Pudding hands and marshmallow fingers...

[ppianista]

It's important to see the fingers as an extension of the hand, wrist and arm - rather than being isolated like 10 little robots on the keys.

Very well said.

Seen from the outside, the practical results can appear very different. Compare e.g. these two pianists - both doing the right thing:

What is very obvious in Aika Dan's motions - she even seems to "dance" sometimes - is reduced to an economical minimum in old W.B.'s actions. But the "dancing" is still there - to be seen in his wrists...

To me, W.B. represents the good old "armweight school" to sheer perfection.
 

[nyiregyhazi]

Very well said.

Seen from the outside, the practical results can appear very different. Compare e.g. these two pianists - both doing the right thing:

What is very obvious in Aika Dan's motions - she even seems to "dance" sometimes - is reduced to an economical minimum in old W.B.'s actions. But the "dancing" is still there - to be seen in his wrists...

To me, W.B. represents the good old "armweight school" to sheer perfection.
 

I must say that I find that an odd description. What is notable about backhaus is how freely his fingers move due to lightness of the arm. There is generally minimal arm pressure. This is what enables his technique to function. To focus on the exceptions where he drops, rather than his primary tendency strikes me as a strange viewpoint.

[outin]

Do you like to play FOR others, then?

Not really... I don't really care about entertaining...

[ppianista]

To focus on the exceptions where he drops, rather than his primary tendency strikes me as a strange viewpoint.

I don't focus on the dropping of the arm, but on the quick little bobbing motions of the wrists caused by the leverage-effect: the wrists - reacting loosely - go up under the effect of the armweight.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't focus on the dropping of the arm, but on the quick little bobbing motions of the wrists caused by the leverage-effect: the wrists - reacting loosely - go up under the effect of the armweight.

?

How can weight make anything go up? Weight goes down. It can also pull a hand back, under the result of the reaction on the chain of the arm as a whole. I have not the slightest idea as to what an ascending wrist might have to do with weight however. That demonstrates either a push of the arm via muscular force or a pull from the fingers causing a reaction upon the wrist (which released weight would actively serve to restrict and impede any upward movement of). What possible way is there for released weight to make a wrist rise rather than fall? I am truly bemused as to what you are trying to say. How you can possibly interpret this as implying a gravitational issue rather than the polar opposite? Released weight keeps a wrist down and resists free movement upwards. Supporting the bulk of the weight (in direct opposition to the natural gravitational forces) is what leaves the wrist free to rise in response to reactions, rather than sink like a stone. You seem to be confusing moveability of joints with weight.

[ppianista]

I have not the slightest idea as to what an ascending wrist might have to do with weight however.

Meanwhile I think so, too. You have not the slightest idea.
 

[ppianista]

Not really... I don't really care about entertaining...

Hmm... That's a little bit like someone who's studying to be an interpreter but doesn't like to talk to foreign people.
Or someone who learns the Chinese language but isn't interested in China and the Chinese people at all.
 

[nyiregyhazi]

Meanwhile I think so, too. You have not the slightest idea.
 

Yes, I already established that when I stated as much. I was actually inviting you to clarify how the concept of weight supposedly carrying the wrist upwards is supposed to offer anything that is in any way meaningful to anybody (considering that weight actually restricts such movement or sends a wrist down). I see I was wasting my time.

There was an armweight crank on piano world who never tired of repeating both how gravity provides all the energy and arm weight moves the keys. He also kept repeating that if someone tried to lift your arm away from the piano at any time it should be very easy to lift it (in spite of the claim that it's weight was supposedly meant to be resting down in the keys). It seems that you're holding similarly contradictory opinions alongside each other by re framing what is obviously due to lightening of the arm as supposedly being caused (rather than hindered) by weight. If not, please clarify what you are actually trying to say in a way that can be made sense of. Better still, why not stop to think about the irreconcilable contradiction that you tried to gloss over?

[outin]

Hmm... That's a little bit like someone who's studying to be an interpreter but doesn't like to talk to foreign people.
Or someone who learns the Chinese language but isn't interested in China and the Chinese people at all.  

People do study foreign languages without the intention of becoming an interpreter. And I actually did once study Chinese simply because I like the sound of it and found the Calligraphy fascinating...

I enjoy the music, the piano sound and the physical act of playing (at least part of the time)...Do you think piano playing should be reserved to exhibitionists?  

[ppianista]

There was an armweight crank on piano world who never tired of repeating both how gravity provides all the energy and arm weight moves the keys.

I never claimed something like that. I did, indeed, talk about moving "along with gravity" (not against it) and invited you to take a look at eastern martial arts (like Aikido) to understand what I meant by that. (You refused to consider this hint.) I pointed out the difference between pressing down a key MERELY by muscalar force and doing so with the SUPPORT of the armweight. I did not propose to stop all muscular action in order to let gravity do the job (which would, indeed, mean "to claim nothingness").

I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you make of it.

I was actually inviting you to clarify how the concept of weight supposedly carrying the wrist upwards is supposed to offer anything that is in any way meaningful to anybody (considering that weight actually restricts such movement or sends a wrist down).

I mentioned the "leverage-effect", but that is one of my hints that you simply ignore. Here my last try to indicate what I mean:

Put your five fingertips on the table, keep your arm relaxed, let the fingers carry its weight and then give the table a quick pressing impuls with your fingertips. If your wrist is really relaxed it will REACT in bobbing up with this impuls. And this reaction indicates that the armweight is acting upon the fingertips. The wrist is then working like a leverage.  

Watching the Backhaus-video, you will find similar motions of his wrists throughout, especially when he plays scales and trills in thirds. Very clearly to be seen from 6:20 and 7:40 onwards.

[nyiregyhazi]

I never claimed something like that. I did, indeed, talk about moving "along with gravity" (not against it) and invited you to take a look at eastern martial arts (like Aikido) to understand what I meant by that. (You refused to consider this hint.) I pointed out the difference between pressing down a key MERELY by muscalar force and doing so with the SUPPORT of the armweight. I did not propose to stop all muscular action in order to let gravity do the job (which would, indeed, mean "to claim nothingness").

I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you make of it.
I mentioned the "leverage-effect", but that is one of my hints that you simply ignore. Here my last try to indicate what I mean:

Put your five fingertips on the table, keep your arm relaxed, let the fingers carry its weight and then give the table a quick pressing impuls with your fingertips. If your wrist is really relaxed it will REACT in bobbing up with this impuls. And this reaction indicates that the armweight is acting upon the fingertips. The wrist is then working like a leverage.  

Watching the Backhaus-video, you will find similar motions of his wrists throughout, especially when he plays scales and trills in thirds. Very clearly to be seen from 6:20 onwards.

I considered your point about martial arts, but it was vague and non specific. It revealed little about what you are trying to say. Your exercise clarifies, but it describes fingers acting on the arm AWAY from any weightedness- not moving weight down or going "with gravity". When you stand up out of a squat, do you describe that as going "with" gravity instead of muscular motions? Or is the literal opposite- using muscles to move against gravity, to stop it crushing you down? Your exercise is a direct equivalent.

Any weightedness from arm muscles cannot be transferred into a whole series of finger actions, if fingers are not creating the real movement of keys. If the arm were the primary energy source it would jam down and not go up. Even for one push, the arm must be lightened or you simply jam down into an impact (and the finger must be responsible for pushing the wrist up or it will instead fall). What is really going on most of the time is that backhaus is moving his fingers through many notes and the reactions draw a lightened arm in response FREEING him from weight. A weighted mindset would actively impede such responses and both burden the fingers and restrict wrist movement. To portray the greatest impediment to free movement as being the driving force behind it is a very odd way to frame this. While your exercise clarifies what you are really referring to there's no way anyone could divine that from your prior description.

Also given that weight cannot be turned off, it's impossible for the fingers not to act with the support of the arm's weight. The only issue is whether you are stiff and whether you are aligned well. If the latter is so, a preliminary weight that is not enough to even move a key is adequate to support quality finger motion. Pretending gravity creates the movement (rather than readies the finger to move the key) and typically hinders the "pressing impulse" you describe (which is a muscular movement supported by the mere fact that the arm exists - not an example of using fingers to only support weight). Such descriptions distract people from the alignment and finger actions deluding them into thinking letting go of weight in a coarse fashion will help. The level of weight needed is extremely low.

[ppianista]

While your exercise clarifies what you are really referring to there's no way anyone could divine that from your prior description.

But anyone who had a competent piano teacher will understand my hints by his own experience and not NEED a "precise description".

I wonder what's the case with you. Either you knew by your own practice what I meant right away but played the fool (in order to advertise your own theory and prove all others wrong); or you have no practical clue about elaborate piano technique at all. I'm not sure.

[nyiregyhazi]

But anyone who had a competent piano teacher will understand my hints by his own experience and not NEED a "precise description".

I wonder what's the case with you. Either you knew by your own practice what I meant right away but played the fool (in order to advertise your own theory and prove all others wrong); or you have no practical clue about elaborate piano technique at all. I'm not sure.

I trained under many respected teachers who used the same language and it provided as little as insight from them and served to actively mislead. I wouldn't have had a hope in hell of getting through the 6th rhapsody when I thought that striving to go "with gravity" is the trick.

Since I realised that the key to technique lies in freeing your from gravity by supporting it better and using the right actions of the hand to push back against what is only a very small supporting weight, it's become possible.

p8unw&index=2

It's a shame that you are so certain that "anyone" will be helped by a description that portrays the inverse of what creates freedom. I didn't learn a thing about technique until I realised that nothing is beyond being questioned- especially if it neither makes rational sense nor gives any clarity to understanding what is required to succeed.

[lostinidlewonder]

This thread makes the brain go like pudding, describing technique in words is a load of useless ranting. It is pretending to be intelligent observations with ZERO context yet try to look like they discuss piano technique in a complete manner. lol zzzzzz marshmallow brains for everyone!

I bet you one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what you say is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

You literally are wasting your time talking about technique in words, you could be learning a piece properly. When speaking without any context any fool can look very clever to those who don't know any better.

It is a dead end people, give up reading and writing useless technique in word essays, you merely confuse those who know no better and make people who do know better laugh at your foolishness.

[nyiregyhazi]

This thread makes the brain go like pudding, describing technique in words is a load of useless ranting. It is pretending to be intelligent observations with ZERO context yet try to look like they discuss piano technique in a complete manner. lol zzzzzz marshmallow brains for everyone!

I bet you one million dollars, no one billion trillion trillion dollars, as soon as you take a REAL example an EXACT piece with EXACT bars and try to apply this mindless ranting of technique in words to a real music example you will find that what you say is not useful at all and in fact counter productive to actually playing the passage.

You literally are wasting your time talking about technique in words, you could be learning a piece properly. When speaking without any context any fool can look very clever to those who don't know any better.

It is a dead end people, give up reading and writing useless technique in word essays, you merely confuse those who know no better and make people who do know better laugh at your foolishness.

Wouldn't you be better off learning a piece than writing such a pointless post? When thoughts about technique are referenced to practical reality they are tremendously useful. I saw some remarkable improvements in one student yesterday, when using exercises to connect her hand and arm well with less weight bearing down (following thought on these precise issues). It totally transformed the quality of articulation. Without awareness of particular objective issues, I would not have been as likely to spot the physical issues that needed tweaking while I was working on these things- and could at best have lazily prescribed one-size fits all exercises without any personal relevance to where she was coming from, or giving any insights into what features she should look for while practising them.

So thinking and writing about technique has definitely been useful. I await your description of the manner in which complaining about discussion of technique has been of direct benefit to you. Perhaps it makes you feel good about yourself?

[lostinidlewonder]

Wouldn't you be better off learning a piece than writing such a pointless post?

I don't see any pointless posting so your question is irrelevant.

I am warning others who know no better how useless it is to try to talk about technique in words. It is useless rubbish.

When thoughts about technique are referenced to practical reality they are tremendously useful.

I don't see any piece or bar numbers mentioned in all the ranting rubbish I skimmed through. That is because as soon as you do it your word count will drop to like maybe 10 words lol.

I saw some remarkable improvements in one student yesterday, when using exercises to connect her hand and arm well with less weight bearing down (following thought on these precise issues). It totally transformed the quality of articulation.

I guess we have to believe you on that one lol.

Without awareness of particular objective issues, I would not have been as likely to spot the physical issues that needed tweaking while I was working on these things- and could at best have lazily prescribed one-size fits all exercises without any personal relevance to where she was coming from, or giving any insights into what features she should look for while practising them.

Meh, I said I guess we have to believe you!

So thinking and writing about technique has definitely been useful.

I'm sorry but you don't teach students just through writing so your example has no relevance to an internet discussion about technique which actually requires EXACT EXAMPLES to actually mean anything. Ranting on and on and on and on and on and on...... and on and on.... and on... and on about general non specific examples is utterly meaningless.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't see any pointless posting so your question is irrelevant.

I am warning others who know no better how useless it is to try to talk about technique in words. It is useless rubbish.

I don't see any piece or bar numbers mentioned in all the ranting rubbish I skimmed through. That is because as soon as you do it your word count will drop to like maybe 10 words lol.
I guess we have to believe you on that one lol.

Meh, I said I guess we have to believe you!
I'm sorry but you don't teach students just through writing so your example has no relevance to an internet discussion about technique which actually requires EXACT EXAMPLES to actually mean anything. Ranting on and on and on and on and on and on...... and on and on.... and on... and on about general non specific examples is utterly meaningless.

I didn't reference anything in a piece of music in the lesson I taught. The student is already musical. I used some generic movement exercises (about the relation of each finger and arm alignment, in a way where the thumb moves in a particular way to trigger that). Then I got her to return the piece and observed significant improvement to clarity and greater freedom. I trusted her to make the application of the new sensations and alignments. I didn't need to spoonfeed how to fit them to a single piece, without any other applicability. I'll also trust that she'll find benefits in other pieces, which is more useful than advice that serves but one individual case with no worth elsewhere.

Please stop talking generally about anyone who speaks of technique. Unless you are being specific to what they said about technique, it has no meaning. Going on and on about non specific examples is meaningless...

[lostinidlewonder]

I didn't reference anything in a piece of music in the lesson I taught. The student is already musical.

Making up stories about what you do means nothing to us because you literally can create any situation you want to back yourself up.

I uses some generic movement exercises (about the relation of each finger and arm alignment, in a way where the thumb moves in a particular way to trigger that). Then I got her to return the piece and observed significant improvement to clarity.

-_-

Please stop talking generally about anyone who speaks of technique. Unless you are being specific to what they said about technique, it has no meaning. Going on and on about non specific examples is meaningless...

I'm sorry trying to use my argument against me wont work. Please give some actual musical examples to your technique ranting, we all will see your word count drop to a very low number.

[nyiregyhazi]

Making up stories about what you do means nothing to us because you literally can create any situation you want to back yourself up.
-_-
I'm sorry trying to use my argument against me wont work. Please give some actual musical examples to your technique ranting, we all will see your word count drop to a very low number.

Not interested sorry. If you don't believe that any piece of information can apply to more than one scenario, feel free to hold such a belief system. I'll continue to debate that which helps both myself and my teaching of students. You are welcome to take whatever personal value you gain from heckling.

[lostinidlewonder]

Not interested sorry. If you don't believe that any piece of information can apply to more than one scenario, feel free to hold such a belief system. I'll continue to debate that which helps both myself and my teaching of students. You are welcome to take whatever personal value you gain from heckling.

If you try to get some examples to back up what you are saying then readers will be revealed how limited your knowledge actually is because it is only possible to be applied to specific situations. They will realize that the situations you are discussing are not present very much at all in pieces they are learning thus what you say has little relevance to learning a piece that is relevant to themselves. You fear giving exact musical examples because you know as soon as you do it will be revealed how what you say really can be condensed in a couple of sentences.

Why are you so afraid to give an EXACT musical example to support what you say about technique? Don't be scared!

[nyiregyhazi]

If you try to get some examples to back up what you are saying then readers will be revealed how limited your knowledge actually is because it is only possible to be applied to specific situations. They will realize that the situations you are discussing are not present very much at all in pieces they are learning thus what you say has little relevance to learning a piece that is relevant to themselves. You fear giving exact musical examples because you know as soon as you do it will be revealed how what you say really can be condensed in a couple of sentences.

Why are you so afraid to give an EXACT musical example to support what you say about technique? Don't be scared!

The issue of balance and how much physical effort is employed in forming the hand and keeping keys depressed applies to every key depressed. I'm not going to humour your request, because you are not interested in discussion of technique and have declared as much- ie you are just trolling, not attempting discussion.  Anyone who wants specific examples will find them in my blog, once I've finished dealing with widely applicable foundations. The common background issues come before the detail. It would be put plain silly to begin with advice that fits only a single case rather than that which is relevant to many things.

[ppianista]

I trained under many respected teachers who used the same language and it provided as little as insight from them and served to actively mislead. I wouldn't have had a hope in hell of getting through the 6th rhapsody when I thought that striving to go "with gravity" is the trick.

Since I realised that the key to technique lies in freeing your from gravity by supporting it better and using the right actions of the hand to push back against what is only a very small supporting weight, it's become possible.

To me, your realisation seems to have freed you only from your own MISUNDERSTANDING of the gravity-talk. Because playing "along with gravity" naturally includes the release of the armweight. (E.g. when you play p and pp. Or when you play sequences of thick chords in f and ff - there you should give each chord only a quick impuls and take the weight away at once.)

Because playing "along with gravity" is all about sparing energy, avoiding unnecessary tension in your body and so allowing your actions to be as quick and as small as they possibly can be.

That's the way I learned the armweight-technique from my main teacher. He had btw in fact trained Kung Fu in his youth - being a Chinese from Indonesia, but musically educated in Germany. I'm lucky that he got his message across very clearly and vivdly.


Since you mention Liszt: He was one of the founders of the "armweight school". So said Claudio Arrau, whose teacher Martin Krause had been one of Liszt's late students. Arrau claimed to have developped and refined the principles of the doctrine by his own...

[nyiregyhazi]

To me, your realisation seems to have freed you only from your own MISUNDERSTANDING of the gravity-talk. Because playing "along with gravity" naturally includes the release of the armweight. (E.g. when you play p and pp. Or when you play sequences of thick chords in f and ff - there you should give each chord only a quick impuls and take the weight away at once.)

Because playing "along with gravity" is all about sparing energy, avoiding unnecessary tension in your body and so allowing your actions to be as quick and as small as they possibly can be.

That's the way I learned the armweight-technique from my main teacher. He had btw in fact trained Kung Fu in his youth - being a Chinese from Indonesia, but musically educated in Germany. I'm lucky that he got his message across very clearly and vivdly.


Since you mention Liszt: He was one of the founders of the "armweight school". So said Claudio Arrau, whose teacher Martin Krause had been one of Liszt's late students. Arrau claimed to have developped and refined the principles of the doctrine by his own...

the only thing I need to say is that such a mindset actively hindered me and the realisation of quite what a minor role weight plays began the process of cure. when a description serves to mislead due to a combination of an impossible explanation and failure to give the whole picture, it's for that explanation to be held accountable. Not for people to say that those are confused as hell by something that makes no sense should have been able to figure out what they were trying to convey.

PS gravity is not sparing of energy in rapid chords. It's very tiring and sluggish.

[ppianista]

Implicitly, you're claiming that all the great pianists - starting from, say Liszt - did and do not know what they're doing and what they're are talking about. YOU are the one to prove them all wrong and come forward with the ultimative truth about piano technique...
Well, it might be possible... I will consider that.

PS gravity is not sparing of energy in rapid chords. It's very tiring and sluggish.

Maybe you have a somewhat limited understanding of what is meant by "gravity". - What do you think, keeps the moon from dropping on the earth but circling in its orbit instead - is that something OPPOSED to the law of gravity?
 

[nyiregyhazi]

Implicitly, you're claiming that all the great pianists - starting from, say Liszt - did and do not know what they're doing and what they're are talking about. YOU are the one to prove them all wrong and come forward with the ultimative truth about piano technique...
Well, it might be possible... I will consider that.

Maybe you have a somewhat limited understanding of what is meant by "gravity". - What do you think, keeps the moon from dropping on the earth but circling in its orbit instead - is that something OPPOSED to the law of gravity?
 

I have no idea what point you are making (and it doesn't seem that you do either). Nothing is moving the moon in the opposite direction to gravity in that scenario- which is what backhaus fingers do. They act to lift a lightened wrist up. We're not speaking of orbits and neither are there either objectively logical parallels nor metaphorical ones that imply anything meaningful. We're speaking of the fact that healthy finger action involves pushing knuckles up against weight (preferably not too much weight) not going down with it. Such an irrelevant comparison as orbits is grasping at straws.

going "with" gravity suggests an up to a down. In the hand this sends energy into impact instead of tone. Pressing back from down to up is what works. That's not going "with"gravity.

Gravity never turns off. If you try to use it in a direct role for fast chords, you expend vast amounts of energy on lifting and dropping the whole arm.

When fingers produce movement from a free yet balanced arm, less energy is wasted. Such generalisations as the one that gravity is less work are neither grounded in accurate facts more nor are they a useful subjective illusion for everyone. It's total fantasy based on casual misunderstanding of selectively applied science- not reality.

I know of no evidence that liszt either preached pseudoscience about gravity nor founded his technique on it supposedly providing the energy. Regardless, what works for an individual is fine. The problem is when they are so ignorant as to portray it as literal truth and blame others who fail to benefit from their subjective fantasies- rather than accept accountability for having misled people by trying to pass fiction off as fact.

[ppianista]

going "with" gravity suggests an up to a down. In the hand this sends energy into impact instead of tone. Pressing back from down to up is what works. That's not going "with"gravity.

Here we have your constant misunderstanding.

You suppose that working "with" gravity can only mean one direction: downwards. Weight is a dead mass that simply drops down unless something works against it.
And you suppose that the wrongful doctrine of the "armweight school" is limited to proposing this effect.

But this is a fatal error. Fatal not for the "armweight school" but for yourself.

Because what you propose as an ALTERNATIVE technique, even as something wich is strictly OPPOSED to the armweight doctrine: "pressing back from down to up" - is a well-known and acknowledged PART of this doctrine. It's really a bread-and-butter thing which my teacher told me again and again and in many variations.

I described it in post #59:

"Put your five fingertips on the table, keep your arm relaxed, let the fingers carry its weight and then give the table a quick pressing impuls with your fingertips. If your wrist is really relaxed it will REACT in bobbing up with this impuls. And this reaction indicates that the armweight is acting upon the fingertips. The wrist is then working like a leverage."

But, as you see, in my description, I acknowledge the important role which the armweight is playing here. Of course there has to be a muscular impuls acting through the fingertips on the table. But the impact of the fingertips is mostly effected by the armweight - working through the wrist which functions as a leverage.

To prove that most of the impuls-energy which is acting through the fingertips is coming from the armweight, you can try the exercise at the piano:

First do as described - as strong as possible, in ff.
Then you try the same but with a stiffened wrist and only using your fingers. 

The stiff wrist will cut your fingers off from the momentum of the arm; it can't function as a leverage any more. And you will find that it is nearly impossible to get a ff just by muscular strength, and that it would cause you cramps very soon if you'd repeat these efforts on and on.

- - - - - - -

Again: I think you are misconstruing the armweight-doctrine. What you're running up against are windmills.

[nyiregyhazi]

Apologies for being blunt, but your logic is very superficial and your basis for stating proof that weight is the main thing is flawed. Such heavy attention on a small aspect (that actively hinders if not referenced to the quality of movement in the hand) gives a grossly distorted picture.

I suggest that you read the first half of my blog post. I give a similarly superficial demonstration that could easily be used to create a bogus impression- before going on to illustrate that only a very small amount of weight is actually needed in balance, if you get the other elements right. I deliberately created a misleading impression at first- to show easy it is to sway people with incomplete data- before moving on to show the rest of the true picture.

Likewise, the fact that a stiff wrist hinders neither proves that weight is the big thing nor that significant weight is needed. It's a false proof based on a superficial and over simplified interpretation of incomplete data.

I use so little weight that it's only enough to firm fingers against keys prior to the stroke.at that point even arm press rolls forward and up (and transfers energy very poorly unless the fingers push in opposition to the very small down weight). I don't use extra weight and nothing from the knuckle back goes "with" gravity. There's least impact and exertion when the weight is kept low. If there's significant heaviness, you jam against the keybed, rather than glide up and away from it.

When you make it all about weight, you convey a false impression that people use too little. The reality is that it's about improving the muscular actions that interact with it. Only a tiny weight is required. Those who fixate on gravity due to a misleadingly swayed impression often end up having to move the arm too much (in a futile bid to literally use weight generate downward movement) when they are actually missing the actions in the hand. Although your more recent posts HINT at the bigger picture, they still give a grossly distorted picture of what really occurs. You're simply looking for any chance to reference weight- and neglecting to mention that the most successful action is actually based on a small starter weight followed by actions of opposing it. The wrist need only be free.

[ppianista]

When you make it all about weight...

Whom are you talking to? Me? I don't think so. You're on a crusade against the "armweight school" which is merely a product of your constant - and deliberate - misunderstanding. It's all in your head, man!

The reality is that it's about improving the muscular actions that interact with it. Only a tiny weight is required.

Did I claim that muscular actions are not needed? Did I claim that supporting muscular action by weight and it's momentum requires a lot of weight under all circumstances?  

Again: Whom are you talking to??

Those who fixate on gravity...

Who are those? Who is really "fixating" on gravity? Please, tell me!

You're simply looking for any chance to reference weight- and neglecting to mention that the most successful action is actually based on a small starter weight followed by actions of opposing it. The wrist need only be free.

It's quite natural to emphasize those things which an opponent denies.

As for "the actions opposing weight": I already tried to explain that I don't ignore or deny them but that they are a PART of MY understanding of armweight-technique(s).

Stop holding me responsible for your own misunderstandings! Would you, please?

[nyiregyhazi]

Whom are you talking to? Me? I don't think so. You're on a crusade against the "armweight school" which is merely a product of your constant - and deliberate - misunderstanding. It's all in your head, man!

Did I claim that muscular actions are not needed? Did I claim that supporting muscular action by weight and it's momentum requires a lot of weight under all circumstances?  

Again: Whom are you talking to??

Who are those? Who is really "fixating" on gravity? Please, tell me!

It's quite natural to emphasize those things which an opponent denies.

As for "the actions opposing weight": I already tried to explain that I don't ignore or deny them but that they are a PART of MY understanding of armweight-technique(s).

Stop holding me responsible for your own misunderstandings! Would you, please?

Sorry, but there's no point continuing. You're still using the term momentum inaccurately in a way that gives a misleading impression. I appreciate that you may not wish to mislead, but if arm momentum moved keys as a normal in the Backhaus videos it would need to move both faster and by a bigger distance. His fingers move the keys. If you're not willing to appreciate how misleading your terminology is, I'm not going to bother pointing it out any further. You seem to assume that I cannot possibly be talking about anything different from you. Assuming that I'm not, you're not conveying what you mean well. However, I sincerely suspect that you do mean literal momentum of the arm creating regular key movement. If so, it's impossible for fast passages- without the knuckles bobbing right up or down once per note at a HUGE amplitude of movement. Where that does not happen (ie virtually everywhere outside of amateur pianism), the arm does not provide momentum. It simply absorbs reactions via a state of freedom. Momentum of the arm is nowhere for most notes. If you don't want to be "misunderstood" then you need to employ factual accuracy and understand the definition of the language that you select.

I appreciate that your way makes sense to you as an individual. But when you use unclear descriptions and present terms with precisely ascribed meanings in a context where they cannot accurately be applied, you risk grossly misleading people.

A good armweight teacher can preach utter nonsense yet still produce a good student by sound practical methods. But the single worst part of the method is the explanations. The good teachers find ways of getting things to function in a totally different way to fingers only supporting weight (which would cause huge arm movements that cannot be eliminated from every note until fingers start moving instead of just supporting). Give an explanation that conflicts with what is physically possible to someone separately from constant feedback and physical adjustments and you will be more likely to mislead and throw red herrings than to help them. When a wrist drifts slightly up as you observed in backhaus, it is literally the opposite of arm momentum moving keys. The momentum is going up and AWAY from key movement. Anyone who correctly understands the term momentum will think the arm is meant to press down or forwards - jamming into compression and struggle, where backhaus does the very opposite of playing via arm momentum. He actively lighten it by letting it drift up to prevent momentum jamming down into the keys (other than that which exists between knuckle and fingertip). Active contribution of arm momentum is an exception for just a few notes. It cannot play a role in either all of them or even most of them. Even in the most rapid octaves arm movements must be extremely small for speed to ensue.

I've made my point and I don't intend to reply to any further posts featuring erroneous claims portrayed as fact. I only advise you to research the terms you are using and consider the geometry of what happens when an arm applies enough momentum to move keys. To do so, it must move rapidly and by huge distances for each note. Seeing as that doesn't happen, any description that omits to speak of finger movements is woefully incomplete and swayed towards but a small part of the true picture- portraying a role to it that it is impossible for it to play in advanced pianism.

[thalbergmad]

Implicitly, you're claiming that all the great pianists - starting from, say Liszt - did and do not know what they're doing and what they're are talking about.

I have always wondered how Liszt, Thalberg, Henselt, Dreyschock, Tausig, Rubinstein and a hundred others managed to survive as pianists without Chang .

No doubt some think they would have been even better if they were aware of current "wisdom".

My bet is they would not give a crap about armweight and gravity.

Thal

[ppianista]

I appreciate that your way makes sense to you as an individual.

You're funny.
 

There are quite a few "individuals" apart from myself to whom "my" way makes sense. I named a few - Liszt, Martin Krause, Claudio Arrau. I could add Neuhaus, the founder of the Russian School and others. So it's not "my" weird, idiosyncratic way at all.

[ppianista]

I have always wondered how Liszt, Thalberg, Henselt, Dreyschock, Tausig, Rubinstein and a hundred others managed to survive as pianists without Chang .

Who is Chang?

[nyiregyhazi]

You're funny.
 

There are quite a few "individuals" apart from myself to whom "my" way makes sense. I named a few - Liszt, Martin Krause, Claudio Arrau. I could add Neuhaus, the founder of the Russian School and others. So it's not "my" weird, idiosyncratic way at all.

They are all individuals too. Arrau learned virtuoso technique years before he was introduced to arm weight. He also spoke of having trained finger action on dummy keyboards with greater resistance than real pianos. That's why he was not hindered because he couldn't lose the finger skill he had already acquired. Liszt learned advanced finger virtuosity from czerny. The fact that it gave them a feel for something extra does not mean they successfully applied arm momentum as a replacement for intensely active finger technique (by which I refer to MOVEMENT applied to keys and not "support" or active sinews or whatever vague nonsense term you wish) Like backhaus, Arrau uses literal arm momentum as the exception and not the rule. It adds something to a few notes. It doesn't routinely move in a way that actively contributes momentum to every key. There is nowhere near enough speed or amplitude of movement for such a possibility to be even humoured.

Appeal to authority does not make impossible explanations any more likely to be universal applicable and neither does it place anybody who is grossly hindered by being unfortunate enough to treat them in a literal fashion as having been foolish. Equally, if any of these authors claimed that arm momentum is involved in moving keys when the wrist floats slightly up during finger work, please cite it. I have little doubt that the expression is entirely your own. Many armweight teachers avoided inaccurate claims about energy or momentum in finger work. Sadly, the water is regularly muddied by shortsighted bastardisations that give the wrong story about gravity. All it takes is for one person to grossly misportray reality based on subjective experience and one-sided nonsense quickly spirals out of control. I believe that leschetizky was an armweight teacher of a kind, although he was most assiduous about both describing proper finger work and movement, rather than portraying that they need only support weight.

[ajspiano]

Who is Chang?

Chang wrote fundamentals of piano practice..  and while thals comment is fair in all honesty it seems likely that the hundreds of sucessful pianist that came before his book probably used many of chang's ideas or similar ideas. Only they didnt credit them to chang... And even chanf doesnt credit them to himself, they are based on his children's teachers principles which has a lineage tracing back to debussy.

[ppianista]

Arrau

[nyiregyhazi]

Arrau didn't bob up and down once per note. He moved most of them from his fingers. the fact that he failed to appreciate that there can be a huge differentiation between free joints and actual weightedness/falling (as a source of continual key movement) proves nothing.

I'm quite sure that you never read the post and exercises that I referenced to you. If you want to continue this, would you please read it- and provide your debunking of my illustration that only a tiny weight need rest down in order for joints to be in total freedom?

[ppianista]

If you want to continue this...

No, I don't want to feed the piano-science-troll any longer.
 

[nyiregyhazi]

No, I don't want to feed the piano-science-troll any longer.
 

If you're only interested in arguing for the absolute truth of your belief system (without either exploring the information I have offered to you, eg. the meaning of the word "momentum", or taking the time to provide a reasoned disagreement), I'm afraid you're the only troll involved here.

It would have saved a lot of time if you just read my cited post in the first place and then commented directly on it- rather than persisted with general repetition of your belief system, without first having stopped to consider relevant issues that I brought to the table for you.

[ppianista]

If you're only interested in arguing for the absolute truth of your belief system...

What, do you think, IS my "belief system"? What do I claim?

- - - - - -

As indicated before, I don't care that much about the truth of a THEORY about the PRAXIS of good piano playing. Anything that helps to improve my (or my pupils') abilities is welcome, may it rest on true theoretical claims or not. "Anything goes." This is my belief (without "system").

And I think this way because playing the piano is an ART. Science will always fall short in describing what a good artist is actuallly doing. One of the reasons for this is: One can't simply understand what an artist is doing just by observing her/his actions from the outside.

One of the great character traits of my piano teacher was his ability to marvel and to admire his students. Sometimes when he listened to one of his students playing he stood there still with an expression of admiration in his face. Sometimes he even had tears because he was so moved. And sometimes he looked a little puzzled at the hands of the student, apparently asking himself what the hell the guy was actually doing there to create this sound.

If he'd been a bad teacher, this behavior would simply have revealed his weakness and incompetence. But with him - well, I think it was one of his strongest virtues.

(But what am I babbling? It's just an anecdote, proving nothing.)  

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm well aware that piano playing is an art. It also depends upon means however. The fact that it's an art does not mean that the best way to describe the means is to use language that either implies or states that you should strive to do the very opposite to what makes an effective quality of movement - especially when you are not there to make adjustments in person, in the event that the person is unfortunate to take a description that has been presented as a literal reality as being a literal reality. Nothing is more damaging to the artistic side than being limited to throwing weight around (compressing fingers down into impact unless they are already trained to move well) without ability to control true movement of individual fingers.

When teaching in person what matters is what it leads to not what words you choose. When giving long distance advice, it matters greatly whether you reflect reality or not (particularly if your language suggests the polar opposite to it). Fiction presented as fact will hinder a great many, unless you are there to monitor what it causes the student to do. Tell people to use arm momentum as the instigator of key movement and 99% will take this crass simplification literally.