It would be a lot safer if he saved his advice for when he's finished his 'process'.  No one needs to be led down a dark alley.  Any advice I proffer comes tried and tested by expert authors. (see above)  

[p2u_]

It would be a lot safer if he saved his advice for when he's finished his 'process'.  No one needs to be led down a dark alley.  Any advice I proffer comes tried and tested by expert authors. (see above)  

You are referring to authority and a lack thereof in an unpleasant and incorrect way.

1) The ideas by your experts have a right to exist, because they were experts.
2) N.'d better shut up because he's nobody; hasn't proven anything.

That's basically what you are saying.

As a matter of fact, there is tried and tested advice by expert authors that does not work in practice with virtuoso music (fixing certain joints, for example, while playing will limit you at a certain speed). We have  a right not to accept the movements N. is talking about, but we should leave his personality out of this. Nothing in what N. proposes is dangerous; it's all quite sound and it has been tried and tested by others who were pianists of the highest category. I gave an example exercise above by Michelangeli, for example, that contains elements of the things N. is talking about.

Paul

[chopantasy]

2) N.'d better shut up because he's nobody; hasn't proven anything.

No, should issue a caveat: none of this stuff is tried or tested.  (seeing things in videos that aren't there doesn't count)

[p2u_]

No, should issue a caveat: none of this stuff is tried or tested.  (seeing things in videos that aren't there doesn't count)

Did you try the Michelangeli exercise?

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

It would be a lot safer if he saved his advice for when he's finished his 'process'.  No one needs to be led down a dark alley.  Any advice I proffer comes tried and tested by expert authors. (see above)  

So it contains no interpretation of your own? Perhaps you'd better deal exclusively in quotations from now on? Otherwise, I fear that you'll have to apply the same standards that you wish to apply to my advice to your own. Considering the state of what is on display in the grieg film, I really wish that you would apply such standards to your own advice. When someone has been failed quite so badly by their ideology it certainly is significant.

Personally, I have no problems with being expected to prove that my advice works. My piano is in a horrible state right now, but once it's tuned I'll be recording various repertoire. You'll see precisely what I describe about direct finger actions- not to mention the improved control compared to my older films (prior to introduction of my new conception for finger movements).

[chopantasy]

Did you try the Michelangeli exercise?

If you mean like Sandor - it's a fundamental aspect of my technique.

[p2u_]

If you mean like Sandor - it's a fundamental aspect of my technique.

Forgive me my ignorance, but I am not familiar with the works by Sandor on piano technique, so I can't confirm the similarity.

If you did it as I described it, then it is clear that the "parachute" movement is exactly the lengthening movement N. always talks about.
P.S.: The only difference being that he uses more words than I do.

Paul

[chopantasy]

If you did it as I described it, then it is clear that the "parachute" movement is exactly the lengthening movement N. always talks about.

If you're saying continue the lengthening movement after key contact then that's fundamentally wrong.

[p2u_]

If you're saying continue the lengthening movement after key contact then that's fundamentally wrong.

Key contact or keybed contact?

Paul

[pts1]

Nothing in what N. proposes is dangerous; it's all quite sound and it has been tried and tested by others who were pianists of the highest category. I gave an example exercise above by Michelangeli, for example, that contains elements of the things N. is talking about.

This may well be.

Also, we can assume for a human being to fly unaided by an airplane or other gadgetry, flapping one's arms can be considered a non-dangerous prerequisite for flight.

My problem with N is his imperious arrogance, in that he discounts those of us who left his "phase of development" behind long ago advancing to the "intuitive or non-thinking" state of music making technique thus being able to use the piano playing mechanism "instinctively" in correct bio-mechanical ways to achieve the "sound pictures" we wish to project.

So he can't have it both ways, i.e. to pretend to be interested in discussion for the sake of sharing and learning, and at the same time acting like a "know-it-all" who seems only to wish to argue for the sake of his own ego validation by "debunking" all un-like-minded opinions.

Humility on his part, IMO, would save him both from himself and antagonism in his encounters on this board, and no doubt in real life.

But apparently, its not in the cards.

So to put an end to my part in this silliness, I'll respect your request to "leave N's personality" out of this, and get back to the subject at hand, though I really don't know what that is at this point in this frayed and strained thread.

[chopantasy]

Key contact or keybed contact?

What I said - key contact.

[p2u_]

I'll respect your request to "leave N's personality" out of this, and get back to the subject at hand, though I really don't know what that is at this point in this frayed and strained thread.

Unfortunately, I've lost track myself. My main problem is that the topic starter is missing to give us guidance in how far we are on the right track. As long as he doesn't appear, I'd rather leave the thread alone.

Paul

[p2u_]

What I said - key contact.

So you want to say that you can play the piano without any reference at all to the keybed? While I never press through the keybed, I still need that reference for myself.

Paul

[chopantasy]

So you want to say that you can play the piano without any reference at all to the keybed? While I never press through the keybed, I still need that reference for myself.

I have no idea as to the relevance here.  I said - If you're saying continue the lengthening movement after key contact then that's fundamentally wrong.

[p2u_]

So you want to say that you can play the piano without any reference at all to the keybed? While I never press through the keybed, I still need that reference for myself.

I have no idea as to the relevance here.  I said - If you're saying continue the lengthening movement after key contact then that's fundamentally wrong.

If you stop the movement at key contact, how are you going to reach the keybed?

Paul

[chopantasy]

If you stop the movement at key contact, how are you going to reach the keybed?

'lift their hands into a loose fist and drop them (the hands), opening them as a parachute.' - why the hand/arm weight will depress the key.  No need to extend the fingers (undo the fist) further.

[p2u_]

'lift their hands into a loose fist and drop them (the hands), opening them as a parachute.' - why the hand/arm weight will depress the key.  No need to extend the fingers (undo the fist) further.

The fish you want to catch as an eagle is not on the surface, but under water, so you have to continue moving.
P.S.: I'd leave "mass" and "weight" out of this for teaching purposes, although the elements are present, of course. It's kinetic energy (chi) that does the work.

Paul

[chopantasy]

If one is lifting hands and dropping them we're talking 'weight' and 'mass', chi notwithstanding.

[p2u_]

If one is lifting hands and dropping them were taking 'weight' and 'mass', chi notwithstanding.

So, what's your point? If I tell a student to use arm weight and hand mass, I give the wrong info, most likely leading to passivity of movement. I want the kinetic energy to be the focus, because the rest takes care of itself.

Paul

[chopantasy]

You'd be foolish to combine dropping arm weight with finger articulation.

[p2u_]

You'd be foolish to combine dropping arm weight with finger articulation.

The point of this exercise is NOT "dropping arm weight"; the point is opening the hands as a parachute.

Paul

[chopantasy]

The point of this exercise is NOT "dropping arm weight"; the point is opening the hands as a parachute.

I think I see the word drop here - ''lift their hands into a loose fist and drop them'

[p2u_]

I think I see the word drop here - ''lift their hands into a loose fist and drop them'

The word "drop" is used to avoid trying to hit the keys in a forceful or active movement down from the wrist or the arm. It's the movement of opening the hand as a parachute itself that causes tone. Any elements of mass and weight are side-effects only, not the focus. And you don't have to lift your hands high; just enough to be able to do the exercise.

Paul

[chopantasy]

You're very wrong if you think articulating the fingers while the weight is dropping into the keys is in any way useful.

[pts1]

Just to interject here, then I have to leave to run errands:

One MUST bounce off the keybed with a free and well placed stroke, listening to the resulting sound, to make playing adjustments on the fly.

IOW, there is a tactile and an aural feedback loop, if you will, which is how we know what we're doing and where we're going.

[p2u_]

You're very wrong if you think articulating the fingers while the weight is dropping into the keys is in anyway useful.

I never tell people to "drop weight into the keys". I give focused exercises in movement without pseudo-scientific talk. If those exercises work and solve certain problems on a subconscious level, then I'm VERY proud to be very wrong, as long as the people who go through my hands are happy about the results.

Paul

[p2u_]

Just to interject here, then I have to leave to run errands:

One MUST bounce off the keybed with a free and well placed stroke, listening to the resulting sound, to make playing adjustments on the fly.

IOW, there is a tactile and an aural feedback loop, if you will, which is how we know what we're doing and where we're going.

A very useful interjection. Thank you. There are certain reservations about bouncing in all cases, because this does not apply to all kinds of technique.

Paul

[chopantasy]

So, in your 'Michelangeli' exercise the hand drops, hovers and then the fingers open?  Kinda weird and I don't see the point.

[p2u_]

So, in your 'Michelangeli' exercise the hand drops, hovers and then the fingers open?  Kinda weird and I don't see the point.

Drops, hovers? That's not what I wrote.

You lift your hand in a loose fist. Then it may hover if you like and as long as you like. As soon as you drop the hand the parachute opens and causes tone. The movement continues until you reach the keybed.

Paul

[chopantasy]

As soon as you drop the hand the parachute opens and causes tone.

In which case you are combining weight release (drop) with articulation (parachute opens) - a very poor coordination for controlling tone.

[p2u_]

In which case you are combining weight release (drop) with articulation - a very poor coordination for controlling tone.

Throw away the books you read on the subject if my simple description confuses you. The exercise is NOT aimed at dropping weight. I did not even use the terms articulation or tone control.

Paul