freedom of the arm- in both movement and stillness

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's a preview of the first part of an up and coming blog post, regarding an extremely broad and wide-ranging issue in technique. Any thoughts?



An arm that is balanced in mid air always requires more effort than an arm which is well connected to the piano. However, it goes without saying that non-legato and staccato playing requires plenty of time to be spent making no contact whatsoever- which makes it extremely important to minimise the effort involved in this state. Firstly go to the hovering arm, supported by the shoulder with the hand an inch or so above the keys. After trying to find the most comfortable balance, slowly make small movements left and right, trying to explore what lets go as a result of being in motion. Gradually make them smaller still, until you feel that you are ALMOST moving. This may sound barmy, but the brain automatically tends to clench muscles unnecessarily if you intend to be still. Even by imagining that you are moving, efforts which do not directly contribute to balance will tend to get out of the way. At the least, you need to feel you COULD be moved, if someone prodded you even lightly. If not, you are not balanced but tense. Try the same thing up and down and again look to get to the point where you are ALMOST moving, even when the movement fades down to nothing. Also, in each of these exercises explore just how slowly it's possible to move without feeling a stop start quality. You may not be able to move ultra slow without feeling judders and bobbling in the quality, to start out, so find what flows first (but without any sense of coasting on momentum). Over time you can explore going slower and slower until nobody but yourself would even know there is movement going on.

 I call this "stopping without stopping" and the concept can be applied to countless aspects of piano technique and to human movement in general. If we start with a goal of stillness, we work far harder than if we start out with smoothly continuous movements. That is why the old balancing a coin on the hand idea can be disastrous. The ability to do that needs be earned by gradual refinement of movement- you cannot usefully start out by deciding to force yourself to be still at any cost. Equally, excessively big or fast movements easily destabilise- causing alternation between erratically uncontrolled jerks and tightly held positions. Continuous flow of movements (even if so small that an observer will have no idea that they are occurring) are at the heart of success.

Finally, try circular movements in either direction, starting bigger and reducing the size. Can you feel extra smoothness and release compared to when you changed direction directly? Even if you did it sensitively for the first two exercises, there will a sense of a stop if you directly reverse direction. This is a huge issue in piano technique. You don't need the massive visible circles that some promote (which can risk promoting instability, rather than aiding balance) but just a slight curve should be present in any change of direction. Try going back to sideways/up and down movements but round off the edges. Any direct reversal is like driving a car forwards and then suddenly going into reverse gear. Instead of that, picture a marble rolling around a u shaped tube, to send its momentum back in the opposite direction via complete continuity of motion. This both promotes freedom in slower music (where pianists typically get tense due to constant stopping of the arm) and makes outrageous speeds possible in virtuoso repertoire, where there is no time to slam on the breaks and then come back in a literally identical path. Can you feel how even the stationary position becomes freer, if you slowly refine these movements into into a miniscule remainder? Over time, even if you do intend stillness, it will begin to be freer- but please don't assume that doing this exercise once will magically give you impunity from now! I recommend actively looking for these subtle ongoing movements in literally everything you do at the piano for a considerable time, before putting any faith in your unconscious to know what is best- especially if this is concept is new to you. If you're typically very still, try looking to add small steady movements of the arm to everything (consider that going up and down once per note is neither small nor steady!). If you typically move a lot, look out for the places where moving too much actually interrupts the continuity and gives a stop start feel. See if you can feel how more refined movements will actually smooth things over and take out the hitches (not to mention the fact that they allow far more consistency and precision in how the hand contacts the piano).

[brogers70]

That was an interesting post, and I found the exercises helpful. You do far better at presenting your ideas in these sort of posts than in all your many attempts to tell others that they are not exactly right, or insufficiently precise, or wrong, or dangerously wrong.

Seriously, I almost missed this post because I'm tired of reading long, ill-tempered wrangles about technique. Consider, when you read a post you disagree with, trying to find the interpretation that makes the most sense rather than the one that makes the least.

I'm sure it seems to you that you are simply correcting errors that confuse bystanders, but I do not think the resulting tussles are productive or informative; the ratio of ill-feeling to useful information is too high.

But when you just post your view on its own, rather than to show that someone else is wrong, then it's helpful, as it was here.

[lostinidlewonder]

Learn to write in paragraphs. Use some real examples of music with exact bars to support what you are trying to talk about.

[nyiregyhazi]

Learn to write in paragraphs. Use some real examples of music with exact bars to support what you are trying to talk about.

Every piece of music ever written. There's nothing where quality of poise and balance does not matter. The post is about perceiving balance in general- not case specific balance that does not relate to directly to different situations. Specific details for specific cases will come later, after the foundation movements.

also, it's written in paragraphs. What are you referring to? It's not aimed at the attention span of a gossip column/horoscope reader.

[nyiregyhazi]

That was an interesting post, and I found the exercises helpful. You do far better at presenting your ideas in these sort of posts than in all your many attempts to tell others that they are not exactly right, or insufficiently precise, or wrong, or dangerously wrong.

Seriously, I almost missed this post because I'm tired of reading long, ill-tempered wrangles about technique. Consider, when you read a post you disagree with, trying to find the interpretation that makes the most sense rather than the one that makes the least.

I'm sure it seems to you that you are simply correcting errors that confuse bystanders, but I do not think the resulting tussles are productive or informative; the ratio of ill-feeling to useful information is too high.

But when you just post your view on its own, rather than to show that someone else is wrong, then it's helpful, as it was here.

I see your point- but if an inaccurate portrayal can cause tremendous harm, is it wrong to detail that and give people a chance at a clean slate? I see a strong case both for practically oriented posts and posts that expose the pitfalls of bogus claims- to help people move on from limiting belief systems. In my opinion, without correcting problematic conscious beliefs, it's often very hard to get past limitations that these beliefs can often cause. Changing a flawed background belief (or even as little as being prepared to ask questions about it) can be a wonderfully liberating beginning to progress. I'm not out to discredit methods (which often succeed when put in practise by a good teacher) but rather limiting beliefs that come from false portrayals of reality. This is very harmful if you don't have a great teacher to SHOW you what to do in a way that compensates for any dubious wordings via sound practical means.

Also I freely admit that many of the issues I'm writing about had not come to me when I started writing my blog. I knew typical claims were a load of balls that had hindered me and wanted to detail that and encourage others to question things too. However, I can see how many earlier posts raised more questions than they had answers. The more I continue to discover answers, the more the posts will be directly about solutions rather than about the flaws in pseudoscientific ideas within other methods. I held back on this front because I didn't want to write about the most important hings before they were totally clear and risk having to change my mind

[brogers70]

I see your point- but if an inaccurate portrayal can cause tremendous harm, is it wrong to detail that and give people a chance at a clean slate?

As I said, I am sure it seems to you that you are heading off tremendous harm by refuting wrong ideas. I doubt that I am alone, however, in getting the impression that you simply enjoy telling people they are wrong whenever the opportunity arises. You do often seem to take whatever interpretation of a post makes it seems least reasonable, sometimes almost to the point of parody. You risk alienating your audience that way. And the long, unpleasant wrangles probably lead people other than just myself to tune you out.

Another suggestion I'd make is that if you make a good argument, and then someone makes a bad counterargument, you should just have enough faith in your original argument and the intelligence of the audience to leave it alone. Give us credit that we are not automatically swayed to whatever point of view was expressed last. That also could cut down on the long, distracting point by point rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and counter-counter-rebuttals.

I would not have posted this except that I quite liked your first post in this thread and think it would be a shame if too argumentative an approach kept you from getting your ideas a hearing.

[nyiregyhazi]

As I said, I am sure it seems to you that you are heading off tremendous harm by refuting wrong ideas. I doubt that I am alone, however, in getting the impression that you simply enjoy telling people they are wrong whenever the opportunity arises. You do often seem to take whatever interpretation of a post makes it seems least reasonable, sometimes almost to the point of parody. You risk alienating your audience that way. And the long, unpleasant wrangles probably lead people other than just myself to tune you out.

Another suggestion I'd make is that if you make a good argument, and then someone makes a bad counterargument, you should just have enough faith in your original argument and the intelligence of the audience to leave it alone. Give us credit that we are not automatically swayed to whatever point of view was expressed last. That also could cut down on the long, distracting point by point rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and counter-counter-rebuttals.

I would not have posted this except that I quite liked your first post in this thread and think it would be a shame if too argumentative an approach kept you from getting your ideas a hearing.

I'm not interested in misportraying anything. I reply in instances where I feel the default reading at face value is likely to mislead. If I were a pedant I could spend hours writing dubious misrepresentations of arguments. I have no interest in that. I argue against things that I feel are directly misleading or potentially misunderstood, on the level that they are presented and on the level they are likely to be interpreted. If I agree with something I just don't argue with it. If I strongly disagree or feel there's an additional side to the story, I see no reason not to present it. This isn't a debate about irrelevant politics, but a forum where people can be helped or misled. Posts have real consequences.

[maitea]

And I deeply thank N for being that crystal clear. I wish more teachers and pianists would be able to talk and discuss about our metier with that informed knowledge, rather than the hokus pokus. However, there isn't a blinder man that then one that doesn't want to see.

N, thanks for taking always the time to answer the posts!
Maite

[pianoman53]

Why can't you make videos, explaining what you're doing? Or at least have videos in the blog. Preferably you, since most people will see what "an expert" tells them to see. So if you say that Hamelin gets his technique from the ways his feet moves, beginners would possible believe in it.

I don't always agree on what you say, and I generally don't agree with people who claims that they have The answer for technique. The video thing would probably make it easier to buy though...

[nyiregyhazi]

Why can't you make videos, explaining what you're doing? Or at least have videos in the blog. Preferably you, since most people will see what "an expert" tells them to see. So if you say that Hamelin gets his technique from the ways his feet moves, beginners would possible believe in it.

I don't always agree on what you say, and I generally don't agree with people who claims that they have The answer for technique. The video thing would probably make it easier to buy though...

I never claimed "the" answer. I simply distinguish between the rationally implausible and that which really is plausible (plus exercises to achieve these things). if you want a simplistic and definitive "correct" way to play (or to accuse me of offering such a thing) you're looking in the wrong place.

I've given detailed videos for each of my last three practical blog posts. Can I politely suggest that you actually look at it before passing generalised comments that illustrate that you haven't investigated it? if you do, any feedback is more than welcome.

Regarding videos here, this a preview and videos will be included when it makes it into the final post. However, how much confusion can there be about moving the arm up and down and in small circles? Anyone merely copying that simple movement off a video would be wasting their own time. 99% of it is about following the instructions. The movements themselves are truly meaningless without awareness of the specific purpose that they serve.

[pts1]

N:

I think all of this is quite good.

However, I think you need to add the most important set up aspect of free arm which is sitting height or more accurately, elbow height.

IMO -- after a long experience -- it is critical for anything one does at the piano to sit properly, which means erect so the arms hang with support from the shoulder, and with the elbow at least as high as the keyboard. If the elbow is lower than the keyboard, it takes more effort to hold the forearm and hands in a free floating manner.

At or a bit higher than the keyboard -- and by higher I mean perhaps an inch or so -- offers the optimum position for the arm and hand to move almost effort free, which automatically aligns the hands and fingers for playing. (there are of course exceptions, but they should be ignored by beginners or people who are otherwise not yet comfortable at the keyboard)

This single issue is of extreme importance, and once the aspiring student/pianist thinks about it and experiments with it, they will likely see why.

So my advice is to sit as indicated above and by experimentation, ultimately find the precise height that works best for you.

All of your advice about always making tiny movement is good for a number of reasons.

First, as you mentioned, you avoid stopping and starting from scratch, which avoids co-contraction of muscles. IOW, in "piano physics" the shortest distance between two points is a curved, not straight line.

Also the tiny bit of momentum in a non-stopped set of muscles and bones offers greater ease in not only continuing play, but in starting play in that this tiny bit off momentum aids in the preparatory movements of starting a passage, albeit very, very small.

And as you mentioned, I think, by always having a tiny bit of movement, you won't tire.

Its all well reasoned, correct and readable.
 

[nyiregyhazi]

I think all of this is quite good.

However, I think you need to add the most important set up aspect of free arm which is sitting height or more accurately, elbow height.

IMO -- after a long experience -- it is critical for anything one does at the piano to sit properly, which means erect so the arms hang with support from the shoulder, and with the elbow at least as high as the keyboard. If the elbow is lower than the keyboard, it takes more effort to hold the forearm and hands in a free floating manner.

I do advise this sort of stuff in another blog post, but I don't agree that it's critical to be that precise. The type of exercises I give make it possible to sit far lower, without wasted efforts. Well directed and useful balancing efforts can be smaller when sat low than when sat high without having achieved refinement down to what is useful. I think people should be aware of the consequences, but I don't personally agree that the elbow must be at least as high as the keys. It's possible to be very free when sat low if you know how to lighten and support the arms without locking up.

At or a bit higher than the keyboard -- and by higher I mean perhaps an inch or so -- offers the optimum position for the arm and hand to move almost effort free, which automatically aligns the hands and fingers for playing. (there are of course exceptions, but they should be ignored by beginners or people who are otherwise not yet comfortable at the keyboard)

There is a problem with this though- it doesn't let the pads of the fingers access the keys easily. When working at extreme standing fingers I've often found it useful to sit higher. Currently, I've been coming back to flatter fingers and find it very limiting to sit with the elbow even an inch above the keys, for this style of technique.

First, as you mentioned, you avoid stopping and starting from scratch, which avoids co-contraction of muscles. IOW, in "piano physics" the shortest distance between two points is a curved, not straight line.

I'm kind of with you, but I don't agree altogether with this phrase, personally. I think most things should be done in curves but, for me, calling it the "shortest distance" only muddies the waters and confuses the simple reasons why curves are useful- which is not to span distance quicker, for me. It's a longer distance but reduces the crunch of an about turn (if needed) and smooths over corners. It can also improve accuracy by straightening the path forwards or backwards as you get to the destination note- which allows more margin for error than a direct path sideways. If there's no need to reverse direction quickly, however and it's got to be outrageously quick, then a curve is neither the shortest distance nor the quickest path. If I wanted to play one leap ludicrously quick (and throw caution to the wind when it comes to my chances of getting certain accuracy) I'd possibly try to eliminate the curve altogether.

I'll admit that there are relatively few examples where a slight sense of curve hinders, but in the skips of the Schumann Fantasy, the shortest distance is a near perfect straight line sideways with the arm, with the finger moving the key as you pass through the point where it has reached alignment (so there's neither a "stop" into the position nor a curve). I might practise it with a slight backwards to forwards curve (which helps with accuracy and looseness) but in the final product any indirectness is too slow. You need to cover the distance ludicrously fast, but then have plenty of time to get back- so any notable curve would typically start only after spanning the distance to the second note of each jump, not on the way to it. In literal terms, a straight line is always the shortest distance for raw speed. However, if you're rapidly going to have to go back and forth between two places over and over (with equal speed needed in both directions) a curve is the most flowing route and hence the most rapid- despite not being geometrically the shortest.

Also the tiny bit of momentum in a non-stopped set of muscles and bones offers greater ease in not only continuing play, but in starting play in that this tiny bit off momentum aids in the preparatory movements of starting a passage, albeit very, very small.

Absolutely, even a minute sense of drifting up and away or around the side can make all the difference as a preparation.

[pianoman53]

I never claimed "the" answer. I simply distinguish between the rationally implausible and that which really is plausible (plus exercises to achieve these things). if you want a simplistic and definitive "correct" way to play (or to accuse me of offering such a thing) you're looking in the wrong place.

I've given detailed videos for each of my last three practical blog posts. Can I politely suggest that you actually look at it before passing generalised comments that illustrate that you haven't investigated it? if you do, any feedback is more than welcome.

Regarding videos here, this a preview and videos will be included when it makes it into the final post. However, how much confusion can there be about moving the arm up and down and in small circles? Anyone merely copying that simple movement off a video would be wasting their own time. 99% of it is about following the instructions. The movements themselves are truly meaningless without awareness of the specific purpose that they serve.

Yeah, well.. You asked about this post. And since I don't see a video on This post, I suggested a video. But give me attitude, seems legit.

And obviously you claim to know the answer. You just haven't said it straight yet, but since you claim that everything else is wrong, it sort of adds up to that you're the one who's right...

Me for example, I don't say that the "french school" of pianism is wrong, I just claim that the "russian" is better in every single way.
I can obviously be proved wrong, but I have Richter and Gilels on my side, so who can argue?

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeah, well.. You asked about this post. And since I don't see a video on This post, I suggested a video. But give me attitude, seems legit.

And obviously you claim to know the answer. You just haven't said it straight yet, but since you claim that everything else is wrong, it sort of adds up to that you're the one who's right...

Me for example, I don't say that the "french school" of pianism is wrong, I just claim that the "russian" is better in every single way.
I can obviously be proved wrong, but I have Richter and Gilels on my side, so who can argue?

Answers to issues, yes. Is that an outrageous boast for a professional teacher to make? Not  "the" answer  to piano playing in general. There are objective facts behind pianism- such as those that determine you cannot move with as much freedom if all reversals of direction are done in a straight line, rather than with a rounded reversals. If something is subjective and works in different ways, I refrain from saying that x is right and y is wrong (and quite possibly detail both alternatives). If you need to be capable of x to flourish, I'll show both why and how to do it. Also, I never said that my methods are right and all other methods are wrong. It's just that my methods teach elements that are objectively indispensible, head on- they don't skirt around with indirect explanations that fail to disclose the element upon which success hinges. I say things are "wrong" when they give an over simplified picture that neglects an essential element (or worse, when they claim you don't need that element).

When it comes to indirect methods, I've learned a lot from things that previously seemed plain stupid- but I only came to get something from them when I realised what element was useful and what they were supposed to train (as well as what they could harm if you don't have awareness of additional issues beyond those that are raised). I don't think I've ever been helped by intending an impossible goal without understanding how I was meant to make it happen. Circles is one such issue. They used to actively carry me away from quality of contact between hand and piano and encouraged me to reduce finger movement. More recently, I've discovered how very subtle ones are useful when done in the context of awareness of how the hand needs to make good contact and movement and not be carried away from that by the arm curves. The more understanding I gain about why something would hinder/work, the more I discover how to extract the benefits from things that previously hindered me. There are very few things I write off all together- except where exercises give only one part of the picture without being backed up by ones that train the missing elements.

PS. I'm still not clear about which part of holding your hand above the piano and moving it from side to side/up and down/in small circles would be hard to comprehend without a video. As I said, it would be more likely to distract from what makes the exercise useful if someone copied such movement via the mere exterior, than if they read the text.