Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[p2u_]

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

Depends on what kind of music you are talking about and what the situation is.

* Virtuoso music that tests human capacity to the limit requires that you solve this kind of problems, otherwise you just can't do it.

* Of course, during a recital it would be detrimental to worry about your pinky in bar 54, the last note of some Beethoven sonata, although Michelangeli may probably have been perfectionist enough to cancel a whole concert at the last minute because of such issues.

* Rachmaninov would sit depressed back stage if he "missed the point", although nobody had noticed, and everybody was raving about how wonderful the Father of Pianists had played this time. More of an artistic problem, of course, but not something the average pianist would care about.

Paul

[chopantasy]

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

Actually it was CPE Bach that Beethoven insisted on as a 'grounding' - he asked Czerny to obtain a copy of CPE's Versuch for that purpose.  Also, Beethoven himself taught lots of Cramer.

[p2u_]

Actually it was CPE Bach that Beethoven insisted on as a 'grounding' - he asked Czerny to obtain a copy of CPE's Versuch for that purpose.  Also, Beethoven himself taught lots of Cramer.

Hmm. Do you have a source? I know Haydn liked CPE Bach very much, but Anton Schindler, Beethoven's assistant, mentions Clementi as Beethoven's favorite for both "technical grounding" and "development of taste" in his "Beethoven as I knew Him". A couple of quotes:

He {Beethoven} had the greatest admiration for these sonatas, considering them the most beautiful, the most pianistic of works, both for their lovely, pleasing, original melodies and for the consistent, easily followed form of each movement.  Beethoven had but little liking for Mozart's piano music, and the musical education of his beloved nephew was confined for many years almost exclusively to the playing of Clementi sonatas.

For these (Clementi's piano sonatas) he had the greatest preference and placed them in the front rank of pieces appropriate to the development of fine piano playing, as much for their lovely, pleasing, fresh melodies as for the well knit, fluent forms of all the movements.

Among all the masters who have written for pianoforte, Beethoven assigned to Clementi the very foremost rank.  He considered his works excellent as studies for practice, for the formation of a pure taste, and as truly beautiful subjects for performance.  Beethoven used to say...'They who thoroughly study Clementi, at the same time make themselves acquainted with Mozart and other composers; but the converse is not the fact.'

Paul

[chopantasy]

You'll have to pardon my use of Google - it's a lot quicker than getting my books out!

When he had ended Beethoven turned to him and said: 'The boy has talent. I will teach him myself and accept him as my pupil. Send him to me several times a week. First of all, however, get him a copy of Emanuel Bach's book on the true art of piano playing, for he must bring it with him the next time he comes,' Then all those present congratulated my father on this favourable verdict, Krumpholz in particular being quite delighted, and my father at once hurried off to hunt up Bach's book."" (Thayer: 226-28; [siehe auch: Cooper: 103] ).

Here, we might best add a comment of Czerny on Beethoven as a piano teacher, and we take this comment from Thayer, as well:  

"In teaching he laid great stress on a correct position of the fingers (after the school of Emanuel Bach, which he used in teaching me); . . . " (Thayer: 60-61).

With respect to Beethoven's predilection for C.P.E. Bach and with respect to his willingness to take on the task of teaching Czerny, Barry Cooper comments as follows:  

"Also noteworthy is Beethoven's preference for C.P.E. Bach's keyboard treatise Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen, which had appeared as long ago as 1753.  He had probably used this himself while studying with Neefe, since little else was then available.  By 1800 there were a few alternatives, notably Daniel Gottlob Türk's Clavierschule (1789), but Beethoven continued to prefer Bach's treatise, and still did so in 1809 when preparing teaching material for Archduke Rudolph.  Beethoven's willingness to instruct Czerny, even 'several times a week', indicates that his general distaste for teaching was not as wholehearted as some reports suggest, and that he was prepared to make an exception for a boy of such amazing talent; but one can easily imagine his impatience with any pupils who lacked ability" (Cooper: 103-104).

You're right about composition though - Clementi and Cramer were very much models for him.

[p2u_]

"Also noteworthy is Beethoven's preference for C.P.E. Bach's keyboard treatise Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen, which had appeared as long ago as 1753. 

Ah, OK. Thalbergmad described repertoire, but you emphasize C.P.E. Bach's ideas about movement. Sorry for the confusion.

Paul

[chopantasy]

That was quick!  I edited to add this: You're right about composition though - Clementi and Cramer were very much models for him.

[nyiregyhazi]

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

Sorry but this is totally illogical. Can you distinguish between the taste of well cooked meat and poorly cooked meat? So why can't you cook like a top chef? All the taste tells you is that you went wrong and achieved something far lesser than what you can distinguish the quality of- UNLESS you know the means of improvement. If you don't, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. It's exactly the same scenario when it comes to comparing intended sound against the sound that comes out. Hearing reveals problems. If you don't know the solution, you are left with the problem. That's the not the easy bit that happens by magic. The hardest thing of all is fixing it.

Knowing a problem can contribute to a fix, but first you must have a simple means of making adjustment, with the expectation of reliable progress. If a chef burns some meat, any fool can taste it's burned. But can a bad chef find a solution- simply by tasting the difference? The logical step is seemingly to turn the heat down. But what if they just hadn't put enough oil in? Down goes the heat, and out goes all the flavour that a top chef would cook into the meat. Until they make the realisation that they need more oil (not less heat) all the good intentions in the world won't save their cooking. Unless you have the right means of progress, all you are left with is a problem that you are not in a position to solve.

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

circular logic- not "circular argument". The latter is another example. It assumes success. Success cannot be assumed- as this approach fails many, myself included for the many years I was lost in it, without means of serious progress. To figure out what you need to do, you need a style of movement in which the level of tone can be reliably predicted. If that is not so, listening only reveals quite how crap your playing sounds. Until you have a reliable and predictable result from your basic manner of movement, you cannot make amends. Even if you can get a smooth line in slow playing, if it throw your arm out of whack when you try to go faster, it's back to square one. There is no progress without a quality of movement that allows predictable results at high speeds.

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

You are mistaken. I tried it just now. I'll upload more films soon. I use a lateral arm motion that drags the hand from side to side- retracting the fingers from further back. I wouldn't say that I never pull the fingertip back under any circumstances, but the fingers themselves move in a direct path as the default. Otherwise I'd be slipping a good cm on every single key depression. I do not do so.

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

Your mind is alarming closed. Believe what you will. If you could compare my playing of Chopin Etudes from 5 years ago to today, you'd hear the difference.

[nyiregyhazi]

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

Thal

So are you one of them, or have just you given up on improving yourself- based on independent successes of a tiny minority of ultra-talented players? If you're not at the level of such players- why resign yourself to the limitations of their attitude? Such rules do not apply to normal pianists. They apply to those who are lucky enough to find the secrets by instinct. Afters years that were wasted on the futile process of trying to make sounds I had no capability of achieving, I have discovered that it is possible to progress to the point where such sounds begin to be possible (with results growing closer and closer to my ideal, day by day). First you have to start figuring out what goes under the surface of such pianists' movements, that make it POSSIBLE to do things with such ease (and lack of conscious consideration).

Personally I pity those who have become lost in the defeatist attitude that wherever their ability level lies is the "natural" place for them to be. Either they are forced to drop their standards of expectation (and say something like "this is just what my talent level allows me to do"), or endure constant frustration at their failure to meet the standards they would like to achieve. Nobody should give up continuing to expect more of themself- whether in terms of the difficulty of pieces that they can manage, or the degree of musical expression that their technical capabilities allow them to extract from easier works.

Also, what applies to everyone is the fact that inefficient movements waste considerable energy on banging into the keybed, while applying little energy into sound. Such movements also minimise the level of predictability of the sound that comes out. I personally steer clear of wildly subjective issues and instead deal with the core foundations of what goes into moving a key efficiently and with predictable results in sound. Under the surface differences, the roots of how this works are the same for everybody.

Instead of telling those who use totally unreliable movements that they must be deaf or something, I prefer to show them how to achieve predictable tonal results. From there, they can actually start taking aural feedback into the possibility of improvement.

[pts1]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

You seem to think that a so-called "intellectual" method of understanding is better than or more knowledgable than a "subjective" or intuitive understanding.

Indeed. As a teacher it's essential. If you only deal in the subjective, you will inevitably mislead many students. If you can see the objective problems in a person's technique, you are in a better position to give them appropriate subjective solutions. Teachers who are lost in the subjective alone end up harming many students- because they fail to understand where the individual student is coming from.

Assuming you are able bodied, are you aware of the muscles you use when walking to the corner store.... assuming you wish to deal with the core foundations of what goes into efficient ambulation.

The implication being that therefore ALL objective thought is a bad thing? Truely objective thought in involves consideration of both objective reality and the subjective procedures that aid that. Anything that fails to do so is not objective, but completely irrational. It is not remotely objective to think that all objective thinking necessarily aids function in all scenarios. However, there are countless situations where it does. Taking one silly example does not serve to stain the worth objectivity in general.

Do you know the angle of your thighs and calves and inclination of your foot when it meets the pavement, and whether or not you properly utililize the lumbrical muscles of your foot as a means of stabilization? And what about the length of stride? How exactly do you account for the variability of this given different terrains, and how it impacts on your gait decisions to bend your knee to a greater or lesser extent?

That's some straw man. Tell me, what objective function is supposed to be gained from these issues? Pianistically speaking, it pays to have an idea of why particular ranges of finger angles allow more efficient energy transfer- because there is a PURPOSE. Measuring specific angles in degrees does not serve a purpose, but looking at broader principles about what enable predictably controlled dynamic levels serves a phenomenally useful purpose.

Tell me, do you walk along in a squatting position all day long, or do you straighten your legs? Unfortunately, while good walking is instinctive, most pianists perform the equivalent of an attempt at limbo dancing- hence forcing their hands into extreme stiffness. Realisation that a more vertical finger reduces the workload of keeping a key down has created scope for physical freedoms that I could never have accessed without exploring more vertical fingers.

I have a young Chinese pianist friend who recently played the Hammerklavier Sonata in concert, more or less note perfect with technical excellence. Her trills in the fugue (4th and 5th fingers) were quite impressive, quick and even. I asked her how she did it, and she really had no idea, nor did she seem to particularly care. "Oh, they're really tricky, but I just practiced them a lot until I got them," she said.

Oh, thanks. During all the years I struggled with technique, the idea of simply doing more practise never occurred to me. Thankyou for this piece of staggering wisdom...

Next time a student tells me they struggle with a trill, I'll pass on this story- rather than do my lazy and ignorant old trick of actually bothering to teach them what makes it possible to move more efficiently and productively...

[nyiregyhazi]

Also, I should have added earlier, that it's actually a very good idea indeed to be consciously aware of the dangers of overstraightening the knees during long periods of standing up and walking. Similarly, weight-lifters need to be aware of the same issue regarding the elbow, when bench-pressing. Good balance shouldn't take the joint all the way to the extreme of its motion and force against it- or it can do serious long term damage to joints. Left to instinct alone, it's extremely common for people to overstraighten, rather than perceive a quality balance that does not meet the limits of motion.

So even your attempt to rubbish objectivity with a silly example isn't actually quite so silly as you thought- at least not in all the details...

When a person is able to drop their sense of pride enough to go beyond the "whatever I do naturally is probably the best possible way of doing it" mentality, just about anything can be improved with the right pieces of objective knowledge- as long as it's used as a guide for sensory learning.

[cazico]

Wow, I didn't imagine that my questions would end up in such a heated discussion... 

But since it is really a quintessential topic I like it. I need opinions and considerations from different perspectives.

Realisation that a more vertical finger reduces the workload of keeping a key down has created scope for physical freedoms that I could never have accessed without exploring more vertical fingers.

Very interesting to hear. This is what my new teacher says too.

[cazico]

You seem to think that a so-called "intellectual" method of understanding is better than or more knowledgable than a "subjective" or intuitive understanding.
[...]
Do you know the angle of your thighs and calves and inclination of your foot when it meets the pavement, and whether or not you properly utililize the lumbrical muscles of your foot as a means of stabilization? And what about the length of stride? How exactly do you account for the variability of this given different terrains, and how it impacts on your gait decisions to bend your knee to a greater or lesser extent?

I think you are wrong. Most people have no problems with walking, but it is an inevitable fact that many pianists have problems in their arms and hands because of their playing. I personally know a couple of colleagues that have got tendinitis, probably caused by overuse of forearm muscles. This is a problem, pts1.
Many pianists, included me, get tired after, let's say 10 min very heavy scale practice. Why? Why couldn't I use my intellectual wisdom about muscles and anatomy in order to play the piano more effectively and ergonomically correct, and be able to practice heavily for a longer period of time?

I think it is very clever for all teachers to know a lot about the anatomy of the hand and arm in order to get the students playing ergonomically correct, and in order to reduce the prevalence of tendinitis and overuse injuries.
Too many teachers know nothing about the muscles, and I think that is very unfortunate!

And it should also be quite obvious that extensive use of both extensors and flexors of the forearm simultaneously is a bad habit and not ergonomically favorable. I think one of the thing is to reduce the active curving/curling of the hand, and to have more relaxed and flat fingers. The greates angels should be in the MCP (knuckle) and by doing that you can feel that your forearm are more relaxed. By reducing your use of forearem muscles, you'll have better practice "endurance", you don't get so tired, you reduce the risk of tendinitis etc., and your wrist becomes more flexible.

This requires some anatomical knowledge.

All in all, I think that discussion of intrinsic muscles (interossei and lumbricales) and extensor and flexor muscles in the forearm are highly relevant and useful in this discussion about fundamental piano technique.
It's really a pity that too many teachers seem to ignore this...

[p2u_]

I think you are wrong.

I'm sorry, but I think that is a very unlucky word choice if you want to get any closer to your opponent or if you dream of persuading him. Please think of the effect your "music" makes on the audience. Thank you.

Too many teachers know nothing about the muscles, and I think that is very unfortunate!

I don't think that muscle talk as such will do much good, actually. We should make clear to the student where the movements should be perceived (body mapping) without going into anatomy and the specific names of the muscles where it really happens, because most of it cannot be controlled consciously. I also think that it was namely the anatomic-physiological school that caused lots of the confusion that we have to put up with now.

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think that muscle talk as such will do much good, actually. We should make clear to the student where the movements should be perceived (body mapping) without going into anatomy and the specific names of the muscles where it really happens, because most of it cannot be controlled consciously. I also think that it was namely the anatomic-physiological school that caused lots of the confusion that we have to put up with now.

I agree that the student need not know. However, I agree with the poster that teachers should have some awareness. It's not about understanding which muscles move to play well, but the teacher should have enough awareness to see that which is likely to be more dangerous and limiting to progress.

Increasingly, I'm realising how important the extension action is- due to to muscular issues. My fingers have opened out like crazy since I adopted it as my norm. The is substantial space between each knuckle, compared to how closely locked together they were previously. Although this happened without knowing about the muscular issues, I've now come to understand that there are objective muscular issues behind why it is so important to acquire this action. When action was solely based around closing up, it was physically impossible to open the hand so well. I think this is especially important for small-handed pianists. As I say, they need necessarily know why, but they need a style of action which encourages opening- not just one that promotes closing. Otherwise the interosseus muscles do not get trained and the ability of the hand to expand out gymnastically is not developed. Although, I did not discover this with reference to the muscles, knowing what goes on under the surface can provide powerful demonstrations of why this is so important.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry, but I think that is a very unlucky word choice if you want to get any closer to your opponent or if you dream of persuading him. Please think of the effect your "music" makes on the audience. Thank you.

In this case, I think it's reasonable to use such a strong word as wrong. What percentage of the general public walk effortlessly to a nearby shop? Conversely what percentage of pianists play advanced virtuoso repertoire effortlessly? It's a very poor analogy. How does the fact that something in which people naturally flourish serve to imply that people should just work instinctively as pianists too? They don't do better from this and it's easy to observe. Pianists who have been self-teaching for a long time tend to be some of the hardest of all to work with. They tend to pick up such terrible habits and tensions, that makes it extremely hard to work with them to make amends. Someone who has never played before is almost always easier to teach than someone who has worked alone.

[cmg]

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

Thal

Amen.  Too much intellectualizing about physiology can be deadening.  As to the Argerich approach compared to the Kissin approach:  perhaps the greater curvature in his fingers has much to do with the size of his hands.  Smaller hands, such as Argerich, need to flatten out for greater stretches just to make them.  In my own studies, I've learned that approaching the keyboard with naturally curved fingers is just, well, natural.  My fingers flatten out for big stretches, but optimal control and speed, as in scales and more "fingery" passages, benefits from curved fingers.

[pts1]

What percentage of the general public walk effortlessly to a nearby shop? Conversely what percentage of pianists play advanced virtuoso repertoire effortlessly? It's a very poor analogy. How does the fact that something in which people naturally flourish serve to imply that people should just work instinctively as pianists too

The analogy is not poor at all. You have simply failed to think about what it means.

Learning to walk is done when we are toddlers. It is a very complicated mind/body coordination that takes a good while to master with much failure and struggle along the way. But since it is learned at an early age, and since there is really only one way to do it due to the human body's structure, design, etc., those children who persist with some aid and by mimickry eventually "get it" and at some point no longer have to "think" about what it is they are doing.

It is at least as complicated as basic piano playing and likely more so.
(Note: I did not say its more complicated than virtuoso level playing.)

And if you don't believe learning to walk is an incredibly difficult task, just ask an adult stroke victim who has been forced to learn to walk anew.

As I see it -- you continue to fool yourself about piano playing anatomy. Much of the musculature you have no direct control over, nor are you able to be aware of its activity.

A much better plan is as P2U describes -- if I understand him -- regarding how it feels to correctly play. This, after all, is also how one learns to walk, ride a bike, and a myriad of complex mind/body tasks. The only reason there is a problem with learning basic sound piano technique is because unlike the other complex tasks I mention which can only be done in one way, there are many ways to play piano, most of them wrong.

Besides, as I've observed before, you are a very argumentative fellow, and seem to like it for its own sake. As far as I know, you don't really have a problem, and if you do, can you simply state what it is?

I'm sure among the people on this board, someone can help you with whatever it is you are pianistically troubled by.

[nyiregyhazi]

The analogy is not poor at all. You have simply failed to think about what it means.

Learning to walk is done when we are toddlers. It is a very complicated mind/body coordination that takes a good while to master with much failure and struggle along the way. But since it is learned at an early age, and since there is really only one way to do it due to the human body's structure, design, etc., those children who persist with some aid and by mimickry eventually "get it" and at some point no longer have to "think" about what it is they are doing.

What percentage of those who start young but have no guidance learn to play piano to a high level? Walking is learned by babies without so much as guidance. Piano playing is not. You're living in an idealist fantasy, if you sincerely believe that piano playing as easy as walking. A better comparison would be genius for maths. Very few have it by instinct- although advanced maths can be learned by others with the right teaching. Similarly, very few pianists flourish without guidance. To compare it with something like walking (which is everyone succeeds in, unless they have physical/mental problems) is to use a completely illogical comparison.  

It is at least as complicated as basic piano playing and likely more so.
(Note: I did not say its more complicated than virtuoso level playing.)

Are you happy to be a "basic" pianist? I am not. Why on earth are you setting the comparisons at a low level? As a teacher, I am not happy to teach even beginners things that will only serve them at basic level (before becoming progressively limiting or even harmful as they go on) What relevance does the fact that it's easy to scrape through basic stuff have on serious piano playing? You might as well use the fact that any old pub-footballer can score a penalty past a crap keeper to prove that international quality football teams should play instinctively and without coaching. If we're talking about low levels, of course any old crap goes. The problem is that it goes on to prevent high-levels being reached.

As I see it -- you continue to fool yourself about piano playing anatomy. Much of the musculature you have no direct control over, nor are you able to be aware of its activity.

Direct your strawman arguments at somebody else. Muscles do not greatly concern me. Although it cannot isolate individual muscles, the brain most certainly can produce different combinations of muscular activity, via conscious thought. However, I have never argued that awareness of anatomy is a means by which to go about making changes. I use a totally different method for improving upon movements, so I have no idea why you direct this at me.

The only reason there is a problem with learning basic sound piano technique is because unlike the other complex tasks I mention which can only be done in one way, there are many ways to play piano, most of them wrong.

And that's not a good enough reason? I don't care about how many reasons. What matters is that this single reason renders trial and error work extremely limited in its results- unless there are guiding principles.

Besides, as I've observed before, you are a very argumentative fellow, and seem to like it for its own sake. As far as I know, you don't really have a problem, and if you do, can you simply state what it is?

My problem is with hearing such ludicrously oversimplified advice as to just think of the sound. It is extremely patronising and extremely counterproductive to give such advice to somebody who is hampered by significant technical problems. I lost years of time that could have been spent on progressing, through such woefully inadequate advice. It serves to do nothing but belittle the person on the receiving end- without giving them anything of value to work with. It makes as much sense as telling a chef to taste his food after cooking it. Generally speaking, chefs and pianists alike already thought of listening/tasting.

[pts1]

I think you are wrong. Most people have no problems with walking, but it is an inevitable fact that many pianists have problems in their arms and hands because of their playing. I personally know a couple of colleagues that have got tendinitis, probably caused by overuse of forearm muscles. This is a problem, pts1.
Many pianists, included me, get tired after, let's say 10 min very heavy scale practice. Why? Why couldn't I use my intellectual wisdom about muscles and anatomy in order to play the piano more effectively and ergonomically correct, and be able to practice heavily for a longer period of time?

Cazico

You're preaching to the choir. I'm all too familiar with forearm pain, tiredness, fatique, overuse -- you name it, because I used to go in and out of these miserable states largely due to how I was "taught" and because of what I believed, namely the "Arm Weight Transference" method.

I agree that it is a very good idea that students should have a basic understanding of how the piano playing mechansim functions, and especially the limits of the anatomy and how you get in trouble.

But beyond this, it is only by learning the correct "feel" when playing properly, sitting properly, etc., that keeps one clear of damaging habits.

When you say 10 minutes of "heavy scale practice" do you mean heavy into the keys, i.e. lots of arm weight.

If so, then of course you're going to be tired since you're using excessive force which is completely unnecessary and potentially extremely injurious.

It is, after all, the speed of the key descent that makes the hammer hit the string, not weight or force.

[nyiregyhazi]

But beyond this, it is only by learning the correct "feel" when playing properly, sitting properly, etc., that keeps one clear of damaging habits.
 

So, in other words, analysis is all counterproductive and a waste of time. Apart from the bits that you personally regard as important. It's just everyone else's bits of analysis that can be written off at the drop of a hat (and abandoned in favour of hoping for instincts to work), whereas all the bits of analysis that you choose to value are fine (and should not be left to instinct)?

When you say 10 minutes of "heavy scale practice" do you mean heavy into the keys, i.e. lots of arm weight.

If so, then of course you're going to be tired since you're using excessive force which is completely unnecessary and potentially extremely injurious.

It is, after all, the speed of the key descent that makes the hammer hit the string, not weight or force.

Don't you think that you might harm him with all this objective analysis? Surely the man should be left to his instincts?

Sorry, I almost forgot that all of your objective analysis is important- and that it's just anyone else's that should be casually brushed off in favour of mere instinct. If you opened your mind to the possibility of considering some other equally objective issues, you might find that there are some additional ones that can be of considerable use too- other than the select ones that you choose to exempt from your own arguments.

[thalbergmad]

First you have to start figuring out what goes under the surface of such pianists' movements, that make it POSSIBLE to do things with such ease (and lack of conscious consideration).

I could spend a lifetime studying Usain Bolt and working out the perfect running action, but I am never going to beat him. Nor am I going to break the World javelin record, win the Tour de France or climb the North face of the Eiger in a couple of hours. Despite months under an expert teacher and years of practise, I never got anywhere near a hundred break in snooker.

I have not given up trying to improve, but I think it is a wise man (not a defeatist) to know his limitations or, perhaps his limitations given the amount of time he has to dedicate to his craft. I have long since given up trying to play the Pabst/Tchaikovsky Sleeping Beauty Paraphrase, the Liszt Don Juan and the Zelenski Piano Concerto and I don't believe that investigating to the nth degree my movements, is going to achieve much. The pianists that can play these works simply have a natural ability that is far superior to mine, have a talent far superior to mine and probably have a great deal more time.

If I were to study every movement made by Cziffra, I would still not be able to play the GGC like him and I struggle to believe that a movement that makes things easy for one pianist is going to apply to all others.

Thal

[pts1]

My problem is with hearing such ludicrously oversimplified advice as to just think of the sound. It is extremely patronising and extremely counterproductive to give such advice to somebody who is hampered by significant technical problems. I lost years of time that could have been spent on progressing, through such woefully inadequate advice. It serves to do nothing but belittle the person on the receiving end- without giving them anything of value to work with.

Hmmmm.... so it would appear your problem has nothing to do with the piano.

You seem to have some sort of pedagogical axe to grind, some kind of score settling agenda against all purveyors of what you deem "woefully inadequate advice".

You're trapped in your head, it would appear, wallowing in some grandiose victim fantasy having lost "years of time that could have been spent on progressing".

Will we read in the newspapers of some former retired piano teacher who disappeared, only to show up  one finger at a time each with a cryptic note: "inadequate extension", "cadaverous curl", etc.

I think you really just like to argue and vent, and that's about the depth of it.

Come to think of it, you and Chopintasy are made for each other.

Carry on.

[chopantasy]

Come to think of it, you and Chopintasy are made for each other.  

chopantasy - get it right!

[pts1]

I have not given up trying to improve, but I think it is a wise man (not a defeatist) to know his limitations or, perhaps his limitations given the amount of time he has to dedicate to his craft.

Bingo!

I never got anywhere near a hundred break in snooker

Yes! Pool. Billiards. That's the one I'd want to do.

Ah....The Hustler, Minnesota Fats...  dark smokey pool halls, slowly turning ceiling fans, the smell of whisky and money, the questionable clientele, and musky perfume beckoning from the good lookin' babe in the red dress, her bare legs crossed as she sat in the corner waiting for a winner.

Nyiregyhazi would be oblivous to everything in this pool hall but the friction coefficients of the chalk on his cue tip as he pondered whether the angle necessary to produce the correct spin on the ball was 37 or 37.365 degrees to render a 3 rail shot to sink the 5 ball in the corner pocket.

Meanwhile, he'd curl his fingers too tightly around the cue stick, causing excessive tension in the Flexor Digitorum Profundi since he couldn't help but dwell on his inadequacies due to the poor early instruction he got at the hands of his boozy snooker teacher who forced him to use a greasy old mop handle for a pool cue. If only he could relive those years... if only...

[thalbergmad]

Meanwhile, he'd curl his fingers too tightly around the cue stick, causing excessive tension in the Flexor Digitorum Profundi since he couldn't help but dwell on his inadequacies due to the poor early instruction he got at the hands of his boozy snooker teacher who forced him to use a greasy old mop handle for a pool cue. If only he could relive those years... if only...

I am trying not to laugh, but it is difficult.

If there is a sport that will never bow to science, it is snooker/pool. When you need to make that shot when everything is at stake, everything you have ever learned goes right out the window and you have only your guts left.

Perhaps there are some similarities with piano. All snooker players have different actions, some which confirm to prevailing wisdom and others that do not. Some have an incredible ability in the practise hall which does not translate to success in matchplay and the man who is considered to have the most perfect cue action, has never won a World Title.

Thal

[cazico]

Please think of the effect your "music" makes on the audience. Thank you.

I coudn't care less about how my music sounds for my audience if I end up with tendinitis etc. and must quit playing.    My question is about effective use of muscles - i.e. good, elegant and effortless piano technique. But of course, I appreciate all feedback; It's no offense, my dear friend. I'm just trying to convince people (myself included) that "anatomical" and ergonomical awareness is important.

I think, however, nyiregyhazi has commented more elegantly on many issues than I could ever dream of. 


cmg:

As to the Argerich approach compared to the Kissin approach:  perhaps the greater curvature in his fingers has much to do with the size of his hands.  Smaller hands, such as Argerich, need to flatten out for greater stretches just to make them.  In my own studies, I've learned that approaching the keyboard with naturally curved fingers is just, well, natural.  My fingers flatten out for big stretches, but optimal control and speed, as in scales and more "fingery" passages, benefits from curved fingers.

Thanks a lot for you insightful consideration. I think you're very right here!
Every hands are different, and everyone has to find their own kind of technique that fits their anatomy. But still I think that the overall idea of increasing the use of intrinsic muscles in the hand (and reduce the use of forearm muscles) would benefit a lot.

[cazico]

When you say 10 minutes of "heavy scale practice" do you mean heavy into the keys, i.e. lots of arm weight.
If so, then of course you're going to be tired since you're using excessive force which is completely unnecessary and potentially extremely injurious.
It is, after all, the speed of the key descent that makes the hammer hit the string, not weight or force.

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.

[chopantasy]

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.

The wrist has it's own muscles -  equally affected by intrinsic muscles or forearm.

[cazico]

The wrist has it's own muscles -  equally affected by intrinsic muscles or forearm.

I'm sorry to say it, but that's not true.

[chopantasy]

I'm sorry to say it, but that's not true.

That the wrist has it's own muscles?  or that they are equally affected?

[nyiregyhazi]

You seem to have some sort of pedagogical axe to grind, some kind of score settling agenda against all purveyors of what you deem "woefully inadequate advice".

The "go figure out yourself" version of teaching technique is adequate advice in your opinion? I have no axe to grind. I'm just concerned with finishing the improvements that I have been making to my own playing, as well as showing others how they can improve the efficiency with which they too move the keys. I scarcely consider the past, but only the future, these days. I got out of bitterness about the past in the moment I discovered that I can still make plenty of progress by working the right way now.

I only referenced the "just listen to yourself" because you specifically advised me to try it. I spent my whole life on that worthless approach to development. I think that puts me in position where I can reasonably object to being told I'd be better off with it instead of any analysis (that is any analysis except that analysis which you happen to like, of course). Incidentally, what you don't seem to realise is that I never abandoned this element. These days, I alternate between heavily movement based work and purely instinctive sound-based work. Having given myself some foundations, the purely sound based work is much more useful than ever before. However, if I drop the more analytical work on movement, my instinctive playing gradually deteriorates and slowly starts to become poorly controlled indeed. Old habits gradually return and screw everything up again.

I think you really just like to argue and vent, and that's about the depth of it.

Considering that you are the person who spent post after post arguing damningly against objective analysis in general (before going on to provide a load of objective analysis of your own and state how important it is) I'm inclined to see substantial irony there. I only argue against things that I sincerely disagree with.  

[nyiregyhazi]

Bingo!

Yes! Pool. Billiards. That's the one I'd want to do.

Ah....The Hustler, Minnesota Fats...  dark smokey pool halls, slowly turning ceiling fans, the smell of whisky and money, the questionable clientele, and musky perfume beckoning from the good lookin' babe in the red dress, her bare legs crossed as she sat in the corner waiting for a winner.

Nyiregyhazi would be oblivous to everything in this pool hall but the friction coefficients of the chalk on his cue tip as he pondered whether the angle necessary to produce the correct spin on the ball was 37 or 37.365 degrees to render a 3 rail shot to sink the 5 ball in the corner pocket.

Meanwhile, he'd curl his fingers too tightly around the cue stick, causing excessive tension in the Flexor Digitorum Profundi since he couldn't help but dwell on his inadequacies due to the poor early instruction he got at the hands of his boozy snooker teacher who forced him to use a greasy old mop handle for a pool cue. If only he could relive those years... if only...

Perhaps I should reference you standing at a piano with a police speed gun, seeing precisely how many miles per hour a finger moves- considering your own obsession with finger speed? Alternatively, perhaps we could just both keep it out of the playground and stick to points each other have actually made- rather than cheap, unfunny misrepresentation?

Incidentally, I play pool to a fair standard (I've twice cleared the whole table in a single visit) although I rarely play more than once every few months these days. As with the piano, I indeed consider scientific issues, where I can see a practical benefit from doing so. However, considering the greater simplicity of the pool action, I have found relatively few areas where it is of benefit. Where I do use it is in avoiding the classic "chip" approach to back spin- where the cue is violently decelerated after contact. You can screw the ball way further (due to the better contact) if you follow through than if you add an act of sudden repression after contact. You also accelerate the cue ball more effectively in general by aiming to accelerate through the contact- not by either accelerating too early or by failing to put it through the point of contact. It maximises the scope for application of impulse, by extending the duration contact of between cue and cueball. Few can develop the touch of Ronnie O'Sullivan, but it's certainly possible to improve the efficiency of contact by consideration of how the cue is paced through the cueball. It's not magic that allows good players to make the cue-ball seem to screw back way further, despite barely seeming to have put any power in. It's to do with timing of acceleration through contact. It's also useful to be consciously aware of the direction of the nap of the cloth- which affects the roll of the balls differently based on which direction they are travelling in.

Accuse me of having no sense of humour if you like (although for the record, I was recently interviewed about my extensive work as a comedy writer by Radio 4) but I don't find it terribly amusing to score argumentative points by creating willful misrepresentations of a person's views. I have no intention of reciprocating with an unrepresentative parody of your views and I politely request that you stick to arguments that HAVE been made- rather than invent strawmen.

[chopantasy]

@casico

[nyiregyhazi]

@casico

What is your source? Is this simply your own assertion? There are angles of movement from the finger that do not tug the wrist forward and up- via the slight extension that creates length. Also, there are localised muscles, but there is also gravity acting downward. What proof is there that the wrist MUST tighten, to stabilise itself- and that there's no alternative means of stabilisation? I see no basis for making such a concrete assertion and would hope for a good deal more rigorous explanation- rather than blanket claims of fact.

If there's a physiological reason (which I have yet to be convinced by) why use of intrinsics necessarily triggers muscles in the wrist, that's just something that happens whether we consider it or not. But the moment you start saying it's okay to think of consciously tighten the wrist for stabilisation, you open the floodgates for a wealth of tensions that are preventable and counterproductive. Your diagram neither strikes me as any kind of remotely definitive proof of anything objective, nor as anything that might provide anything but unjustified forgiveness of potentially harmful tensions.

As you'll see here- even tightening the wrist cannot stop it getting dragged forwards and up, if the fingers exert a powerful pull at.

I had to learn a new path for finger actions, to deal with this long-term problem. A barrage of powerful reactions forces cannot be effectively dealt with by simply tightening the wrist. It's the kind of thing that only works at lower levels. In advanced repertoire, the wrist starts getting yanked up regardless. The fingers need to find a way of moving where reactions don't drag it forward in the first place- or it quickly gets stuck into the positions you see in that film.

[j_menz]

Over many years of watching various sports, I have heard countless "experts" explain how so-and-so's movements were in some way wrong and not to be emulated.  Of course, when they became leaders in their field, "wrong" became "eccentric"; still not to be emulated by "youngsters".

I have a sad feeling of deja vu.

Surely there is some consideration that must be placed on individual physiological differences. For example, were I to be also into weight training, various muscles would be much stronger than would be the case for someone who did nothing; various movements would be easy for me, but cause tiredness and stress for the other (I'm thinking particularly of upper arm/shoulder strength).

Also, the reliance on anatomical drawings is a little odd; I wasn't especially good at anatomy but I do remember very well that the first thing we were told before commencing dissections was to not expect it to look like the book in exact detail; individuals had, sometimes quite significant, individual differences. Muscles, tendons, nerves etc could all be rather different than expected. Just consider things like hand shape and finger length. I find it impossible to believe that these have no impact and to the extent that those differences are not accounted for, any theory is only ever going to be accidentally applicable.

[nyiregyhazi]

Over many years of watching various sports, I have heard countless "experts" explain how so-and-so's movements were in some way wrong and not to be emulated.  Of course, when they became leaders in their field, "wrong" became "eccentric"; still not to be emulated by "youngsters".

It's all about the difference between surface and underlying workings. You need to emulate the deeper workings- not the mere exterior. Nobody defies simple physics. Tennis players with bad actions cannot hit the ball fast or with control. Same with golfers. Just because something is different on the surface, it doesn't mean that the truly important things are not extremely similar to other effective approaches. People who criticise uncoventional but effective actions miss the deeper reasons why they work (which are usually missed by those who try to copy). However, you can't take this logic and assume that any old rubbish must be fine. Unless something is already achieving truly superb precision and control, you have to question whether it's an "individual approach" or one that ought to be tweaked.

How many tennis and golf pros never have coaching? I'll bet that all of those weird swings are improved upon by coaches. Even if they don't take out all of the weird things (simply because they are different), such swings are rarely just instinctive. They are constantly being honed- by coaches who understand what to tweak and what not to tweak. If you look at the bigger picture behind these, it really doesn't serve to suggest that these players did best by sticking to their instincts.

[pts1]

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.

Holy cow, it seems like "muscle talk" is mostly what happens regarding technical matters on this forum!

My point is that after a certain point of basic understanding about muscles and body mechanics in playing piano, which is rightly the guide to what one should do, it serves no purpose to go a great deal further due to the fact, IMHO, that one reaches a point of diminishing returns.

Personally, I'm certainly no master of anatomy, but in my pursuit of understanding, I've watched dissections of the hand and forearm, read bits and pieces of Ortmanns' massive scientific work, parts of Riddle of the Pianist's Finger, by (I can't remember his name), and Pianists and Their Technique (Gherig?). In addition, I've read all sorts of miscellaneous articles about the subject of piano playing muscles, technique and so on by both famous and not so famous pianists. Conversations with a number of teachers and pianists in addition to my own ideas and conclusions.

I wish I had a nickel for every hour I've spent over the years on this topic. This is not a particularly impressive list of efforts, IMO, but one that many make, and a good deal of it was "over my head" in that it entailed a good deal of various sciences. The only reason I mention it is to say that I've spent a great deal of time thinking about piano playing physics, muscles and so on. Way too much, IMO.

When people discuss this issue, they tend, by necessity, to talk of one muscle or finger at a time putting emphasis on that particular topic. But IMO, they CANNOT effectively talk about what really happens, which is a subtle contribution of MANY muscles contemporaneously, depending on what type of movement one is making. IOW, it is simply not possible.

What really brought this home for me was watching the arm hand dissection on Youtube.

As the surgeon goes through the forearm pushing aside tissues to reveal various muscles and nerves and tendons as they make their way into the hand through the wrist, what becomes obvious is the sheer complexity of these elements and their interconnectivity and reliance on one another. As one sees where the tendons connect to the fingers, sometimes wrapping around the digits, as another tendon passes through on its way to a different joint, it becomes clear that playing piano is a complex symphonic fugue of muscle movement, not a mere solo or duet, as it often seems when reading explanations.

Add to this that, as I understand it, you might use 5 muscles at once, but 1 or 2 which have more dominant involvement, depending on what you're doing. IOW, again with my very primitive understanding of the topic, not all of the muscle cells in a particular muscle may "fire", depending on the biochemical signal sent from the brain based on the task one is trying to accomplish.

IOW, after a basic point of departure, it is NOT POSSIBLE to understand what is happening, especially given that a good deal of it is not perceptible to the thinking mind.

I agree with you about the forearm tension problem. The instant one puts weight on the forearms into the keys, the large tendons of the forearm automatically begin a grasping  movement in reflexive response to keep your arms from falling. This in turn inhibits and tenses the playing muscles in the hand since the large forearm tendons ending in the finger tips tend to act "as one".

Ironically, for many years, teachers taught the "Arm Weight Transference" technique.
IMO, this was (is) the single most destructive piece of "technical advice" ever given.

Attempting to do this will cause tension by supporting this weight of 20 lbs or so, which is insane, especially since we all know (or I think we all know) it is the speed of the hammer into the string that makes the piano's sound and nothing else. Hence, it is the quickness of the key transmitted into the hammer that makes the sound.

This is why, IMO, so much injury occurs in piano, i.e. excessive force, and the unwitting and reflexive use of incorrect muscles due to crazy notions of how to produce sound with their inherently horrible mechanics.

Of course the Arm Weight Acolytes can never explain how slight of stature Asian girls perhaps 100 lbs with delicate arms and hands, can play the Chopin Etudes to beat the band, appearing to "fly over the keys" as they do so.

My Chinese friend I mentioned in another post who played the HammerKlavier quite well, has hands that look like a child's, though she's nearly 30 yrs old. She can just reach an octave, and her fingers and hands are delicate. But play she can with amazing results.

So I hope you gather from my somewhat rambling conversation that I'm not at all anti-muscle talk, its just that one runs into a dead end of unfathomable complexity which would likely cause even hand surgeons and anatomists to pause in lengthy thought were they to attempt to explain the relatively simple piano task of playing a C Major scale.

[nyiregyhazi]

IOW, after a basic point of departure, it is NOT POSSIBLE to understand what is happening, especially given that a good deal of it is not perceptible to the thinking mind.

After a point, probably true. However, pure finger pulls from the knuckle cannot be done in chords, without the knuckles closing into each other- which often results in futile attempts to stiffen the hand enough to stay open. Actions that involve extension can serve both to move the keys and OPEN out the hand further. They allow genuine finger movement, even when at a stretch- not mere weight transfer through a hand that must lock pre-opened. You can still use knuckle power, but the fingers literally open in space. The intent can have a colossal effect. It can transform what is possible- taking it to literally the opposite effect with a small mental adjustment. Such simple pieces of practically applicable knowledge should not be tarred with the same brush as pointless (and factually wrong) suggestions that you can decide exactly which muscles to use, or that knowing their names will necessarily make it happen. The true practical usages of this information are a totally different thing. If a person with small hands attempts the wrong action when at the limit of their stretch, they will limit their ability. This should be widely known- not a secret fact for a small few. Even as someone with big hand, there are wide chords that I can now play with true power (rather than have to fuse my hand tight enough to just about scrape through sounding them).

My problem with old approaches is that they failed miserably at connecting theory to a practical consequence. In the case of Ortmann, he got it plain wrong (with definably erroneous assertions about a need to "fix" the wrist"). It's necessary to combine the objective and the practical in an effective way. Some poor attempts of the past do not mean it's time for objectivity to go.

[cmg]

Walking is learned by babies without so much as guidance. Piano playing is not.

Not so, sir.  Toddlers are guided, step by step.  One induces them to capture their own sense of coordination and balance.  It's a step-by-step process.  A child is utterly dependent on the caretaker, and much more dependent, overwhelmingly, than most mammals.  Because we as humans are conditioned to accept this dependency, we overlook its singularity.  Walking is an exceptional achievement, just as playing an instrument is. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Not so, sir.  Toddlers are guided, step by step.  One induces them to capture their own sense of coordination and balance.  It's a step-by-step process.  A child is utterly dependent on the caretaker, and much more dependent, overwhelmingly, than most mammals.  Because we as humans are conditioned to accept this dependency, we overlook its singularity.  Walking is an exceptional achievement, just as playing an instrument is. 

It depends what you deem guidance. Holding a child up and allowing them explore the ground with their feet can be enough.The help required is often pretty minimal. I strongly suspect that such guidance is frequently a mere accelerant, rather than a necessary step to walking. How did the first human walk? There must be something natural about it. I struggle to believe that it can only be taught. Conversely, pianists do not learn virtuoso technique by having their hand guided onto the keys and being left merely to explore. It needs much more active assistance.

Walking may be an achievement, but to compare it to piano playing we have to look to gymnastics, at the very least. Getting from A to B without falling over is scarcely an achievement of any kind at all, compared to executing the exact levels of finger movement to play countless notes accurately in rhythm, in a way that produces the intended dynamic intensities with reliability. To play the piano, you need to achieve a lot more than the equivalent of not falling over. In particular, there is the added variable of the arm- where we have control over how much or little weight is on the "legs" (fingers). There's no such thing to be concerned with when walking- which is why it's so much easier not to screw it up.

[j_menz]

Walking may be an achievement, but to compare it to piano playing we have to look to gymnastics, at the very least. Getting from A to B without falling over is scarcely an achievement of any kind at all, compared to executing the exact levels of finger movement to play countless notes accurately in rhythm, in a way that produces the intended dynamic intensities with reliability. To play the piano, you need to achieve a lot more than the equivalent of not falling over. In particular, there is the added variable of the arm- where we have control over how much or little weight is on the "legs" (fingers). There's no such thing to be concerned with when walking- which is why it's so much easier not to screw it up.

Prediction: Robots will be playing keyboards long before they are walking on two legs.

[nyiregyhazi]

Prediction: Robots will be playing keyboards long before they are walking on two legs.

Are you serious? There are already robots on two legs.there is a piano playing robot that is not remotely advanced yet.

[j_menz]

Are you serious? There are already robots on two legs.there is a piano playing robot that is not remotely advanced yet.

The two legged robots only work in a highly controlled environment (flat floors or regular stairs). I accept that the piano players aren't "advanced" yet.

The race is on!

[p2u_]

I coudn't care less about how my music sounds for my audience if I end up with tendinitis etc. and must quit playing. 

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.

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...

Paul

[chopantasy]

If there's a physiological reason (which I have yet to be convinced by) why use of intrinsics necessarily triggers muscles in the wrist, that's just something that happens whether we consider it or not. But the moment you start saying it's okay to think of consciously tighten the wrist for stabilisation, you open the floodgates for a wealth of tensions that are preventable and counterproductive.

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. Philosophiæ 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.

In the case of Ortmann, he got it plain wrong (with definably erroneous assertions about a need to "fix" the wrist").

Presumably you live in some weird pre-Newton world.

[p2u_]

Presumably you live in some weird pre-Newton world.

Actually, I must say I agree with N. that Otto Ortmann can no longer be referred to as the authority, because he was wrong in more than one way and for several reasons. Beautiful piano sound, for example, DOES NOT solely depend on the speed of the hammer, and as far as Ortmann's analysis of the playing apparatus is concerned: He took Horowitz as an example to explain what was "right", but the problem is that Horowitz is not the only pianist who could play the piano really well. Quite a few very successful pianists use(d) techniques that Ortmann would have objections against.
For further thoughts on the subject I suggest this link:
I disagree with Otto Ortmann
P.S.: I'm not in for a mud fight, so I politely ask anybody not to bother.

Paul

[chopantasy]

From your website:
'And while Ortmann observed and analyzed a phenomenon, he offered no substantive scientific explanation for the divergence between artistic expression and experience and the measurements of his ingenious apparatus. There seems to be a conundrum, if not a full-fledged paradox, forced by deduction from his observations: How can there be different sound qualities, even with different kinds of key contact, when the end speeds of the hammer are identical?'

How do you scientifically explain artistic expression and subjective experience?  I'd start another thread if that's what you want to do.

[p2u_]

How do you scientifically explain artistic expression and subjective experience?  I'd start another thread if that's what you want to do.

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

[chopantasy]

...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.