Dynamic Flexors or Static Flexors?

[hardy_practice]

I notice a poster advocating using more intrinsic muscles when using the fingers.  That means the flexors have a static role - combined with the extensors, they preserve the finger shape.  That is the most common coordination.  Can we hear it for dynamic flexors?  for  fingers curling (ever so little) as the key descends?  Can we refrain from paragraph after paragraph to illustrate our points?

[nyiregyhazi]

Would you care to evidence the assertion that this means preserving the finger shape? It doesn't mean that at all. interosseus muscles lengthen a finger, they don't preserve it. Please provide some background to these baffling assertions, if you want some form of discussion.

Curling the finger even a little means sliding across the key every single time. it's really not good if this is your lone option (especially when playing loud chords). If your fingers can only close then you are limited to doing so (with major impact resulting in a big chord) or bracing the hand for stability. Neither is good.

[hardy_practice]

Here's a lovely resource for those wishing to understand finger movement: https://www.mech.utah.edu/senior_design/05/uploads/RoboticHand/Jared_research.ppt

It says:

1) EDC: mainly extends P1, but partially extends P2; could only extend P3 if it were to detach from P1
Interossei: with EDC contracted, interossei extend P2, P3

Or in other words the interossei can't extend in isolation - they extend the middle and nail joint only if the finger extensors (in the arm) are extending the knuckle joint at the same time.   Seems rather unwieldy for piano playing.

They can flex the finger on their own though:

2) Interossei: when EDC is relaxed, interossei flex P1 (enhanced by incorporation of interosseous hood which raps around P1)  

and thank you for keeping it short!

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's a lovely resource for those wishing to understand finger movement: https://www.mech.utah.edu/senior_design/05/uploads/RoboticHand/Jared_research.ppt

It says:

1) EDC: mainly extends P1, but partially extends P2; could only extend P3 if it were to detach from P1
Interossei: with EDC contracted, interossei extend P2, P3

Or in other words the interossei can't extend in isolation - they extend the middle and nail joint only if the finger extensors (in the arm) are extending the knuckle joint at the same time.   Seems rather unwieldy for piano playing.

They can flex the finger on their own though:

2) Interossei: when EDC is relaxed, interossei flex P1 (enhanced by incorporation of interosseous hood which raps around P1)  

and thank you for keeping it short!

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't consciously isolate a muscle group that the brain has no capacity to consciously isolate?

Would you care to put that into a form that has a meaningful practical consequence, if any exists? it would help to define the labelling such as p 1 for a start.

Also, that appears to be taken totally out of context. Nobody said to isolate the intrinsic muscles. they can be used in tandem with other groups.

[hardy_practice]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't consciously isolate a muscle group that the brain has no capacity to consciously isolate?

That sentence doesn't seem to say anything.

Also, that appears to be taken totally out of context. Nobody said to isolate the intrinsic muscles. they can be used in tandem with other groups.

To extend, as you wish to do, they must 'be used in tandem with other groups'.  Your wish to use the intrinsic muscles to extend just seems rather inefficient.  

P1 is the part of the finger that starts at the knuckle.  P2 the middle part,P3 the nail.

 

[nyiregyhazi]

That sentence doesn't seem to say anything. To extend, as you wish to do, they must 'be used in tandem with other groups'.  Your wish to use the intrinsic muscles to extend just seems rather inefficient.  

P1 is the part of the finger that starts at the knuckle.  P2 the middle part,P3 the nail.

 

I couldn't give a damn which muscles I use. I'm concerned with works. I have no desire at all to isolate intrinsic muscles.

The sentence indeed says nothing. I was summarising the absence of any evident meaning or practical relevance to what you are trying to say. If a person cannot wilfully isolate intrinsic muscles (indeed they can't) it matters nothing what a theoretical isolation does. What counts is what quality and path of movement you strive for. You can't accidentally get something wrong by choosing a muscle group. Rather, the muscles used are determined by what practical quality of movement you strive to employ. It functions in reverse to what you portray. Unless the brain is to be rewired, the issue is what works. We do not consciously control the individual ingredients but merely the resulting blend. The rest is purely a mild intellectual curiosity to me.

[hardy_practice]

We do not consciously control the individual ingredients but merely the resulting blend. The rest is purely a mild intellectual curiosity to me.

Whose talkin' 'conscious control' here?

[nyiregyhazi]

Whose talkin' 'conscious control' here?

If one cannot consciously control the blend of muscles used by intending to use the intrinsics, the practical relevance is zero. That's why I steer well clear of basing explanations on muscle groups and instead deal with physical qualities of actions. I don't care about things that the human brain has no capacity to isolate. You don't accidentally move wrong because you heard something about muscles that you cannot exert isolated control over. Conception of movement is the issue.

[hardy_practice]

That's why I steer well clear of basing explanations on muscle groups and instead deal with physical qualities of actions.

To be honest you only seem to 'steer well clear' when you're shown to be in error!  The interosseous muscles mostly flex the P1, not extend.

[nyiregyhazi]

Fine, as I said in the OP 'I notice a poster advocating using more intrinsic muscles when using the fingers.' - his/her terminology.   Perhaps you'd like to express your views to them?  Meanwhile, changing the shape of your finger/ not changing the shape of your finger as the key goes down is under conscious control.   Perhaps you'd rather frame the discussion that way?  Unfortunately though, the evidence is in 'grownup' talk.

Given that, as I said, striving to use intrinsic muscles has no inherent consequences, neither harm nor good can come of that. It's only about the quality of movement you use. Wanting or not wanting to use intrinsic muscles matters little.

[hardy_practice]

Yes, but bending, fixing or extending the fingers will have consequences.  And that we will.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, but bending, fixing or extending the fingers will have consequences.  And that we will.

Obviously. So why not discuss that, rather than waste even a moment of time on irrelevant jargon that has no consequences?

[hardy_practice]

Good.  So you advocate straightening the fingers and this thread is about bending them as opposed to whatever-we-call-what-the-intrinsics-do when they're not working in tandem with finger-straightening muscles.  Point taken.

[nyiregyhazi]

To be honest you only seem to 'steer well clear' when you're shown to be in error!  The interosseous muscles mostly flex the P1, not extend.

I've encountered two Internet sources where people suggest that interrosseus muscles can lengthen a finger while contraction is occurring at the knuckle, including Beauchamp

https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/articles/tension.html

 and another website. If they're wrong I don't greatly give a damn, as I've never placed any importance on speculations about things that are only of academic interest. I will say that the muscles between my fingers have increased and so has the space between the fingers since using the lengthening action. If that merely coincidence (and you are offering reliably interpreted information for once) then I scarcely care. The point about lengthening is that it gives you an alternative to slipping across keys and that it works. Compare the results here to my older videos:

p8unw&index=3

 I do not need to care about the muscle names behind it, as it will not change a thing about how I perform the basic action. Wisdom is in the action not in the jargon you apply externally.

[hardy_practice]

Though you don't give a damn, I believe from Beachamp you mean this:

'This action of the fingers — similar to writing, or (as many of the anatomy books say) to threading a needle — uses the interosseous and lumbrical muscles, which flex the fingers at their first knuckles (metacarpophalangeal joints) and extend simultaneously at the second and third (proximal and distal interphalangeal joints),'

The extension referred to as by the interosseous can only occur once the metacarpophalangeal joint is in extension - not a very useful position for playing.  The lumbricals can do what he wants but it's pretty subtle - Tubiana describes them as feeble.

[nyiregyhazi]

Though you don't give a damn, I believe from Beachamp you mean this:

'This action of the fingers — similar to writing, or (as many of the anatomy books say) to threading a needle — uses the interosseous and lumbrical muscles, which flex the fingers at their first knuckles (metacarpophalangeal joints) and extend simultaneously at the second and third (proximal and distal interphalangeal joints),'

The extension referred to as by the interosseous can only occur once the metacarpophalangeal joint is in extension - not a very useful position for playing.  The lumbricals can do what he wants but it's pretty subtle - Tubiana describes them as feeble.

While this is of little practical interest. I'll trust Beauchamp over you for now, but take it as potentially questionable. You have a long track record of misinterpreting sources and trying to make them say something they don't. If I greatly cared I'd so some independent research before doubting his accuracy- as I do not trust your interpretations of evidence . Given that it has no relevance to practicalities however (and will change nothing about my conception of movement) , I don't greatly care which of the many muscles that I have no direct perception of is involved.

[hardy_practice]

Sorry to have troubled you.

[pts1]

I don't know if you're referring to me as the poster advocating intrinsic hand muscle use, but allow me to clarify my meaning.

To play the piano at an expert level, it is primarily the dominion of the fingers.

The correct feeling one must develop is that this generates from the hand and not the arms.

If one starts by attempting to substitute with the larger muscles outside the hand, then you're on the path to a very limited ability, IMO, since fine motor control cannot be obtained.

To say that I mean ONLY play with the intrinsic muscles is not what I mean.

We don't have direct control over which muscles we want to use for the most part, only the movement we wish to make which dictates the muscle(s) that will be employed.

So in reality I have no doubt that when we play with the hand muscles, the "out of hand" muscles are also active to some extent by virtue of the fact that they are connected to the hand and fingers and by virtue of the fact that we mostly cannot control muscles directly.

I actually do not know how much the extrinsic muscles participate when one plays correctly by primarily using the correct motions, posture, hand/arm position, etc. and feeling that the hand and fingers are the primary players.

To know this I suppose medical scientists would have to wire up hands and arms to an expert player with many, many electrodes and then record the electrical impulses and velocities of fingers, hands, arms, etc, and who knows what else to get an accurate and definitive knowledge of this.

But really, what use would it be other than to state with unequivocal accuracy which muscles are used and to what degree?

And I often wonder looking at the physical presentations such as your power point -- that they are missing something with regard to piano playing.

For instance, I have a question I've never found the answer to and that is: since the lumbrical muscles --unlike all other muscles in the body -- are connected to tendons instead of bone, specifically the flexor digitorum profundus and the extensor expansions, the "FDP" being your subject, I believe, which manipulates the finger tip joint... it seems to me that when the lumbricals are used by means of movement that employs them, that the FDP is also engaged by virtue of the fact that the contracting lumbrical is therefore pulling against the FDP's tendon.

See what I mean?

Perhaps you could find a qualified answer to this.

I'd like to know the answer since it always seems to me correct playing has a tiny bit of automatic finger tip control/participation.

I've never seen an answer or discussion of this regarding piano playing.

Seems to me rather the crux of the issue here regarding since you really cannot  -- I'm surmising -- move one without the other.

[hardy_practice]

For instance, I have a question I've never found the answer to and that is: since the lumbrical muscles --unlike all other muscles in the body -- are connected to tendons instead of bone, specifically the flexor digitorum profundus and the extensor expansions, the "FDP" being your subject, I believe, which manipulates the finger tip joint... it seems to me that when the lumbricals are used by means of movement that employs them, that the FDP is also engaged by virtue of the fact that the contracting lumbrical is therefore pulling against the FDP's tendon.

That's a good one that.  It's like this, one end of a lumbrical pulls on the FDP in the direction of the fingers.  That gives some slack to the finger end of the FDP which means the finger starts to unbend.  The other end of the lumbrical pulls the EDC towards the body which then causes the finger to extend.  Without the FDP end creating slack the EDC end would be too weak to be effective.

As for finger movement - yes I agree, but one type of movement (when the finger curls in) uses more flexors than the other type (when the finger preserves its shape) or so I think.  I hope quite soon to get my hands on some medical equipment designed to measure this.

By the way, for those who can handle 'jargon', here's Tubiana (one of the world's top hand surgeons) on interosseous and extension:

[nyiregyhazi]

One simple fact- when I perform the lengthening action, the space opens between my fingers. How do you explain that- if the interosseus muscles are not indeed involved? I'm certainly not preserving my finger shape, as you claim I'd have to, seeing as it lengthens. It seems that these sources are little more than red herrings, if we take it back to the practical product. As soon you attempt logical extrapolations from them, you miss the big picture.

This whole attempt to discredit interosseus use is based on a nothingness. All these sources are just smoke and mirrors- that have nothing to do with your initial bogus assertion about a practical issue.

[hardy_practice]

Sorry there's no point discussing anatomy with someone who won't use 'jargon' - I've no idea how to begin.

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry there's no point discussing anatomy with someone who won't use 'jargon' - I've no idea how to begin.

I'm not interested in anatomy unless contextually relevant. you don't need jargon to make the point clear.

If you have an alternative explanation to the interosseus muscles opening my fingers when I extend them into the keys, then present it. If you don't have one, it's clear that your very first post contained assertions that are complete nonsense. That's the problem with simply reading off facts- it doesn't mean you'll exercise any intelligence when trying to make extrapolations from the raw information.

If you dispute that it's the interosseus muscles opening my fingers, cite a source with an alternative explanation for that. If you can't, we're done (with an issue that was irrelevant to anything of significance from the very outset).

[hardy_practice]

Obviously. So why not discuss that, rather than waste even a moment of time on irrelevant jargon that has no consequences?

If you want to stay in this discussion you're going to have to stipulate which is 'irrelevant jargon' and which is 'relevant jargon'.  It's all too confusing for me.  For instance is interosseous 'irrelevant jargon'?  is lumbricals?  is intrinsic?  Tell me what terms are relevant to you, and what are not, and maybe we could get somewhere.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you want to stay in this discussion you're going to have to stipulate which is 'irrelevant jargon' and which is 'relevant jargon'.  It's all too confusing for me.  For instance is interosseous 'irrelevant jargon'?  is lumbricals?  is intrinsic?  Tell me what terms are relevant to you, and what are not, and maybe we could get somewhere.

The sole issue of relevance to pianism is that the action I use opens rather than closes the space between adjacent fingers, while also lengthening them (but closing at the knuckle).

On a purely academic level, that means the interosseus muscles are indeed in use (which I already made entirely explicit) and exposes that your original post was not only of no relevance to practical issues, but also contained bogus assertions.

[hardy_practice]

How do you know it's not the extensors lengthening?  whilst the interosseous part the fingers?

[nyiregyhazi]

How do you know it's not the extensors lengthening?  whilst the interosseous part the fingers?

I didn't already mention that I could not give a damn which muscle does what? however if the fingers are opening out between each other the interosseus muscles are being used- and without leading to any of the things you falsely claimed in your post.

The only thing of real interest with reference to pianism is that this means creating space and ease in the hand instead of closing in tight. It also means that the interosseus muscles are used. I don't care either way if they contribute to lengthening too-because there are no practical consequences from whether they do or not.

[hardy_practice]

Are you saying because you use your interosseous muscles to make space between your fingers the fingers don't preserve their shape??  Otherwise, I'm not sure how you're approaching the OT. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Are you saying because you use your interosseous muscles to make space between your fingers the fingers don't preserve their shape??  Otherwise, I'm not sure how you're approaching the OT. 

No. I am saying I definitely use the interosseus muscles and that my finger definitely changes shape- contrary to your chaim in the post. I could not care a jot what changes their shape and this exchange about such inconsequential issues is of no further interest.

[hardy_practice]

No. I am saying I definitely use the interosseus muscles and that my finger definitely changes shape-

In that case I think a study of the anatomy would conclude you're using the interosseus to 'space' your fingers whilst changing their shape principally using the extensors.

[nyiregyhazi]

In that case I think a study of the anatomy would conclude you're using the interosseus to 'space' your fingers whilst changing their shape principally using the extensors.

Nobody argued otherwise at stage. Why would I-given that it has no practical relevance? That said, why do you assume they do not contribute at the knuckle too? I see nothing to exclude that likelihood from any of your sources.

[hardy_practice]

Nobody argued otherwise at stage. Why would I-given that it has no practical relevance? That said, why do you assume they do not contribute at the knuckle too? I see nothing to exclude that likelihood from any of your sources.

If you read the jpg you'll learn they (interosseous) flex the knuckle.  Still that's only Tubiana, one of the world's top hand surgeons.  Who's he compared to Mr Beauchamp and his blog?

[nyiregyhazi]

If you read the jpg you'll learn they (interosseous) flex the knuckle.  Still that's only Tubiana, one of the world's top hand surgeons.  Who's he compared to Mr Beauchamp and his blog?

? What on earth are you talking about? how could I be referring to anything other than flexing the knuckle? Do you suppose I play with my palm turned up?

I really couldn't give a damn whether interosseus can also inspire lengthening while flexing the knuckle. it changes nothing about what quality action works. It only describes the product. It cannot contribute to the means. Nothing ever hinged on the issue.

[hardy_practice]

Which brings me back to the OT - you can fix the finger shape (static flexors) and use the interosseous to flex the knuckle.  It's the more common articulation in use.  Of course all groups lend a hand (Oh a joke!) in reality.  It's really more a matter of bias.

[nyiregyhazi]

Which brings me back to the OT - you can fix the finger shape (static flexors) and use the interosseous to flex the knuckle.  It's the more common articulation in use.  Of course all groups lend a hand (Oh a joke!) in reality.  It's really more a matter of bias.

Why is a rigid finger sliding across a key desirable? And you didn't say"can". You falsely portrayed it as the only way that is possible when using interosseus. It's neither the only way nor desirable.

[hardy_practice]

Why is a rigid finger sliding across a key desirable? And you didn't say"can". You falsely portrayed it as the only way that is possible when using interosseus. It's neither the only way nor desirable.

I didn't say it was 'desirable' I said it was the most common.  It is by far the most common way of using the interosseous - your way is quite rare.

[ajspiano]

https://nervesurgery.wustl.edu/ev/hand/ulnar/Pages/DorsalInterosseous.aspx

Muscle Function:
Primary: Abducts index, long, and ring fingers away from the midline of the hand.

• First dorsal interosseous abducts index finger radially towards thumb.
• Second dorsal interosseous abducts the long finger radially towards index finger.
• Third dorsal interossei abducts the long finger ulnarly towards ring finger.
• Fourth dorsal interossei abducts the ring finger ulnarly towards small finger.

Secondary:

• Assists in flexion of the metacarpal-phalangeal joints and extension of the interphalangeal joints of the respective finger.
• In addition, first dorsal interosseous assists in adduction of the thumb.

..............

?

Its also not a rare coordination..  Seymour fink's 'unfolding finger' uses this function, as one example of its use in what is generally accepted as quality piano technique literature.

Its by no means the only way to strike a key, but its a VERY important one. Without it the czerny "active fingers/quiet arm" adage will result it masses of wrist tension. This one of the main problems with a poor execution of a finger lifting exercise (such as hanon's instructions)..  rigid finger shape and rigid arm can obviously cause BIG problems, particularly if used in fast passage work.

[hardy_practice]

Well, I can't say I've seen it much in action.  It's seems even rarer than the pulling the fingertip in.

[ajspiano]

Well, I can't say I've seen it much in action.

Its not as if they extend enough for you to readily see it..  however it is clearly felt as a pianist, you should pursue the exercise presented by pts1 in the other thread (the one you are arguing against) and learn to play chopin 10/2 at the full marked tempo before you dismiss it..  I would argue from experience that the latter suggestion will be extraordinarily difficult without it.

The motion was described (in a fairly uhh.. rough/incomplete.. way) by robert_henry (https://roberthenry.org/) here, nearly 10 years ago..  amazing how the same problems come up for discussion over and over..

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,3233.msg28792.html#msg28792

The motion would be as if you pushed a piece of paper across a table to your friend (without using your arm, only fingers).  See how your fingers kinda flick upwards?  On the piano, it will sound like mini-staccatos.

[ajspiano]

It's seems even rarer than the pulling the fingertip in.

can be an effective staccato touch when used appropriately. 

starting at ~2:00

..perhaps we could even consider that there is no one exact right finger motion for all situations...

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't say it was 'desirable' I said it was the most common.  It is by far the most common way of using the interosseous - your way is quite rare.

Speculative nonsense. And you didn't only say it was common. You first portrayed as necessarily being tied in- which is complete dung. Have you done special laboratory tests with electrodes on each individual muscle? You have no means of telling what muscles a pianist uses- nevermind what is the most common when interosseous muscles are used. And that's without even repeating the fact that nobody can isolate those muscles even if they tried to choose to. Conception of how to move determines muscle usage- not vice versa. The only reliable gauge of interosseous involvement is if the fingers are opening between each other rather than tightening inwards. That happens automatically when you strive to lengthen the finger whilst involving a knuckle pull. And it's physically impossible if the finger only closes without any lengthening of the end joints (both with static end joints and with closing end joints). This is where the practically relevant issue lies. How ironic that you keep claiming that Alan Fraser's approach is only for small hands- while ignoring such a HUGE issue when it comes to hand size. Lengthening fingers open small hands. Closing fingers tighten them into being smaller. The anatomical explanation of the interosseous is merely the explanation for why the means works- not the source of learning the means.

[nyiregyhazi]

"• Assists in flexion of the metacarpal-phalangeal joints and extension of the interphalangeal joints of the respective finger."

Based on our troll keyboardclass' sources it seems that this should read OR, to make it clear that it cannot do both at once. I'm happy to believe that from the sources- although I see no single practical consequence based on the distinction (it changes nothing about how I conceive the action to be aware of that and I see no way in which it either could or should) but only academic interest.

..............

"Its by no means the only way to strike a key, but its a VERY important one. Without it the czerny "active fingers/quiet arm" adage will result it masses of wrist tension. This one of the main problems with a poor execution of a finger lifting exercise (such as hanon's instructions)..  rigid finger shape and rigid arm can obviously cause BIG problems, particularly if used in fast passage work."

Thanks for bringing this to issues of practical relevance, for the first time in this thread. You'll see how much the wrist can be dragged forwards and up (where it must tighten for stability, or arm pressures have to replace finger actions) by neglect of this element in my old youtube videos. I still have to work on the issue, but the difference in my wrist alignment is significantly marked since I involved lengthening. There is the possibility of playing with a low wrist (so reactions drag the palm in but keep it down) but it's far easier to aim a fraction forward and out- so reactions to the fingers are not dragging the wrist forward at all.

I've been continually looking for ways to synthesise the objective benefits of lengthening with the practical side, so here are a few previews of exercises from upcoming blog posts. In some cases, you can use a very indirect means of achieving this in practise. I actually have to disagree that finger lifting is bad. I think it's darwinian- where some luck on getting it right and thrive off the lifting where others get it wrong and fail worse the more they lift. However, appreciation of some lengthening is the best safeguard- so you can get the benefits rather than screw yourself up.

Try resting on a depressed thumb key and lift each finger high (feeling the whole arm moving in response yet staying connected to the thumb). Then spank down against the keys as hard as you can BUT with the constraint that you must not produce sound. Bang against the surface with all the force you can muster without actually moving the keys enough to sound. It's very surprising how much of a whack they can take. I was actually shocked at how resilient they are against a seriously deliberate blow when the finger travels with true freedom. It's plain bizarre when you discover how much you can whack at the key without any sense of repression in the finger, yet without it quite moving enough to produce tone. This tends to instinctively inspire some lengthening, even with very flat fingers. When you go on to play, it's objectively essential to aim at least a trace forward (in the finger- the arm must stay lengthened back, but free to respond passively) or impact will ensue and the wrist will get knocked out of alignment unless stiff. Get it right and you can do a full on spanking of the key into sound without any sense of impact and with a totally loose wrist.

Although the one against the surface is my own exercise, a recent lesson with Alan Fraser involved that flat finger spanking of the key from height, for a certain full melodic quality. You see gekic use this extreme force yet finding soft landings. Horowitz too cracks fingers down from a height like this getting extreme articulation without necessarily playing all that loud. He actually suggested aiming to land the finger flat on the crack of the first joint- not even on the pad! When you lengthen just right, seemingly outrageous levels of force can land soft from seemingly outrageously high fingers lifts. I don't recommend anyone trying this last bit casually, but the preparatory exercise of cracking hard against the surface of the key (without moving it!!!) gives a great preparation for going to ease into that quality of movement when actually sounding keys. I strongly recommend the exercise for octave tremolos. You can both learn phenomenal arm freedom and confidence of finger actions without any impact. This proved spectacularly effective on opening up a big confident sound (without jamming the arm down to get it) with a young and generally tentative student, earlier this week. The key to confident finger action is to feel how mild lengthening is what takes out the impact from the landing. If you get that, high fingers can be perfectly healthy. When you strive to bang the mere surface as hard as you can, you learn a phenomenal amount about how to go on to produce sound from a place of freedom and with enough lengthening to avoid impact.

PS you need a securely grounded thumb. It won't work unless the thumb connects very clearly and actively but without the arm pressing down into it.

[hardy_practice]

So much for keeping it short.  As for your oblique reference to trolling - why keep feeding me then?  Troll's go away if they're ignored, that's pretty much a fact.

[hardy_practice]

@ajs CPE Bach talks about two touches - caressing (clavichord) and attacking (harpsichord).  These are the two touches I refer to in the OT.  (Quite what is the point of the poster above hijacking the thread into a treatise on a third touch is beyond me.)

[hardy_practice]

Secondary:

• Assists in flexion of the metacarpal-phalangeal joints and extension of the interphalangeal joints of the respective finger.

Bearing in mind of course they can't do both at the same time (as already pointed out).

[nyiregyhazi]

@ajs CPE Bach talks about two touches - caressing (clavichord) and attacking (harpsichord).  These are the two touches I refer to in the OT.  (Quite what is the point of the poster above hijacking the thread into a treatise on a third touch is beyond me.)

Yes, how absurd of anyone to think that modern piano technique might need anything other than two styles of finger movement that were described in the dark ages. Apologies for hijacking the thread by bringing in something of actual practical relevance.

[hardy_practice]

Hard cheese.  It was good enough for Beethoven.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hard cheese.  It was good enough for Beethoven.

The only person it's hard cheese for is you- with the abysmal standard of playing that you achieved by taking texts aimed at different instruments as being "rules" for piano playing. I couldn't give a damn if you want to think that way, because it doesn't impose limitations on anyone but yourself.

[hardy_practice]

The only person it's hard cheese for is you- with the abysmal standard of playing that you achieved by taking texts aimed at different instruments as being "rules" for piano playing.

Your own peculiar form of sour grapes I assume?

[nyiregyhazi]

Your own peculiar form of sour grapes I assume?

Yes, when I watch your youtube films I feel exceedingly envious of quite how much skill you have acquired by wasting hours on irrelevant anatomical details and taking ancient texts literally as rulebooks. I cry myself to sleep sometimes, out of jealousy about the pianistic results that your expertise in impractical pedantry has provided you with.

p3kmw&index=5

[hardy_practice]

p3kmw&index=5

Wow, nice accents!