arm or fingers : again

[drazh]

hi
several months ago when I started with my new teacher(he is great), he said you are playing with fingers,play with your arm
after several months of practice he said  play with your finger you are playing with your arm!
I confused now. which one arm or fingers?
I know best answer is both but which one should be dominant?

[keypeg]

Is your new teacher also showing you what he means, and guiding you as you play?  Simply being told these things is not enough.

[drazh]

yes, although with exageration. moves one of his finger upward and then taps the key forcefully

[keypeg]

Probably different proportions for different music.  Have you told him your confusion?

[drazh]

not yet. is that ok to tell him?

[louispodesta]

I don't know how many times I have to post this, but the best reference source (once again, I dont get paid for this) is Dr. Thomas Mark's "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body."   If you don't want to pay for it, you can get it for free from your local library (ILL).

This 151 page Handbook has a full discussion, with photographs and drawings, of the physical mechanics of how one plays the piano.  You can even order the DVD for free if you want to look at Dr. Mark working with an actual skeleton model.

His website is www.pianomap.com, which has a lengthy discussion of the biomechanics associated with playing the piano.

The bottom line is that you play the piano with your entire body, and your arms and fingers are a significant but small part of the whole picture.

[keypeg]

not yet. is that ok to tell him?

I think so, since you're learning from him.  Don't make it accusatory, like "You told me to use my whole arm, and now that I'm doing that you're telling me the opposite."   But more like maybe you're confused about when to use which, because the first time you played he told you that you were using only the fingers, now he's saying you're not using them enough, so you're not sure what this means.  Teachers say that adults often take what they've been told to the extreme, so he might not be surprised at your confusion.  I have diligently dug myself into so many holes by following instructions precisely to the letter.   

[j_menz]

not yet. is that ok to tell him?

Of course it's OK. How else is he supposed to know you don't understand?

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't know how many times I have to post this, but the best reference source (once again, I dont get paid for this) is Dr. Thomas Mark's "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body."   If you don't want to pay for it, you can get it for free from your local library (ILL).

This 151 page Handbook has a full discussion, with photographs and drawings, of the physical mechanics of how one plays the piano.  You can even order the DVD for free if you want to look at Dr. Mark working with an actual skeleton model.

His website is www.pianomap.com, which has a lengthy discussion of the biomechanics associated with playing the piano.

The bottom line is that you play the piano with your entire body, and your arms and fingers are a significant but small part of the whole picture.

He also indulges in claims that energy always comes from the upper arm, if I recall correctly, which is not true. Apologies for citing you as an example but I noticed that you play virtually every note with a separate arm descent and a braced hand, on your youtube film. Compared to an advanced professional, your sound was rather heavy and undifferentiated in the examples that you played. I heard neither ease nor a sophisticated ability to apply voicing. In my opinion, Thomas Mark's advice is way too greatly geared towards active arm pressures, whereas the reality of effortless and musically sophisticated technique is primarily of keeping the arm free via slower continuous horizontal movements, while the fingers play the role of moving keys (without the burden of a series of separate arm movements). In the examples of your film, your arm does nothing to sculpt long smooth lines. It simply presses straight down into needlessly hard landing (for such gentle passages) and gives a correspondingly lumpy result- rather than a long seamless line.

I'm particularly keen to see footage of mark himself playing, to know whether he also plays with a braced hand and lots of arm prods, or whether he has something smoother and freer. I was stuck for years when I took this style of description of arm energy literally. More recently, I can play the 6th rhapsody without getting bogged down by a heavy arm. Mark is much better on the body than he is on telling you how to play the piano and I'm very interested to know what his personal level of accomplishment is and whether he actually does as he preaches and as you play (with corresponding limitations) or something altogether different.

[nyiregyhazi]

I just had a quick scan through the book again and realised that there's actually considerably less than I had remembered on how to play the piano. I actually like this fact. It's not really a book on piano technique but a book on wiping the slate clean- in preparation for the possibility of either lucking on good technique or learning it elsewhere. The big problems are the chapter on the arch and also on mapping the piano. The arch one is the only time he gives any real specifics and he asks you to form the hand and drop the arm without the finger moving. He also says not to stiffen. That's fine, but now trying a rapid scale by dropping the arm into every note with a static finger and not stiffening. It's basically saying "don't stiffen" while sewing the seeds for a mindset that depends on stiffening the hand rather than moving. Try doing it fast without true finger movement and stiffness is the only option.


It would be a great book if he left this poorly contextualised exercise out (all my technical problems were based on repercussions of doing such exercises without learning to play from the fingers without an drop) and if it were to be used in conjunction with specific advice on how to get fingers moving keys without a tense arm. However, it neither scratches so much as the surface on this issue, nor of technique in general. On the particular issue of this thread, his one specific exercise creates a woefully one - sided picture that could only serve to mislead. All of my former problems and limitations were based on using fingers to transmit arm movement, instead of doing a proper job.

[keypeg]

I have the book.  I don't remember anything about playing the piano.  Primarily it is about understanding how your body works and for this I found it invaluable.  While I did not have piano instruction (ever) at the time that I was reading the book, I did get advice about "posture" elsewhere which had messed me up.  It was with a mixture of delight and relief that I read him describe the very things I had suspected and bring it a few steps further.  I never felt that any interpretation of what to do had been put forth, but rather an invitation to understand your own body, and put to rest some old "truths" which weren't actually that true.  If there were instructions on how to play anywhere, maybe I missed them deliberately.

[dima_76557]

several months ago when I started with my new teacher(he is great), he said you are playing with fingers,play with your arm

You were probably playing with your fingers articulating actively but without support of the arm behind them.

after several months of practice he said  play with your finger you are playing with your arm!

You were probably pushing with your arms on relatively passive fingers.

I confused now. which one arm or fingers?
I know best answer is both but which one should be dominant?

Fingers should have dominance but the arm should always be free and relaxed behind each separate finger for support.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have the book.  I don't remember anything about playing the piano.  Primarily it is about understanding how your body works and for this I found it invaluable.  While I did not have piano instruction (ever) at the time that I was reading the book, I did get advice about "posture" elsewhere which had messed me up.  It was with a mixture of delight and relief that I read him describe the very things I had suspected and bring it a few steps further.  I never felt that any interpretation of what to do had been put forth, but rather an invitation to understand your own body, and put to rest some old "truths" which weren't actually that true.  If there were instructions on how to play anywhere, maybe I missed them deliberately.

On the whole, yes. The book's strength is that it scarcely tells you how to play. However, the sole thing he ask you to do at the keyboard is to keep the finger unmoving while dropping the arm onto the keys. Basically, he's asking to stiffen the finger a little bit, but not massively. All pretty effortless on one note, but by failing to contextualise this alongside actions where the arm serves to lighten while fingers move keys, he is deeply careless, in my opinion. We don't play the piano by dropping the arm on every note. If we hope to get past a snail's pace, this is the very antithesis of effortless.

Either way, the important thing is that the book is about general improvement of the body and has no specific bearing on the practical questions raised here. In the one place where it relates to these issues, it's more likely to create a false impression than to give longterm answers.

[keypeg]

The most important thing is for the student to go ask his teacher, who is the one observing things in each lesson, and can see the whole picture over time too.  In general teachers want to be asked questions.  This helps them, and it shows them that their student is interested in what they have to teach.

[nyiregyhazi]

The most important thing is for the student to go ask his teacher, who is the one observing things in each lesson, and can see the whole picture over time too.  In general teachers want to be asked questions.  This helps them, and it shows them that their student is interested in what they have to teach.

True, but (without wanting to suggest that I'm assuming that his teacher is an incompetent charlatan, or anything) can be sure that he'll be able to give a clear and accurate explanation of everything? I learned a lot more from certain books than from some teachers about this aspect of technique. In my experience, very few teachers are good at conveying functional balance between finger and arm with any precision, either through language or demonstration. Such teachers are rare. Most arm descriptions just encourage pressing, without cultivating freely moving fingers. In fact the typical one mark implies with his exercise will actively hinder freely moving fingers from evolving, unless balanced with very different approaches.

[keypeg]

In the very least, the teacher has to be told that his student does not understand the explanations and is confused by some of it.  Whether he is capable of explaining what he means is something that the OP will find out.   When it does work, it can take more than one time.  It certainly beats trying to decipher what people write on the Internet, which may or may not be right or suitable.  (I've gone down that path).

[nyiregyhazi]

In the very least, the teacher has to be told that his student does not understand the explanations and is confused by some of it.  Whether he is capable of explaining what he means is something that the OP will find out.   When it does work, it can take more than one time.  It certainly beats trying to decipher what people write on the Internet, which may or may not be right or suitable.  (I've gone down that path).

I hope he's lucky. But I never encountered clear explanations from anyone until recently. It was a lot of self contradictory weirdness that neither clarified what to intend or how it should feel.

The simplest way to give an objective summary is to say that the arm MUST NOT do one individual movement per note. If it does as the norm, you're screwed. You can practise fitting many finger movements into an upward drift or a downward one or into circles etc. It's not actually very complex at all. Unfortunately, most teachers instead use the false claim that energy should flow from the upper arm through every finger. At best, this is relatively meaningless but at worst it encourages constant stop and start arm movements, rather than the slower smooth ones that great pianists know how to use, while fingers move keys.

[louispodesta]

1)  Thank you keypeg for your kind words on Dr. Mark's book.   It is after all the most widely recommended book on piano biomechanics in existence.   I guess that means that all of these department heads at all of these music schools need to take a lesson from nyiregyhazi in order to get it straight.

2)  When Thomas emailed me back on my video, he said he was going to apply some of the arpeggiation I talked about to the Brahms F Minor Sonata that he was working on.  When I had my last lesson, he was polishing up the fourth Chopin Ballade.

The man can play the piano, and as a teacher, his skills far surpass anyone I have ever studied under or ever heard of.  He literally can take any piece of music, sight unseen, tear it down instantly, and then relate that back to a student during a lesson.

It saddens me deeply that from my city of San Antonio that I cannot readily travel to Portland, OR where he lives.  Although, for the record, I did travel by two planes five hours each way to take a two and a half hour lesson from this great teacher  And, I did it on two separate occasions.

The result being that when I play the Schumann Concerto, I float "laterally" up and down the piano without any hinderance from arm weight.  And also for the record, the joint of articulation that Dr. Mark teaches in his lessons is the one that attaches the collar bone to the sternum.  This results in a very fluid movement without a heavy arm weight feeling.

[j_menz]

the joint of articulation ...is the one that attaches the collar bone to the sternum. 

The mere existence of which will come as something of a surprise to anatomists everywhere. 

[keypeg]

The mere existence of which will come as something of a surprise to anatomists everywhere. 

Are you disagreeing about the existence of this joint, or only the precise description of its attachment? The point about this particular joint and its role was especially important to me (I have the book) and solved a few things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternoclavicular_articulation
Our arms don't just move from where the humerus attaches to the "shoulders", and mobility of the collarbone and shoulder blades is part of what gives us range of motion.  Some of us were given the unfortunate advice of "shoulders back", to tighten the shoulder blades (in order to prevent hunching) and similar things.  For those of us who lost range of motion because of this, the point in the book is an important one.  Again, the author does not give instructions on how to play, but simply how our body works.

[j_menz]

Are you disagreeing about the existence of this joint, or only the precise description of its attachment? The point about this particular joint and its role was especially important to me (I have the book) and solved a few things.

I appear to have misunderstood. The joint isn't an actively moveable one, but I do see how it's passive articulation affects movement.

[nyiregyhazi]

1)  Thank you keypeg for your kind words on Dr. Mark's book.   It is after all the most widely recommended book on piano biomechanics in existence.   I guess that means that all of these department heads at all of these music schools need to take a lesson from nyiregyhazi in order to get it straight.

2)  When Thomas emailed me back on my video, he said he was going to apply some of the arpeggiation I talked about to the Brahms F Minor Sonata that he was working on.  When I had my last lesson, he was polishing up the fourth Chopin Ballade.

The man can play the piano, and as a teacher, his skills far surpass anyone I have ever studied under or ever heard of.  He literally can take any piece of music, sight unseen, tear it down instantly, and then relate that back to a student during a lesson.

It saddens me deeply that from my city of San Antonio that I cannot readily travel to Portland, OR where he lives.  Although, for the record, I did travel by two planes five hours each way to take a two and a half hour lesson from this great teacher  And, I did it on two separate occasions.

The result being that when I play the Schumann Concerto, I float "laterally" up and down the piano without any hinderance from arm weight.  And also for the record, the joint of articulation that Dr. Mark teaches in his lessons is the one that attaches the collar bone to the sternum.  This results in a very fluid movement without a heavy arm weight feeling.

What do you mean specifically by "joint of articulation"? Do you mean energy comes from there in standard key depressions? If so, the whole arm will need to move once per note - as often seen in your film. If so, how is that supposed to translate to fast playing? If not, what actually does the phrase mean?

My words about Thomas Mark's book were not intended to damn his book overall, so much as a response to your having shoehorned it into this particular topic. On this specific issue, his book has no actual advice. However, it does contain an exercise that could grossly mislead anyone who wants to understand the link between fingers and arm. It's a good book that I recommend, but way off the mark on this issue (there's also a gross misunderstanding about the link between finger speed and kinetic energy, in a later chapter,where he makes a fallacious assertion based on an false application of a mechanical equation).

When you said you were a"pupil" of his, and I had rather imagined more than two sessions, but I realise now that his hands on work should not reasonably be judged via you, on such a short spell. However, whether he teaches this or not, I'd strongly recommend that you look into writings on continuous lateral arm movement rather than constant coarse reversals between ups and downward pressures. This is altogether vital to long legato lines. Your arm only goes up and down in the except from 118 no 2. It does not relieve the stress on your fingers or get them well aligned to their keys. It squashes them down into heavy sound and continued exertion, as a replacement for adequate finger movement. Apologies if that sounds harsh, but I believe in judging against professional standards, when discussing technique. This vital role of the arm (as a means of making freedom rather than downward pressures) is an essential component of musically applied technique, which Mark's book sadly never even touches on.

[keypeg]

I appear to have misunderstood. The joint isn't an actively moveable one, but I do see how it's passive articulation affects movement.

It's not something that I had heard about before either so I'm not surprised if it's new to you.  Had I not run into the things I did, the point would have been moot to me.

[nyiregyhazi]

Are you disagreeing about the existence of this joint, or only the precise description of its attachment? The point about this particular joint and its role was especially important to me (I have the book) and solved a few things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternoclavicular_articulation
Our arms don't just move from where the humerus attaches to the "shoulders", and mobility of the collarbone and shoulder blades is part of what gives us range of motion.  Some of us were given the unfortunate advice of "shoulders back", to tighten the shoulder blades (in order to prevent hunching) and similar things.  For those of us who lost range of motion because of this, the point in the book is an important one.  Again, the author does not give instructions on how to play, but simply how our body works.

I agree that all of these points are useful, by the way, but I think it's a pity that so few people even start out with the realisation of the arm's role of moving for the sake of generating freedom, rather than moving for the sake of shoving energy down through the hand to move each key. In fast playing, you have a very hard time doing both. One of the reasons Mark's advice is so necessary is because the need for basic lateral movements isn't well taught. Over years, this locks everything up. It would be a much better situation if people understood the actual role of the arm first and only came to body mapping to fill in holes.



On the direct topic, here's an exercise. Although it may seem a touch abstract it's actually about the specific feel for essential ingredients of functional arm usage for general pianism, that will feature in a coming blog post (incidentally I'd particularly recommend this to Louis):


In this post I'm going to continue exploring the fundamental balance issues behind a healthy technique. Firstly, I'd like to show how even the unsupported arm referenced in part one can be loosened up further. As I said, an arm 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 back to the hovering arm, an inch or so above the keys. 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, still. 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 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). 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 NEVER actually stop. 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. 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 be 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 almost any change of direction. Try going back to sideways movementd/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 before coming back. 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. If you typically move a lot, look out for the places where moving too much actually interrupts the continuity. 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).

[hardy_practice]

Our arms don't just move from where the humerus attaches to the "shoulders", and mobility of the collarbone and shoulder blades is part of what gives us range of motion.  Some of us were given the unfortunate advice of "shoulders back", to tighten the shoulder blades (in order to prevent hunching) and similar things.  For those of us who lost range of motion because of this, the point in the book is an important one.  Again, the author does not give instructions on how to play, but simply how our body works.

The shoulders should be back i.e. hanging down your back not the front - the rhomboids are there to see to it.   I see dreadful cases of 'wings' far too often - OK in an 8 year old, ridiculous in a 14 year old.

[keypeg]

The shoulders should be back i.e. hanging down your back not the front - the rhomboids are there to see to it.   I see dreadful cases of 'wings' far too often - OK in an 8 year old, ridiculous in a 14 year old.

The shoulders should be i a good position, but not "back". The rhomboids can also be over-active.  The shoulder blades also need to be free to move.  This particular advice crippled me for several years, and it has been hard to undo its effects.  When I researched this I saw that I was not alone.  I don't even like seeing the word "rhomboid" at this point.

[nyiregyhazi]

The shoulders should be i a good position, but not "back". The rhomboids can also be over-active.  The shoulder blades also need to be free to move.  This particular advice crippled me for several years, and it has been hard to undo its effects.  When I researched this I saw that I was not alone.  I don't even like seeing the word "rhomboid" at this point.

It's all relative. If your shoulder ARE back, obviously it's crazy to pull them back further. If they're held forward, they need to be brought back though.

[louispodesta]

1)  Thomas Mark's profession is restricted to coaching technique, and also consulting with injured pianists.  My first coaching session was actually 5 1/2 hours, which is a lot of back and forth on just technique questions.

Also, as he states up front, he has absolutely no desire to "hear you play your piece" in its entirety.  He wants you to point out the problem with a particular passage, and then he takes it from there.

In two sessions, he taught me more about my body and how to play the piano effortlessly than I had been taught by some great teachers in 30 years.

2)  In terms of the discussion about the sternoclavicular joint, instead of trying to summarize the five pages he spends on the subject, I will just list two points.

The first is to take the tips of the three middle fingers of your left or right hand and place them on your chest where your collar bone meets the sternum on the opposite side.  Then, move your entire arm in any fashion that you so choose.  This will show you how the entire arm and shoulder all move in conjunction with this joint.

Next, I found a fairly comprehensive review online of Dr. Mark's book.  It was in pianotechnique.org., and it comments on each individual chapter.  Here is the link.
https://reviews.pianotechnique.org/thomas-mark-what-every-pianist-needs-to-know-about-the-body.php

[nyiregyhazi]

1)  Thomas Mark's profession is restricted to coaching technique, and also consulting with injured pianists.  My first coaching session was actually 5 1/2 hours, which is a lot of back and forth on just technique questions.

Also, as he states up front, he has absolutely no desire to "hear you play your piece" in its entirety.  He wants you to point out the problem with a particular passage, and then he takes it from there.

In two sessions, he taught me more about my body and how to play the piano effortlessly than I had been taught by some great teachers in 30 years.

2)  In terms of the discussion about the sternoclavicular joint, instead of trying to summarize the five pages he spends on the subject, I will just list two points.

The first is to take the tips of the three middle fingers of your left or right hand and place them on your chest where your collar bone meets the sternum on the opposite side.  Then, move your entire arm in any fashion that you so choose.  This will show you how the entire arm and shoulder all move in conjunction with this joint.

Next, I found a fairly comprehensive review online of Dr. Mark's book.  It was in pianotechnique.org., and it comments on each individual chapter.  Here is the link.
https://reviews.pianotechnique.org/thomas-mark-what-every-pianist-needs-to-know-about-the-body.php

I've been through those exercises and they are valuable. But that is simply knowing how your arm works. It's not piano technique. I've already read his book, but I'm interested in what specifics he advises when teaching, for the exacts roles of arm and fingers with regard to making keys move. In your film, your movement is based on a series of very separate arm descents, that do not blend seamlessly together or make a smooth legato sound.

What I'm curious about is what specifics Mark gave you about the arm and fingers and whether he advises for the arm to do all those descents, rather than move more steadily. Or does he simply teach about how the body works without covering the specific relation between the roles of each part in generating key movement? Does he train pianists in how to make an smooth legato line without either bobbing or individual arm pressures? Or did he simply not cover the fundamental role of uninterrupted lateral arm motions for a phrase  and their effect on tone production?

[keypeg]

I don't think anyone said that they are piano technique.  But knowing how your body works is invaluable for piano technique.  For one thing, if someone tells you nonsense then you can trust yourself that it's nonsense, and not think you're "doing it wrong" because what your body tells you IS right after all.

[louispodesta]

Thank you keypeg.  You obviously do not mistake the forest for the trees.

I spent most of the last 50 years practicing technique exercise after technique exercise (which I no longer do).  My last coach, who turned me on to Thomas Mark, actually had me, and all of his other students, doing ridiculous forearm rotation exercises.

Once I had my first session with Dr. Mark, all of that went away because he taught me how to use and trust my own body.   It is an unbelievable liberating feeling.

Finally, for those who want to know something about how he teaches key attack, I enclose a link to his bio from his website.  Do the words Dorothy Taubman, and the Alexander Technique mean anything to you?

As an example, when he teaches double notes or octaves, he uses the Tobias Matthay philosophy of key push back.  One lets the physical action of the key propel you on to the next one.

When I play the opening section of the 3rd movement of the Schumann Concerto, I just let the piano do the work for me when I come to the double notes.

https://pianomap.com/thomas_mark.html

[tmark]

I was pleased to see that my book “What Every Pianist Needs to Know about the Body” has generated interesting discussion here. There are a couple of points I’d like to contribute.

First, some people have said that the book is not really about piano technique. That is perfectly. I say as much in my introduction: “This is not a book about piano technique.” The reason for that is that I do not believe there is any single technique that works equally well for everyone, in every situation. Different people may find different technical solutions to the same problem, and that can be perfectly all right. I deliberately chose not to take sides in such cases. I claim, though, that the information in my book is nevertheless essential, because any technique will function better if the player is balanced, not tense, and playing with comprehensive full-body awareness. Cultivating such awareness can be the key to significant improvement, as well as recovering from or
avoiding injury, and I believe the information in the book enables people to develop the proper awareness and make changes when that new awareness reveals problems. In the end, no two people are likely to have identical techniques.

Second, several people seem to think that when I urge that people play with the whole arm I am advocating a lifting and dropping of the arm on every note. That is certainly not what I recommend, nor is it how I play. I believe playing will be best if the entire arm is free, including the shoulder blade and collarbone, without tension anywhere. The arm and the fingers work together, each part contributing in the right amount. Obviously, the “right amount” is something one has to discover (thanks to that whole-arm awareness), and one uses different combinations of arm and finger movements in different kinds of passages. I think that the claim that we play “only” with the fingers has done a lot of harm, but so has the suggestion that we play “only” with the arm.

[dima_76557]

what your body tells you IS right after all.

Depends, keypeg. The body of a person with bad habits (like slouching, etc.) will tell that person that correct posture doesn't feel "right".

[nyiregyhazi]

Interesting to hear from Thomas Mark, direct. Have you considered writing a second book with more personal beliefs and methods? Apologies if I misunderstood your intent with the firmed hand and arm drop exercise. However, I must say that I found that to be the one significant exception to the books neutrality. Personally, I think it would be better either left out, or put side by side with an exercise where the arm creates freedom with sideways movement, while fingers actually move- for the sake of restoring objective balance. As it stands, I do feel that this one exercise is a notable exception to what is otherwise admirable neutrality. Having been shown such exercises (prior to reading your book, I stress) but never shown the alternative of moving fingers properly from a free arm, this style of exercise totally infected my basic concept for piano playing, until I learned the alternative role of arm movement that create freedom, rather than pass movement on to keys through the hand.

Also, while you're here, can I politely point out a couple of scientific errors? I don't know if you'll have already heard the same things (and please let me stress that I have tremendous respect for the book as a whole) but there are definable mistakes in the chapter about keyboard mapping. I learned a lot from the explanation of the body, but some of the science just wasn't accurate here.

Firstly, you state that due to kinetic energy being 1/2 mass times velocity squared, a small change in velocity can accidentally trigger a huge change in volume, due to proportionality to the square. This is true, strictly speaking, BUT very misleading. Once something is moving fast, what the equation actually means is that it takes substantially more energy to continue adding to the velocity. If something is at 5ms it take vastly more effort and energy to go from 5 to 6 than it does to go from 4 to 5 and especially 1 to 2. In other words, you don't accidentally push just a trace harder and suddenly have a huge explosion of energy due to the square. Rather if you push only a trace harder, you make a trace of change to the velocity.

Basically the whole square issue cancels itself out. Any impression that only a fraction more input from the finger makes for a collosal change in tone is down to a totally separate issue, as your basis is not technically accurate. The piano's level of tone is certainly NOT proportional to the square of the amount of effort that you input. If anything, it ought to be along the lines of a relatively straight direct proportionality.

The same underlying issue means that your dropping different masses analogy doesn't work. This time, the same equation is very much relevant. The more mass, the more energy. For the analogy it to work, we should be dealing in what happens when objects land and NOT their speed during unimpeded free fall. That is simply irrelevant. At landing, less massive objects are repelled more easily. When falling on a resistance plate (equivalent to resistance of a piano key) to a greater mass WILL pass on greater speed to that plate- as there is more energy to cut through that resistance.

For your analogy to apply, we must assume that, on landing, the exact same speed of an object is instantly transferred to whatever it contacts.  That is most certainly not so- firstly because hands can either buckle back or positively create movement. They are not fixed structures. Secondly, even a stiff mass cannot pass on speed in the instant of contact- but the more mass, the more easily and rapidly its speed can be passed on.

In many ways, I agree that too much talk of mass is misleading, but your basis for trying to take it out of the picture isn't scientifically accurate.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think anyone said that they are piano technique.  But knowing how your body works is invaluable for piano technique.  For one thing, if someone tells you nonsense then you can trust yourself that it's nonsense, and not think you're "doing it wrong" because what your body tells you IS right after all.

But the question was about piano technique- specifically about how to blend arm and hand in a specific role that works in piano playing. I'd read the book, but it simply doesn't tell you how to apply these particular things that the topic started on. It just shows you how to understand your body. Even a tai chi master can fail to understand what leads to accomplished piano playing - if they don't know specifically about the fundamentals of depressing keys.

Also,countless essential pieces of advice feel wrong until you learn an additional missing link. Many things I used to rule out since became useful due to changes in what I do with my hand. If people stick to what feels best at the time, they typically bob a loose arm up and down. And then never learn to play fast without severe tensions.

[keypeg]

edited - see later

[keypeg]

But the question was about piano technique-

When I ask a question myself, I will welcome anything that will be helpful ultimately.

[nyiregyhazi]

You took what I wrote out of context, and are arguing against something that I did not say.  The context is here:
For one thing, if someone tells you nonsense then you can trust yourself that it's nonsense, and not think you're "doing it wrong".

It has nothing whatsoever to do with having a bad habit and feeling comfortable about it.

Additionally, you read what I wrote about having a military posture with shoulders back, and being told to put my shoulders back.  You could extrapolate (I'd expect you to be able to) that this made me feel uncomfortable, and that anyone under those circumstances being told that, should listen to their bodies saying "This does not feel comfortable."

You did actually say that the body will tell you what is right though. It wasn't taken out of context. The above is oversimplified. Many ESSENTIAL actions feel wrong at first. The fact that this was indeed wrong for you applies to this situation alone and says nothing of any other. Many useful things would be written off easily on the same logic and you would never learn to do them better.

Nowhere is this more the case than with fingers. I wrote them off for a time after moving them from a stiff arm. I then limited myself, with an equally useless approach where the arm bobbed and applied energy through unmoving fingers. Sadly, many amateurs stick within a comfort zone of slow arm bobbing and never learn to play rapidly with ease- precisely because they mistakenly believe their body knows best.

[nyiregyhazi]

When I ask a question myself, I will welcome anything that will be helpful ultimately.

If every question on technique receives a generic reply of "read how the body works via Thomas mark" (regardless of whether he addresses the particular question pianistically) it will be a tiresome forum, no matter how good the book is.

[keypeg]

My context involved being given instructions, and feeling comfort or discomfort in following those instructions.  If it was not clear before, it should be now. 

[nyiregyhazi]

My context involved being given instructions, and feeling comfort or discomfort in following those instructions.  If it was not clear before, it should be now. 

Yes, to an extent. Obviously a great teacher should be able to adapt when something is being misunderstood. However, it's still all too easy to do something wrong and write an essential activity off unjustly- based on having got the overall blend wrong due to a totally different issue. Countless things that used to cause me problems (because I did them wrong) later proved to be valuable things to put back in. If we're evolving as we should be, an identical instruction can mean something totally different later down the line. Too many people never branch out beyond what feels most convenient in the moment and settle into a lifetime plateau as a result

[tmark]

The section of my book under discussion was intended to make two principal points: first that the volume of sound is a function of the velocity of key descent at the point of sound. I said nothing about how much energy it takes to increase the velocity by a certain amount. Nevertheless,  we can control the velocity sufficiently for our purpose in playing the piano, which is proven by the fact that we can in fact create a range of volume, from pianissimo to fortissimo.

The other principal point is that more or less energy delivered to the keybed does not alter the sound--the sound is created before the key reaches the keybed. That is the point of the analogy of the falling weights. At the moment  the key passes the "point of sound," the piano has no way of responding to how much energy will be delivered to the keybed--all it "knows" is how fast the key is going down. Secure contact with the keybed is important for several reasons, but delivering excessive force into the keybed can be harmful, and is, in fact, a common cause of injury.

[nyiregyhazi]

The section of my book under discussion was intended to make two principal points: first that the volume of sound is a function of the velocity of key descent at the point of sound. I said nothing about how much energy it takes to increase the velocity by a certain amount. Nevertheless,  we can control the velocity sufficiently for our purpose in playing the piano, which is proven by the fact that we can in fact create a range of volume, from pianissimo to fortissimo.

The other principal point is that more or less energy delivered to the keybed does not alter the sound--the sound is created before the key reaches the keybed. That is the point of the analogy of the falling weights. At the moment  the key passes the "point of sound," the piano has no way of responding to how much energy will be delivered to the keybed--all it "knows" is how fast the key is going down. Secure contact with the keybed is important for several reasons, but delivering excessive force into the keybed can be harmful, and is, in fact, a common cause of injury.

The fact that you failed to consider and reference the kinetic energy required to accelerate the key to a given velocity (and only looked at how to calculate energy from final hammer velocity) is precisely where the problem lies.

I quote:

"As mentioned earlier, the kinetic energy delivered to the string is a function of the mass and the velocity of the hammer. But kinetic energy fluctuates not with the velocity but with the square of the velocity. Consequently a change in velocity by a certain percent, say ten percent, will result in a larger change in the kinetic energy delivered to the the string(. ..) This means that seemingly slight changes in the speed of key descent produce large differences in volume and tone quality"

None of this is strictly untrue, on paper, except the last sentence. It will seem very close to a standard proportionality. The change will not seem slight at all to the pianist accelerating the hammer. Keyspeed comes from applying KINETIC ENERGY. That's why it becomes increasingly hard to accelerate something the faster it goes. Velocity is caused by the work done to the key. Doing twice the work on a key does not make for twice the key or hammer velocity, but substantially less than double. Once a key is moving fast it takes vastly more work to increase the velocity even a little. The above paragraph is actively misleading unless you explain the fact that additional velocity becomes progressively harder to achieve, the greater it already is. Even then, it just makes something very simple seem like something very complex.

Essentially, the energy carried by the hammer is proportional to the work we put into it. It's not related to the square of the base action but to the base action itself. The faster we try to move the key, the harder we have to work to make it go even a little faster- which is why our perception is much more closely tied to how much work we do against the key and  hammer rather than of how fast the finger moves. Our margin of error is not amplified at all (as your language would suggest to any non physicist) - because the velocity is the product that we indirectly cause via the WORK we do on the hammer. Velocity is not the the base input but a result of the input against the resistance of the key and hammer- which is why the squaring issue is irrelevant to anything other than abstracted calculations.

 We're left with a close approximation of straight up proportionality between what we perceive going in and what we hear coming out - not the amplified percentage of error that you misleadingly imply. That is cancelled out via the calculation which identifies the velocity achieved from the input of our work done to the hammer. It's straight proportionality between work done on the hammer and the intensity of sound heard - exactly as any layman assumes it to be without needing a single word to be said on the specific equations. In fact, it's not even more complex than what a child left alone with a piano soon discovers. It really is a pretty damned simple correlation between work applied (which we perceive way better than absolute velocity) and tone produced.

Regarding keybedding. I've written two posts with a simple illustration of the folly of the idea that momentum will just vanish if you suddenly relax in the tiny fraction of a second between escapement and keybed. It won't. It will make for an impact. The reality is around redirecting momentum into a different direction, not pretending it to be possible that coasting momentum will vanish into nothing. That is like expecting a car to stop if you cut the engine half a second before meeting a wall. A coasting body will still impact if you don't take active measures to redirect the momentum into an alternative direction.

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/keybedding-to-follow-through-or-to-hold.html

Try to telling any golfer that his swing doesn't matter from the split second after the ball leaves his club. Although true on paper, it's not true when you try to apply such a mindset in practise and can actually wreak havoc. Many pianists are scared of the keybed - which is far more conducive to a hard impact than playing right into contact with intent, but knowing how to redirect momentum away from impact while doing so.

[johnmar78]

Hey Draz,

Nyrihazi is correct. I have been reading some of his blogs and did lots experiment.
I have been working on techniques to gain speed in fast playings. I found that at higher tempo, it relys on momentun of your hands and rebound actions from the key. Think about you are driving a car, at 100km/h  you are using top gears. Where as at slower speed-take off you are using 1 and 2nd gear, which generates more torque=muscle power. By all means you need to transfer your body core and arm hands -weights etc into keys. I found this kind of playing requires minimum energy and efforts, so a smimium finger lifting. Reducing tension = gaining finger speed. At teh end of practice session, you should feel that your 5 tendons and forarm has a slight fatiqu rather than flexors inside your palm. And this is my new findings, if not for myself.  So the power comes from shoulder and transfered thru your forearm and to hands-finger last as your teacher has mentioned. I hope tis clears your confusion.

[nyiregyhazi]

. At teh end of practice session, you should feel that your 5 tendons and forarm has a slight fatiqu rather than flexors inside your palm. And this is my new findings, if not for myself.  So the power comes from shoulder and transfered thru your forearm and to hands-finger last as your teacher has mentioned. I hope tis clears your confusion.

To be honest I really can't agree with either of these last bits. Tiredness in the forearm usually suggests that the hand is being squashed down with excessive force by the arm and that it's having to strain against collapse due to unnecessary workload, ie the keybedding that matthay spoke of. I have a student who constantly stops her arm and presses into a note then stops dead, who is overworking her hand and started getting forearm pains. I'm having to a lot of work on getting her doing constant but subtle sideways movements, to stop her digging down and overworking the forearm. I can get her moving freely in the lesson, but it's very difficult to get her to remember never to stop the arm when practising. As soon as you stop (rather than continue tiny lateral movement), you can expect to be stiff.

The problem with thinking of power from the shoulder is that it can only be a metaphor in fast playing, not a reality. The arm can only transmit power with a downward impulse through the hand. The arm is not quick and enough to do that once per note. It can choose SOME notes and there may be illusion that the same energy flows into the next. But it's actually a series of finger impulses that provides regular energy. Preservation of the energy from an arm impulse through many notes is an illusion that follows on if you have the right feel, but I never accessed that illusion via that belief system. The arm just needs to be kept free while the fingers move. In a literal rebound, every note would get progressively quieter without control or choice. Picture a ball left to bounce. That's not what happens at the piano. I suspect that you're squashing your hand still with either some remaining arm pressure or even too much passive weight for the fingers to move with the utmost freedom. Weighing down too hard only limits scope to move your fingers.

I discovered an approach recently that may be useful. It's helping me phenomenally. Try resting the hand on the keys with as much weight ad possible- but with the constraint that you must not depress a single key. In other words it's not actually that much weight. It does support the arm on the keys, but it's a clear yet rather small level of pressure that the hand bears. I speak more of this in my recent blog post. Rest on the key surfaces with the every finger and press the knuckles back away from them. If every finger is in contact standing on the surfaces with almost but not enough activity to move one key, you can support your arm and get enough stabilisation for every finger to produce big tone. This is enough weight to play from. From here the arm basically goes from side to side as smoothly as possible while the fingers move keys. This is the ultimate test. If your arm is pressing or weighing down too much, it will be impossible to move smoothly and steadily from side to side with the arm. Instead it will be constantly stopping and starting. The consistency of lateral motion is the ultimate yardstick of whether the arm is free enough for the fingers to do their job. This should absolutely not causes forearm tiredness.

[louispodesta]

My late teacher, Robert Weaver, spent the better part of 15 years teaching me how to produce a singing tone, AND I DO!  Play the video link listed above, and listen for yourself.  It is there.

He taught this in two steps.  The first was the common "drop the wrist" method.  The second was to effectuate the same speed of attack principle, with the automatic release that followed, while maintaining the slight arch of the hand and wrist.

You can look at old films of a young Claudio Arrau, and he is dropping his wrists all over the place.

Now then, Alfred Brendel and Andre Watts get an ugly harsh sound out of the piano, and I know of no one on this planet who would ever accuse them of not being able to get around at the piano.

Brendel's Mozart speaks for itself, and I personally heard Watts play the Emperor Concerto in concert.   The slow movement was simply awful.   All you could hear was that harsh sound.

And, the worst was Cliburn.  When he played the G Sharp Minor Prelude for Gorbachev at the White House, he beat on the piano.  I play that piece, and it sounded horrible.

You can pull up the Youtube of his live Rach 2nd Concerto, and he was doing the same thing back then.  Also, no on ever said that he couldn't get around at the piano.

Thomas Mark is right, and his KISS methodology of piano biomechanics far surpasses any other pseudo-biophysics exercises that attempt to attain the same result.  Just ask some of his students, all of whom widely sing his praises.

[nyiregyhazi]

My late teacher, Robert Weaver, spent the better part of 15 years teaching me how to produce a singing tone, AND I DO!  Play the video link listed above, and listen for yourself.  It is there.

He taught this in two steps.  The first was the common "drop the wrist" method.  The second was to effectuate the same speed of attack principle, with the automatic release that followed, while maintaining the slight arch of the hand and wrist.

I'm sorry but I have my own ears. I wouldn't criticise were it not pertinent to the technical discussion, but you don't have ability to layer sounds in a sophisticated way or to blend melodic notes in a smooth way. The excerpt from 118 no 2 features punched accompaniment and forcefully lumpy r.h. chords and there is no space left for the sonorities to resonate. All we get to hear is the noisy beginnings of the notes, punched out in excessively literal metre. I play that passage with the left hand quavers as soft as possible- so they never once supercede the sustain of the right hand part. You're throwing every note in our face, which means they compete too much with the sustain of the melodic part and totally overload it. When you spread your chords, you're not making layers of sound or intertwining the overtones in an interesting blend. Virtually every note of the spreads are near identical volume. Displacement in itself is not inherently interesting without tonal colour. You need to listen to the DYNAMICS behind the likes of Cortot and Horowitz etc., to understand the true function of their hand separations. Every note has its own colour and there is phenomenal differentiation between levels in spread chords. Yours come across like baroque spreads that are conceived towards rhythmic impulse rather than used to generate colour. You won't achieve contrast by rolling arm impulse through braced fingers, rather than using true finger movements to select the intensity of every sound.

https://www.andrewthayer.co.uk/index.php?p=1_5_Videos

I lay no claim to being a great artist, but if you listen to the Liszt petrarch sonnet on my website you'll hear how much I experiment and vary the sound in spread chords. I don't spread as a single rhythmic impulse every time, but instead vary the pacing. Typically I voice the bass first, take a fraction of time (so it can register in the ear before anything competes with it) and then play the next notes extremely softly, before building the sound gradually, to prepare for a more deeply voiced melody note, that can float on top with a totally different quality to the preceding notes. Above all, listen to nyiregyhazi play liszt's 3rd Hungarian rhapsody on youtube. Aside from the outrageous fortissimo, you'll hear the true artistry that comes from spread chords, when musically applied for the sake of texture. And you'll hear just how softly a true artist typically blends in his accompaniment (so as to avoid punching holes between melody notes) when playing cantabile.

[johnmar78]

Andrew, you are right about the excessive downforce to keyboard that causes unecessary tension, esprcially in forarms. A very delicate balance between armweight and key is critical. Perhaps a bit like hoovering, if you know what I mean.

[nyiregyhazi]

Andrew, you are right about the excessive downforce to keyboard that causes unecessary tension, esprcially in forarms. A very delicate balance between armweight and key is critical. Perhaps a bit like hoovering, if you know what I mean.

Do you mean hovering? One comparison I've thought of lately is an electric toothbrush. When I first used one, I found it very strange to simply move it along with my arm and trust the vibration to brush my teeth. My arm wanted to take over and brush like a normal toothbrush. But that isn't it's role. It's role is to gently make adequate contact for the vibration to contact the teeth properly, without jamming the bristles against them.

Likewise with the arm in the foundation movements of piano playing, except the vibration is equivalent to finger movement. You need to make a basic level of contact between hand and keys by letting the arm rest down to some extent. But overdo that and it's like trying to move the electric toothbrush around while permanently keeping it forced hard against your teeth. In both situations, if you can't glide sideways you're doing it wrong. Equally, in the both situations, if the arm is trying to provide the energy rather than simply the contact, you're doing something wrong. Fingers are for moving keys, just as the vibration of bristles are for brushing the teeth.

[johnmar78]

Do you mean hovering? One comparison I've thought of lately is an electric toothbrush. When I first used one, I found it very strange to simply move it along with my arm and trust the vibration to brush my teeth. My arm wanted to take over and brush like a normal toothbrush. But that isn't it's role. It's role is to gently make adequate contact for the vibration to contact the teeth properly, without jamming the bristles against them.

Likewise with the arm in the foundation movements of piano playing, except the vibration is equivalent to finger movement. You need to make a basic level of contact between hand and keys by letting the arm rest down to some extent. But overdo that and it's like trying to move the electric toothbrush around while permanently keeping it forced hard against your teeth. In both situations, if you can't glide sideways you're doing it wrong. Equally, in the both situations, if the arm is trying to provide the energy rather than simply the contact, you're doing something wrong. Fingers are for moving keys, just as the vibration of bristles are for brushing the teeth. 
Yes, Hovering. What you have mentioned is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. Not only that , this kind of approach is very effective doing fast palyings like Chopin op10-4. Or other fast passages.