Fundamental piano technique - curved vs. flat fingers

[chopantasy]

Well indeed. And in this case, it's very much not "a lever" but a series of "levers"-

There are only three classes of lever - which one(s) are we talking about?

[chopantasy]

What's your thought on this? Do you some of you have the same thoughts, or do some of you object to this?

Sounds good to me.  Expert playing is about minimizing tension.

[nyiregyhazi]

There are only three classes of lever - which one(s) are we talking about?

Given that none in the playing apparatus operates under a naturally static fulcrum (nor can it) it is misleading to try to to use ANY of them- without performing a series of extraordinarily complex calculations about a wealth of interdependent variables. There's a difference between an automatically stationary point and interdependent actions to try to force one to occur (via actions that impact on the operation of the complex interconnected system, as a whole)

The version that ortmann quotes approximates to the 3rd, but only holds true if the arm does not exist, but the position of the knuckle is somehow held rigidly in space by a block of concrete (and if the finger is a single bone). That's the only way to compare it to any of the simple scenarios above. It's staggeringly oversimplified to do so. Only if the hand were not connected to the arm's stabilising mass would a point of fixation be of use and could it be seriously compared to that scenario.

If that's not already silly enough as a model, the whole thing becomes even more disconnected from reality once a pianist starts unbending from the other two finger joints.

[chopantasy]

Given that none in the playing apparatus operates under a naturally static fulcrum (nor can it) it is misleading to try to to use ANY of them-

So you've discovered a fourth class?

[nyiregyhazi]

So you've discovered a fourth class?

Stop playing the fool. I made myself abundantly clear- combinations of levers do not correspond to the equivalent of a SINGLE lever, therefore not one of those classes accurately approximates to what can occur. The mechanics of a single lever with an automatically static fulcrum do not accurately apply to a series of levers that are not automatically immobilised in space. Nobody needs to invent new categories of lever. You just need to understand that a SERIES of movable levers cannot be explained through such inappropriate approximation to the simpler rules of one lever with a fixed fulcrum.

[chopantasy]

Stop playing the fool. I made myself abundantly clear- combinations of levers do not correspond to the equivalent of a SINGLE lever, therefore not one of those classes accurately approximates to what can occur.

So which levers?  In which order?  Say, start from the finger tip.  Maybe a diagram would help.  What I'm getting at is since you have levers in your system you have fulcra - those I'd like to see.  And let's cut the insults eh?

[nyiregyhazi]

So which levers?  In which order?  Say, start from the finger tip.  Maybe a diagram would help.  What I'm getting at is since you have levers in your system you have fulcra - those I'd like to see.  And let's cut the insults eh?

If you want to cut the insults, stop posting such stupid straw man arguments that falsely attribute ludicrous opinions to me. If you keep posting them as if they are my points, I will keep pointing out that they are your foolish misapprehensions- and not representations of anything I either said or implied.

Frankly, I could not give a damn which class of lever each joint is. What is important is the fact that Ortmann's model is bullshit- that both hinges on compromising simplifications and fails to even account for feasible alternatives to the stiffened finger approach. I don't care to attempt to analyse the precise reality of what is possible- but merely to debunk Ortmann's fallacy. If you are interested, feel free to do your own research. Personally, I'm interested in the combined effect of the levers- not in their individual categorisations.

Rather than analyse technical detail without practical reason, I use a simple approach based on correcting the indirect path of a singular lever- by opening out the two mid-joints of the finger. This net whole cannot be analysed with recourse to any of the three lever categorisations- because it's not a single lever.

[chopantasy]

So, your unable to produce a diagram?  Just insults?  Not very helpful.

[nyiregyhazi]

So, your unable to produce a diagram?  Just insults?  Not very helpful.

What purpose do you feel such a diagram would serve? I am not your slave and nothing I have argued requires such mundane and pedantic analysis, in order to stand. Please explain what relevance it is supposed to have. What is supposed to be gained from giving a damn about which category of lever each joint happens to be- rather than looking at the net effect that a combination of levers has upon a key (and realising that it's not remotely like Ortmann's childish and fallacious simplification)?

[chopantasy]

What purpose do you feel such a diagram would serve? I am not your slave.

I don't think supplying a diagram to explain your 'system' would constitute slavery - just common practice when discussing mechanics.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think supplying a diagram to explain your 'system' would constitute slavery - just common practice when discussing mechanics.

Diagrams be damned. If you need proof that the finger does not operate under the mechanics of a single lever, try wiggling your finger and looking at it. If you need more proof than that, I'm sorry to say that I'm all out of puppets and crayons. I'm not wasting any more time on your tedious games.

[chopantasy]

Diagrams be damned. If you need proof that the finger does not operate under the mechanics of a single lever,

Of course there are multiple levers.  It's a question of which dominate!  No diagram?  Bit of a waste of time then.

[nyiregyhazi]

Of course there are multiple levers.  It's a question of which dominate!  No diagram?  Bit of a waste of time then.

What is the relevance of these newly-placed goal posts, please? My purpose is to debunk's Ortmann's fallacy that a finger can be usefully modelled under the simple mechanics of a single (fixed fulcrum) lever. I have done so and am done now. I have no interest in jumping through hoops on completely separate issues. If you want more, go and do your own calculations on whatever aspects are of interest to you.

[chopantasy]

Well, if supplying a diagram to illustrate your ideas on mechanics is 'jumping through hoops' then we'll need to leave it there.  Here's Chief Bullshitter Schultz - he devotes a whole chapter to your delusion:

'Our previous discussion has already intimated that the group of movements in which the base as well as the playing-unit moves are all, measured by the principle of controlled key-descents, unsatisfactory touch-forms.  Nevertheless they are used with great frequency by pianists in general, and constitute one of the two chief causes of technical inefficiency, the other being faulty finger co-ordination.'

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, if supplying a diagram to illustrate your ideas on mechanics is 'jumping through hoops' then we'll need to leave it there.  Here's Chief Bullshitter Schultz - he devotes a whole chapter to your delusion:

We've been through this. Look at your finger. Does it contain any joints other than the knuckle? Therefore it is not a single lever and cannot be analysed as such (without even going into the fact that it is connected to the arm and cannot be automatically immobilised against oncoming forces- as evidenced by your stiff, yet flailing motions in the Grieg film).

We're done here. Come back with whatever nonsense you like.

PS Schultz's quote can be applied to collapse movements. What he missed is that anything that elevates the base is perfectly fine- causing no loss of scope for passing on movement. He only grasped half of the story, but made the mistake of trying to make a rule from a limited viewpoint. It applies to collapsing alone, not to possibility at large.

[p2u_]

I see no point to use both the flexor digitorum and extensor digitorum extensively at the same time, since they have some opposite functions.

Are you saying that you are able to locate them and control them at will?

Paul

[chopantasy]

PS Schultz's quote can be applied to collapse movements. What he missed is that anything that elevates the base is perfectly fine- causing no loss of scope for passing on movement. He only grasped half of the story, but made the mistake of trying to make a rule from a limited viewpoint. It applies to collapsing alone, not to possibility at large.

Schultz missed nothing - he devotes an entire CHAPTER to moving fulcra.

[nyiregyhazi]

Schultz missed nothing - he devotes an entire CHAPTER to moving fulcra.

What reasoning does he provide from claiming that they are always a bad thing- be it rational, or mechanical? I should be very interested to know more about his grounding for dismissal. Is it just assertions of supposed fact, or does he provide a foundation for his claims?

[chopantasy]

What reasoning does he provide from claiming that they are always a bad thing- be it rational, or mechanical? I should be very interested to know more about his grounding for dismissal. Is it just assertions of supposed fact, or does he provide a foundation for his claims?

This thread's long enough - go to the library.  We're done here, remember?

[cazico]

Are you saying that you are able to locate them and control them at will?

They are very easily located and can be very easily palpated too when they are in action. Flexors of the forearm have their origin on the medial part of the elbow, while the extensors have their origin on the lateral part of the elbow. Both the flexors of the forearm and the extensors of the forearm are highly controllable! Thanks to that we're able to play the piano at all.
You can experiment with this. I've succeeded. If you use the forearm flexors very heavily by curving/curling your fingers, you can easily palpate this (particularly on me since I'm a very thin person), and you can easily relax these flexors by flatten your fingers a little bit. Actually this also removes some of the extensor tensions, because when you use your flexors very heavily, they work somewhat against the extensors. I've observed on myself that by flattening out my fingers more (not completely of course), my extensors have to work less in order to lift my fingers, because I don't use flexors counteracting the extensors. I can feel this on the lateral part of my elbow. I think this is a plausible explanation for why I get less tired in the extensors by flattening my fingers. (And the explanation should of course also include the increased use of the intrinsic muscles of the hand.)

I know this is too much anatomical talk for most people, but I'm just justifying and explaining why I think my approaches could be favorable.

I would actually say that it doesn't seem that e.g. Kissin has perfect ergonomical habits when he uses those flexors that extensively. But of course, he is an extremely good pianist though!

But again, I emphasize that I'm not an expert, and my purpose is not to convince anyone. I'm just looking for a lot of helping feedback and advices!  

[p2u_]

This thread's long enough - go to the library.  We're done here, remember?

That's not much of an answer. First you quote a source (or part of it) and when your opponent asks a question, say: "Go to the library and read it yourself". Could you, at least for the community, give a summary of what you are quoting or what you are referring to?

Paul

[jmanpno]

I'm rather sick of seeing this pointless thread get longer and longer and be at the top of the heap.  Come for a lesson with me.  Have problems?  We'll sort them out.

Thanks.

[p2u_]

They are very easily located and can be very easily palpeted too when they are in action.

I can easily believe that. I would just like to know if you can control them consciously (tension gradation etc.).

If you use the forearm flexors very heavily by curving/curling your fingers, you can easily palpate this (particularly on me since I'm a very thin person), and you can easily relax these flexors by flatten your fingers a little bit.

So, "turning them on" and "shutting them off" is a matter of choice of finger movement if I understand you correctly? Isn't it better to leave them alone then, and teach the right movement right away?

Paul

[thalbergmad]

Come for a lesson with me. 

OK, but only if we can have a long discussion about fulcrums.

Thal

[chopantasy]

That's not much of an answer.

You can go to the library too can't you?

[nyiregyhazi]

You can go to the library too can't you?

What is different about this source, that allows you to present various others but not this one? If you consider the chapter relevant,  post an excerpt- or give a brief of summary of what evidence he provides that supports the idea that movement is always worse than fixation in space.

Based on the standard of the previous sources that you have quoted, I'm not going to bother going out of my way to hear what he has to say- especially if you're not even going to offer a summary of what you feel makes it in any way persuasive (rather than merely unevidenced assertion of a dubious fact, as in your other sources). If I'm wrong to be skeptical, summarise the case he makes.

[chopantasy]

I'm suppose to type up extracts that you can spend pages more of this thread with delusional ideas?  One minute my posts are 'bullshit' now they're sought after.  Enough is enough.  You can't supply a diagram - we're done.  

As I'm editing: to answer p2u below - I refuse to say 'A', followed by 'B', followed by 'C' to the end of the alphabet.

[p2u_]

You can go to the library too can't you?

I don't have to go to the library because I'm not interested in the subject. I'm only pointing out that if you say "A", it would be nice for the community if you said "B". Or you could do like me, who said neither "A", nor "B".

Paul

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm suppose to type up extracts that you can spend pages more of this thread with delusional ideas?  One minute my posts are 'bullshit' now their sought after.  Enough is enough.  You can't supply a diagram - we're done.  

I'm not going to supply a specially requested diagram of something that neither interests me nor pertains to any points I have made in this thread. If you need a diagram to prove that the finger is not a single lever, you're beyond help. My point is done and I'm not going to draw any diagrams to prove that a finger contains three joints (the mid ones of which can straighten while the knuckle flexes), or that it can do things that cannot be simplified to the mechanics of a lone lever.

Conversely YOU presented this source as being relevant, so follow through on it by divulging what (if anything) makes it more significant than the various unevidenced assertions of supposed fact that you already gave from others. Mere assertion about what is and isn't possible does not make a good source- whoever it comes from. I want to see the basis for the assertion. If you're not interested in contributing anything topical, stop wasting people's time by posting in this thread.

[pts1]

Well, it looks like things are back to normal, with N fully embroiled in his death match with Chopan, the real reason I suspect they both deign to participate on these boards in the first place.

You can well predict that if one of them says something that isl even an iron-clad fact, the other will dispute it as garbage as the "git" and "imbecile" wage their eternal war.

Of the two of them, however, N happily uses 100 words when 3 would do. In the thousands of words he has typed in this thread alone, I really do not know what his point is, or if he has one.

I think he believes this illustrates superior knowledge, when in fact, I think the more concisely a point is made the better.

Of the very few things I have culled from his extremely long and sometimes outright convoluted if not contradictory ramblings, he claims to play the piano these days by means of "finger extension"?

He is also saying -- I think -- that the fingers are not levers.

So you put these two fairly clear statements together and piano playing suddenly takes on quite alien characteristics.

I know N says that he was interviewed for his comedic talents, and is a proficient pool player, in addition to having more knowledge of piano playing physics than Ortmann, but I still wish he could express 2 or 3 of his main ideas in short, understandable sentences we of lesser mental means could comprehend.

As it is, the word picture he draws is like something Escher did -- while it can exist on paper, it can't possibly work in the real world.

[marik1]

I still wish he could express 2 or 3 of his main ideas in short, understandable sentences we of lesser mental means could comprehend.

Yeah, I got lost long ago (around the first quarter of page 1), so I am not even pretending to try to make any sense of it...

Generally, I believe if one cannot present ANY idea (even such broad one as the essence of entire piano technique) in a couple concise sentences then the person doesn't have a clear idea about the subject. But never mind, carry on, folks.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

He is also saying -- I think -- that the fingers are not levers.

No. I'm saying that a finger is not A singular lever. Any attempt to define "rules" based on a model of one single lever (as if the rest of the arm does not even exist) results in complete fallacy that fails to account for what is truly possible.

[nyiregyhazi]

Generally, I believe if one cannot present ANY idea (even such broad one as the essence of entire piano technique) in a couple concise sentences then the person doesn't have a clear idea about the subject. But never mind, carry on, folks.

Which experts do you know that can teach everything there is to know about piano technique in a couple of concise sentences? I'd be most interested to hear of their work. Presumably they are the ones who claim that if you merely think of the sound that you wish to make everything else falls magically into place?

Incidentally, virtually every post I have made in this thread has been concerned with debunking short-sighted, over-simplified advice. To explain the wider possibilities of technique can be done rather briefly. It's proving the fallacy of such "rules" as the idea that piano playing requires fixed fulcrums that requires more words. When pseudo-scientific rules are presented as if fact, science needs to be used to prove that they are not grounded in fact. I'd be a lot happier if unsupportable "rules" were just never put out there to begin with- allowing a simple understanding that is not tainted by false preconceptions.

[nyiregyhazi]

Here are two attachments to show the sheer simplicity of the basic extension action.

All it takes is to conceive an imaginary line running through knuckle and fingertip. The finger lengthens (pulling back via the strength of the knuckle, yet opening out in all other joints) into that imaginary line. This need not to be done pedantically. It's merely a broad guideline that permits a very easy way to conceive the basic action. As the action occurs slightly forwards (not enough for the finger to slip!), there is no reaction tugging the wrist forwards. The reaction sends it back in the opposite direction. It's also minimally based on friction- hence no disasters with sweaty hands on a hot day. You either play with more intensity or less- but end up in an extremely predictable position whatever the intensity. There's no need to compensate for the fact that more intense sliding actions will slide the hand into complete different positions, when playing heavier or lighter actions. Your hand ends up in minimally different positions, regardless of how slippery the keys/how much intensity they require for a healthy tone. This allows far greater predictably than Roy Holmes' idea of persistent finger retraction on literally every single key.

Anyone who has a closed-mind is welcome to scoff, but I'd be far more interested in an explanation of the basis for skepticism than in generic "nah" posts. A finger has a hell of a lot more options than locking the knuckle into space, fusing itself into a single stiff lever and then scraping back across the surface of every single key it sounds.

[marik1]

Which experts do you know that can teach everything there is to know about piano technique in a couple of concise sentences? I'd be most interested to hear of their work. Presumably they are the ones who claim that if you merely think of the sound that you wish to make everything else falls magically into place?

There is a confusion here. To teach to play piano takes years even with greatest teachers (and not on a piano board, but with regular face to face private lessons), however, any expert can indeed explain the concept just in a few concise sentences.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

There is a confusion here. To teach to play piano takes years even with greatest teachers (and not on a piano board, but with regular face to face private lessons), however, any expert can indeed explain the concept just in a few concise sentences.

Best, M

Or in other words- "they can't"? I've learned substantially more from Alan Fraser than I learned from any teacher I've worked with regularly. I have worked with him in person on a few short occasions, which obviously helps- but the core of my technique (which is now a world beyond how it ever was during my years of regular lessons) has been formed outside of lessons, primarily due to his advice (coupled with my own analysis about what does and doesn't make for efficient key depression).

The above premise only serves to reinforce quite how superficial those few concise sentences are and how little they reflect key issues. Major technical breakthroughs are entirely possible outside of continual ongoing lessons, via the right advice. It takes more than 3 sentences though (which clearly reflect little- if they only show benefit when coupled with weekly lessons). Could it be more self-evident that those few sentences only convey as much as will be gained without the minor addition of hours and hours of ongoing lessons (which presumably contain a good deal more sentences of advice than the tiny handful)?

[marik1]

Or in other words- "they can't"? I've learned substantially more from Alan Fraser than I learned from any teacher I've worked with regularly. I have worked with him in person on a few short occasions, which obviously helps- but the core of my technique (which is now a world beyond how it ever was during my years of regular lessons) has been formed outside of lessons, primarily due to his advice (coupled with my own analysis about what does and doesn't make for efficient key depression).

The above premise only serves to reinforce quite how superficial those few concise sentences are and how little they reflect key issues. Major technical breakthroughs are entirely possible outside of continual ongoing lessons, via the right advice. It takes more than 3 sentences though (which clearly reflect little- if they only show benefit when coupled with weekly lessons).

It seems you did not have good luck with your regular piano teachers. Your short time experience with Alan Fraser just proves that this is enough to give a short advice to understand the concept.

In private setup very often even three sentences are not needed--it is enough to demonstrate the concept. But of course, sometimes it takes much more than 3 sentences, but then again, it is possible only when you see a problem in person (and not as described on internet forum).

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

It seems you did not have good luck with your regular piano teachers. Your short time experience with Alan Fraser just proves that this is enough to give a short advice to understand the concept.

In private setup very often even three sentences are not needed--it is enough to demonstrate the concept. But of course, sometimes it takes much more than 3 sentences, but then again, it is possible only when you see a problem in person (and not as described on internet forum).

Best, M

Sure- when it comes week after week. However, it shows how little that style of learning has to do with the conscious rationale. The handful of sentences you cite barely even comes into the process of what is learned in those lessons.

My point is that you can ALSO learn a phenomenal amount with the right combination of rational understanding and self-experimentation. Before Fraser's advice really stuck, I had to understand various conscious aspects. I improved from the first lessons, but the "feel" did not stick. Only recently do I really feel that I understand enough to keep recapturing the right "feel" when it lost. The process of recapturing always has to come from specific conscious observations that I have made. If I just go to my instincts, I deteriorate rapidly and cannot come back until I remind myself where it's going wrong- which often requires watching myself in a mirror.

There's no dichotomy between learning via understanding and feel. Obviously, it would be good to have a fine teacher who I could get fantastic technical advice from weekly- to add to my conscious self-training. But it's entirely possible to get major breakthroughs via understanding, outside of abstract processes of developing instinctive "feel".

I think this is particularly important for training future teachers. A student who only carries a "feel" will always be a poor teacher. You can "feel" yourself without having a clue what to look for in others. You have to actually understand the roots, to be a great teacher of technique.

[marik1]

Here are two attachments to show the sheer simplicity of the basic extension action.

All it takes is to conceive an imaginary line running through knuckle and fingertip. The finger lengthens (pulling back via the strength of the knuckle, yet opening out in all other joints) into that imaginary line. This need not to be done pedantically. It's merely a broad guideline that permits a very easy way to conceive the basic action. As the action occurs slightly forwards (not enough for the finger to slip!), there is no reaction tugging the wrist forwards. The reaction sends it back in the opposite direction. It's also minimally based on friction- hence no disasters with sweaty hands on a hot day. You either play with more intensity or less- but end up in an extremely predictable position whatever the intensity. There's no need to compensate for the fact that more intense sliding actions will slide the hand into complete different positions, when playing heavier or lighter actions. Your hand ends up in minimally different positions, regardless of how slippery the keys/how much intensity they require for a healthy tone. This allows far greater predictably than Roy Holmes' idea of persistent finger retraction on literally every single key.

Anyone who has a closed-mind is welcome to scoff, but I'd be far more interested in an explanation of the basis for skepticism than in generic "nah" posts. A finger has a hell of a lot more options than locking the knuckle into space, fusing itself into a single stiff lever and then scraping back across the surface of every single key it sounds.

Since very long time ago (when our ancestors were still living on the trees) the most natural movement for our fingers was to grab (or to pull). All good pianists I ever knew use this principle.

I also know a few pianists who play the way you are suggesting. All of them have very unpleasant sound.

Best, M

[ajspiano]

Since very long time ago (when our ancestors were still living on the trees) the most natural movement for our fingers was to grab (or to pull). All good pianists I ever knew use this principle.

I also know a few pianists who play the way you are suggesting. All of them have very unpleasant sound.

Best, M

This is my biggest issue with your arguement N.

Even if its mechanically sound fingers are not made for that, the anatomy/physiology limits their facility. Its like trying to do 100mph in 1st gear. - and I am really dubious about fighting x million years of evolution.

I've also had students come to me with a primarily extension based technique and they have near zero dynamic control and they think that piano playing always hurts. Granted they tend to have many issues and thats not the sole contributing factor though.

[nyiregyhazi]

Since very long time ago (when our ancestors were still living on the trees) the most natural movement for our fingers was to grab (or to pull). All good pianists I ever knew use this principle.

I also know a few pianists who play the way you are suggesting. All of them have very unpleasant sound.

Best, M

Do you include Volodos? He has an extremely direct line of motion- no sliding to be seen anywhere in his technique. Richter?

Barenboim makes a hideous sound with this technique- but he bangs very hard with the arms. The key to it is to involve proper finger activity (rather than bang through a fixated hand).

Also, who says it's unnatural? When you push something, you need to use the strength of opening actions- not pure closing actions. A basic press-up uses these muscular actions.

[nyiregyhazi]

There's no shortage of such actions here (abundantly visible as such):

&feature=related

Are you including Rubinstein in the ugly sound camp?

[j_menz]

Barenboim makes a hideous sound with this technique- but he bangs very hard with the arms.

 


That whooshing sound you just heard is your credibility flying out the window.

[ajspiano]

Do you include Volodos? He has an extremely direct line of motion- no sliding to be seen anywhere in his technique. Richter?

Just fiddling..

Whether or not this is strictly the right way to do things..

As you flex the MP joint it is not necessary for the PIP/DIP to be fixed - they may extend slightly, but its not a concious  (or perhaps even unconcious) action. The action is primarily flex, even though it has a pretty much identical visual presentation to a primarily extension one.

Or its some kind of mix or the two, rather than primarily flex or extension.. 

EDIT: This thread is giving me a headache. I can teach and learn this stuff by feel without the need to explain anatomically or physiologically in any depth. Though I of course don't have a problem with someone finding a mechanical explanation better for them personally.

[nyiregyhazi]

 


That whooshing sound you just heard is your credibility flying out the window.

You're denying that Barenboim is a thumper or that he moves his fingers this way? Both are abundantly evident here:

Fortunately, Rubinstein sets a far better example.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just fiddling..

Whether or not this is strictly the right way to do things..

As you flex the MP joint it is not necessary for the PIP/DIP to be fixed - they may extend slightly, but its not a concious  (or perhaps even unconcious) action. The action is primarily flex, even though it has a pretty much identical visual presentation to a primarily extension one.

It had to be exceedingly conscious for me. Perhaps some people are lucky enough to get it by instinct, but I never did. I had to radically change my conception of movement altogether, to improve my finger speed and agility. I used the model I describe of the imaginary straight line, to consciously develop it. Until I did so, the constant finger retractions of intent at pure knuckle activity were constantly dragging my wrist forward and up- as you see in all of my old youtube videos. The action may be primarily flexion, but pretending it's only flexion never got me anywhere near it. I was always limited by my fingers scraping back across the keys and pulling my arm out of alignment- until I started aiming the line of force not backwards, but slightly forwards.

The more I use the model, the more open and large my hands appear. I'm aiming to get them as wide open and expansive as Richter/Rubinstein- without a trace of droop in the arch.

[j_menz]

You're denying that Barenboim is a thumper or that he moves his fingers this way?

I'm denying that he makes a "hideous sound".   

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm denying that he makes a "hideous sound".   

Well, in that case he's a shining example of this style of movement (not that I'd ever portray him as such myself).

[ajspiano]

Another way of explaining? since I think that saying its extension primarily is confusing, maybe it suited you're individual situation but it certainly wont suit all..

within the context of this example -

If the action is flex primarily from the MP joint, AND you relax completely the DIP/PIP you will likely end up with a collapsed DIP joint. You would add only enough concious motion to the DIP/PIP joints to stop the collapse, and to avoid sliding all over the key. The more pressure that is applied from the MP joint, the greater the pressure required at the dip/pip joints to avoid collapse..  not that i'd be arguing for significant and ongoing pressure into the key bed..

So there's a more flex perspective, where as perhaps you needed more extension..

This is why I say its 'balance' because its whatever is required to get to the right feel..  I also think if you test either extreme and search for the balance you learn to find the 'feel' better as you play and the balance points change - because you are familiar with what it 'feels' like to be both on and off balance.. 

It has to be feel if you're ever going to do it instinctively - concious analysis may get you started but its not the end of the road.

[j_menz]

It has to be feel if you're ever going to do it instinctively - concious analysis may get you started but its not the end of the road.

Agree entirely.