Does "finger strength" exist?

[gyzzzmo]

You can't have success with Chopin without an unusually responsive fourth.  Why else would the greatest pianist in Europe complain about his 'unpracticed' fourth?

Chopin, the greatest pianist of europe? 

[hardy_practice]

Chopin, the greatest pianist of europe? 

Chopin, the greatest pianist of europe! 

[vansh]

Without a doubt, this has to be one of the dumbest suggestions ever made to improve piano performance.  In answer to the OP's subsequent question, I will furnish the following information:

There used to be a world class concert pianist by the name of Lorin Hollander who started his career in my home town of San Antonio at the age of 13.  He could play anything.

Then, he got the bright idea to play the Prokofiev 5th Concerto on a regular basis.  Now, to cut to the present, in his own words, when he plays his fingers feel like pieces of broken glass.

So, here is an example of how bone fractures ruined a well established career, and also left the pianist to live the rest of his life in excruciating pain.

Man, you couldn't get a hand surgeon or an orthopaedist on this planet to support your idiotic, and very dangerous logic.

Actually it's a pretty established phenomenon. Bones become stronger by being stressed, not to the point of fracture (i.e. a visible major crack), but to where there are microscopic cracks. Osteoclasts (which eat away at the bone) clear out those cracks, then osteoblasts (which form new bone) deposits new bone material. The key is that the re-deposited material is stronger than previous. (Consider also that when a material is subjected to a distributed (i.e. non-point) force, where cracks formed indicate where the material was weakest -- that's why the cracks formed there and not elsewhere. So it's the weakest parts of the bone that are being replaced.) Over time when trained the bones are actually stronger than "normal" people's bones.

Obviously this should be done carefully and gradually, since too much force (or over-use) will result in the bone breaking instead, or the introduction of too many microfractures for the bone to deal with (eventually resulting in a break). However, the bones of weightlifters and martial artists (that specialize in breaking) are measurably stronger than the typical fit person. Incidentally, experiments using animal models (read: lab rats) show that the bone is actually strongest roughly 1-2 weeks after the stress; dissection revealed that it's because during the healing process, the bone will actually first form a mesh-like network "scaffolding" around regions with a lot of microfractures while it repairs them, so the additional strength is due to that material effectively acting as a truss; it gets removed once the repair is complete, leading to a somewhat decrease in the overall strength of the bone.

But while yes in theory you can strengthen your fingers by jabbing or slapping them at walls, it's not particularly germane to piano-playing since bone strength is usually not a constraint (and if it is, I'd say either you're overusing your hands or you should work on your technique, i.e. pressing into the keybed too hard). I think he was just being facetious; although this will increase "finger strength" in the sense of "how much force can the finger withstand before a bone fractures", it will do little to help "finger strength" in the sense of "how loud or fast can I play trills" which depends on coordination of the finger muscles which, of course, are actually in the forearm.

[kakeithewolf]

Actually it's a pretty established phenomenon. Bones become stronger by being stressed, not to the point of fracture (i.e. a visible major crack), but to where there are microscopic cracks. Osteoclasts (which eat away at the bone) clear out those cracks, then osteoblasts (which form new bone) deposits new bone material. The key is that the re-deposited material is stronger than previous. (Consider also that when a material is subjected to a distributed (i.e. non-point) force, where cracks formed indicate where the material was weakest -- that's why the cracks formed there and not elsewhere. So it's the weakest parts of the bone that are being replaced.) Over time when trained the bones are actually stronger than "normal" people's bones.

Obviously this should be done carefully and gradually, since too much force (or over-use) will result in the bone breaking instead, or the introduction of too many microfractures for the bone to deal with (eventually resulting in a break). However, the bones of weightlifters and martial artists (that specialize in breaking) are measurably stronger than the typical fit person. Incidentally, experiments using animal models (read: lab rats) show that the bone is actually strongest roughly 1-2 weeks after the stress; dissection revealed that it's because during the healing process, the bone will actually first form a mesh-like network "scaffolding" around regions with a lot of microfractures while it repairs them, so the additional strength is due to that material effectively acting as a truss; it gets removed once the repair is complete, leading to a somewhat decrease in the overall strength of the bone.

But while yes in theory you can strengthen your fingers by jabbing or slapping them at walls, it's not particularly germane to piano-playing since bone strength is usually not a constraint (and if it is, I'd say either you're overusing your hands or you should work on your technique, i.e. pressing into the keybed too hard). I think he was just being facetious; although this will increase "finger strength" in the sense of "how much force can the finger withstand before a bone fractures", it will do little to help "finger strength" in the sense of "how loud or fast can I play trills" which depends on coordination of the finger muscles which, of course, are actually in the forearm.

Precisely. The thread merely asked how to strengthen fingers, not specifying the way it was to be strengthened in. So I gave a technically true but absurdist and extreme way of strengthening fingers. Essentially my way of saying "Clarify, please.".

[gyzzzmo]

3 things that most likely have the biggest impact on how great pianists have so much control over their fingers (what you call 'finger strength'):

- Playing alot
- Playing alot on young age so the brains and finger/arm physiology adapt during growth
- Genetics


So if you want the finger strength of Zimmerman, do the first one more, hope you did the second, and be lucky on the third

[awesom_o]

Why do people always seem to spell Zimerman incorrectly?  

[gyzzzmo]

Why do people always seem to spell Zimerman incorrectly?  

Because most people (like me) pronounce his name like he's a German i suppose

[gapoc459]

It's supposed to be TSEE-mehr-mahn, no? Not ZIH-mur-men, I don't think, even though I pronounce it like that all the time.

[tom1205]

For one to fully appreciate the so called "finger strength", please visit the articulation goddess Valentina Lisitsa. - No one articulates better than her.

Her "patent staccato" is what makes her stand out. It is the definition of impeccable articulation, seamless legato, and flawless phrasing. Many people reject her because her playing sounds computer-generated - but you have to think, who else on this planet can achieve this level of "robotic-ness"?

Note how similar the hand shape between Valentina and Zimmerman :

Both of them have the perfect hand shape, but Valentina just liberates her fingers more by giving it a lighter touch and staccato to the keyboard.


Anyways, back to "finger strength", Valentina sure seems like she has just raw pure force in each of her iron-like fingers. But the question is, where is this force generated from? I tend to think the force comes more from the ARM, rather than generated from "fingers" per se.

Also, her hand shape allows her to generate force efficiently - it resembles a dome bridge , see link

https://blog.preservationnation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sugar-Pine-Bridge-CA-99-61.jpg

So the answer to your question about finger strength, here's how I take it (inspired by V):

1. Force comes from your ARM muscles mostly (note how when you move your fingers, your arm muscles flex as well). EVERY adult has enough muscle MASS that is sufficient to play forte. However, most people don't have enough muscle ENDURANCE and sensitize neural network to play fast and articulate, and for long periods of time (long phrases). So for finger exercises (i.e. "weight training") you are not increasing your arm muscle mass per se, but instead you are increasing your muscle endurance (so you won't feel tense and tired) and increasing your neural network sensitivity (so you can play fast and develop finger independence).

2. Also, remember there is force from gravity by just placing your fingers on the keyboard and let your arms droop, while your fingers cling to the keyboard. Utilizing this force can make life easier.



- I guess the idea is to maximize gravity force and minimize muscle force

3. The arch (or dome hand shape) allows you to maximize your force against the keyboard generated from your arm.


- Advice to achieve more finger independence: when you are first learning a piece, playing everything FORTE + STACCATO and don't be afraid to BANG on the keyboard, make sure you generate the fullest force for each finger and note - at the mean time also maintain the proper hand shape (dome shape). In other words, your HAND SHAPE should look constantly the SAME throughout playing the whole piece. At first, this exercise will make your wrist tense - but KEEP GOING because this exercise helps you develop the neurons on the BACK of your hand and muscles on your forearm. Then after this switch to FORTE + LEGATO, while maintaining your dome shaped hands. For legato, the key is to press your whole finger + hand into the keyboard deep (imagine your fingers are glued to the keyboard, then move your hand up and down - you should feel that your fingers are CLINGING onto the keyboard, while your wrist is relaxed and can move freely)


- Also just to add, your fingers bones should be straight and parallel with your hand bones at all times, and it is your VERY TIP of your fingers that should be touching the keys - See V's hand shape. Good dome shape and flatten your back of your hand will provide STRONG backbone support for your fingers to generated EFFICIENT force.

- To sum up: Hand shape is everything.

[awesom_o]

Valentina Lisitsa. - No one articulates better than her.

I've got to admit, you've rather lost me here. 

[pianoman53]

Valentina Lisitsa. - No one articulates better than her.

So articulation means "playing flat"? If there is anything else, I'm, just as awesome_o, completely lost.

[awesom_o]

Good dome shape and flatten your back of your hand will provide STRONG backbone support for your fingers to generated EFFICIENT force.

- To sum up: Hand shape is everything.

I think what you've written here is quite truthful... I simply find Mme Lisitsa's playing to be a bit boring.

[tom1205]

So articulation means "playing flat"? If there is anything else, I'm, just as awesome_o, completely lost.

Like I said, many people reject her because her playing sounds "flat" or "computer generated".

For me personally, I find her "flat" playing rather attractive, because it brings out the momentum and energy level that certain pieces require (i.e. moonlight mvmt 3, chopin etudes). After listening to her, I find myself not being able to listen to any other versions because all of them lack her keen sense of articulation, evenness, rhythm and energy in her fingers. V's playing is minimalistic, no-bullshit, straight to the point, solid, and purposeful - not too much, not too little, just perfect.

So, for me, yes, I prefer a "flat/articulated/even/perfect rhythm/with just a tiny touch of rubato or emotion or whatever you call it" playing over some ambiguous playing where I cannot hear each and every note crystal clear, with density and constant energy.

- Also, I find it the more "flat/articulated/robotic/whatever you call it" she plays, the more PRECIOUS her "emotional rubato moments" are. This is why I like her playing.

- Although I have to admit, sometimes she lacks finesse compared to Zimerman. But I still like her no-bullshit style better.

- For me, clarity, finger consciousness, and phrasing is most important in piano playing. Everything else comes second.

[j_menz]

Goshdarnit! I bet good money this thread couldn't get any stupider! 

[tom1205]

I think what you've written here is quite truthful... I simply find Mme Lisitsa's playing to be a bit boring.

How is her moonlight mvmt 3 boring? She brings out the darkness in this piece, the constant struggle and agitato of beethoven - it's as if you can visualize beethoven in his darkest moments struggling for hope. If she can bring such intense emotion out of this piece, I don't think her playing is at all "robotic" or "boring" or "flat" (as the person above you calls it).

- Just curious, what do you define as "interesting" or "boring" playing? What's your favorite version of moonlight 3?

[j_menz]

but you have to think, who else on this planet can achieve this level of "robotic-ness"?

I don't think her playing is at all "robotic" ... (as the person above you calls it).

Are you arguing solo? 

[awesom_o]

- Just curious, what do you define as "interesting" or "boring" playing?

I don't really have blanket definitions of either. I've always considered this particular performance by Lisitsa, for example,

to be quite inspired and thrilling. That piece really speaks to her and fits her temperment perfectly.

Her performance of the op. 27/2 is very respectable, and I wouldn't call it boring (I would reserve that adjective for some of her Chopin). It's not at the level that I would be comfortable paying money to hear in a big venue.

I quite like this recorded version:

Kuerti's is also superb.

[j_menz]

Aren't we somehow conflating mechanical style with interpretation here? I appreciate that mechanical limitations will adversely affect the result, but even with a technique that allows one to do anything, the result will be dreary if the conception is poor.

[tom1205]

Aren't we somehow conflating mechanical style with interpretation here? I appreciate that mechanical limitations will adversely affect the result, but even with a technique that allows one to do anything, the result will be dreary if the conception is poor.

But good technique and articulation is the prerequisite, before you talk about conception at all. You need to train your fingers to be ABLE to do anything you want FIRST, THEN you can tell it to do whatever you want it to do. And I think Valentina is the only few pianist that actually succeeds in articulating notes to a level that ALLOWS her interpretation and conception and ideas to transmit

[tom1205]

I don't really have blanket definitions of either. I've always considered this particular performance by Lisitsa, for example,

to be quite inspired and thrilling. That piece really speaks to her and fits her temperment perfectly.

Her performance of the op. 27/2 is very respectable, and I wouldn't call it boring (I would reserve that adjective for some of her Chopin). It's not at the level that I would be comfortable paying money to hear in a big venue.

I quite like this recorded version:

Kuerti's is also superb.

Just by comparing the first phrase (G#,C#,E,G#...etc) between Valentina and Glenn in moonlight 3:

1. You can hear Valentina's notes are dense, solid, even, steady, articulate, with gradual crescendo in between EACH note, and her legato is flawless
2. However when you listen to Glenn, although articulate, but the "density" of each note is less, and the legato and clarity isn't as well

[cometear]

Just by comparing the first phrase (G#,C#,E,G#...etc) between Valentina and Glenn in moonlight 3:

1. You can hear Valentina's notes are dense, solid, even, steady, articulate, with gradual crescendo in between EACH note, and her legato is flawless
2. However when you listen to Glenn, although articulate, but the "density" of each note is less, and the legato and clarity isn't as well

In general, I enjoy Lisitsa but Gould really blew me away with his rendition of it. I absolutely hate his Bach though

[j_menz]

But good technique and articulation is the prerequisite, before you talk about conception at all. You need to train your fingers to be ABLE to do anything you want FIRST, THEN you can tell it to do whatever you want it to do. And I think Valentina is the only few pianist that actually succeeds in articulating notes to a level that ALLOWS her interpretation and conception and ideas to transmit

You've missed a rather important step. You also need to make sure that "whatever you want to do" is actually worth doing.  A bad idea perfectly executed is still a bad idea.

[tom1205]

You've missed a rather important step. You also need to make sure that "whatever you want to do" is actually worth doing.  A bad idea perfectly executed is still a bad idea.

And what exactly is a "bad idea"? Who decides if one's playing is a good idea or bad? It's totally up to each person's opinions. Your "good idea" may be a "bad idea" to someone else. On the other hand however, the quality and articulation of notes is judged universally by one standard - whether you can hear the notes clear or not.

Also, a good idea badly executed is not worth even listening to - all it would sound is amateurish and unprofessional.

I would prefer listening to a good execution + boring idea over good idea + sloppy execution any day.

[j_menz]

Also, a good idea badly executed is not worth even listening to - all it would sound is amateurish and unprofessional.

Undoubtedly.

I would prefer listening to a good execution + boring idea over good idea + sloppy execution any day.

I'd prefer not to listen to either, frankly. Good idea + good execution is really the only way to go.

the quality and articulation of notes is judged universally by one standard - whether you can hear the notes clear or not.

You need to get out more.  Clarity is often a virtue, but not in every circumstance. And it is a matter of degree in any case, and so also a matter of taste (within bounds).

(The grammar police are at lunch, so you're in luck.)

[tom1205]

Clarity is often a virtue, but not in every circumstance. And it is a matter of degree in any case, and so also a matter of taste (within bounds).

Here's where we drift apart: I think clarity is ALWAYS a virtue. Clarity stems from finger consciousness, and there is NO excuse to play without maximal consciousness of each note.
The "degree of clarity" you are talking about isn't really clarity; rather, it is the degree of making each note more or less conspicuous/audible or not. You can change the degree of conspicuousness by varying touch, dynamic - but even in the most obscured/misty/ambiguous passages, the consciousness of each note still has to be solid. This criteria is what I usually use to filter good pianists from bad pianists.

Zimerman and Valentina are both examples of pianists with superb finger consciousness and clarity - however Zimerman cares more about finesse and detail - Valentina cares more about momentum and energy. BOTH have GOOD IDEA + GOOD EXECUTION. However who to listen to is a matter of taste.

[j_menz]

I think clarity is ALWAYS a virtue.

Art is to great to allow for absolutes.

BTW, I'm thinking of a piece of music that specifies that tone blocks be played with a piece of wood of specified dimension. Where does clarity, or even "finger consciousness" (whatever that is) come in?

[louispodesta]

So I don't really know much about hand and arm anatomy, but I've heard people tell others who ask about increasing "finger strength" something along the lines of "you're stupid; fingers don't have muscles!" In the case that that is true, what exactly is the physiological prerequisite of really good technique? Like I watch Zimerman's interpretations of the Beethoven concertos; he plays extremely fast passages (and trills!) brilliantly and loudly on every key. How can I train my hands and body to be able to play like this, and more importantly, what is it that he is doing that I am not in order to achieve this?

I have responded to this thread in the past, and I assumed it would subside just as other threads have done so.  However, it has not.

Therefore, as a classical pianist/philosopher, who as an empiricist puts forth logical empirical arguments, I proffer the following discourse:

1)  I am 62 years old and I have a relatively small hand with spindly fingers.  Also, I have Psoriatic Arthritis, which makes extended practice sessions a non-reality.

2)  Until my hernia tear got worse many years ago, I spent the better part of 20 years working out a body-building gym.  These days, I do a very short cardiac exercise routine, in my home, twice a day.

From childhood, I played useless Hanon exercises, coupled with scales and arpeggios for 20 years.  And, as was stated heretofore, I am 62!

Lately, I am polishing up the L'Isle joyeuse, the Schumann Piano Concerto, and I am learning the Rach 2nd Piano Concerto, in addition to working on many other pieces

As a result, I am daily stressing my fourth finger, as well as placing the ulnar nerve in both hands in jeopardy.   In that my coach is Thomas Mark, I take extra precautions with every keystroke.

So, what I have added to my cardiac exercise routine is a ten repetition exercise with my chest expander wherein I grab the two handles with emphasis on the thumb and forefinger for half of the exercise, and then the outside of the hand for the rest.  It has made a significant difference in maintaining and somewhat increasing the overall strength of my hand.

My logic goes back to what a body builder taught me 30 years ago about steroids.  He taught me that the reason most body builders get hurt who use steroids is that the muscle tissue grows much faster than the corresponding ligaments and tendons that attach/support them.

As to the original point of the post, what that means is that you have to grow the corresponding ligaments and tendons located in the fingers of your hand at the same rate you are increasing the muscle strength of the lower muscles of your forearm.  And, that ain't going to happen by playing any stupid exercise, arpeggio or scale.

It can only happen through a combined forearm/hand action similar to what I do with my chest expander.  Very old school musicians who were violinists or pianists used to rave about the benefits of working in their home gardens.  This was a natural way of working all of these muscles, ligaments and tendons, along with the mental therapeutic value of this type of physical activity.

My late piano teacher use to relax and chat with his students between lessons/classes while gently squeezing a palm-sized pliable rubber ball.  It ain't a bad idea, come to think of it, because it involves a natural action of the hand.  He had hands like iron.

[j_menz]

He had hands like iron.

Cold, rigid and rather brittle?

[cometear]

I have responded to this thread in the past, and I assumed it would subside just as other threads have done so.  However, it has not.

Therefore, as a classical pianist/philosopher, who as an empiricist puts forth logical empirical arguments, I proffer the following discourse:

1)  I am 62 years old and I have a relatively small hand with spindly fingers.  Also, I have Psoriatic Arthritis, which makes extended practice sessions a non-reality.

2)  Until my hernia tear got worse many years ago, I spent the better part of 20 years working out a body-building gym.  These days, I do a very short cardiac exercise routine, in my home, twice a day.

From childhood, I played useless Hanon exercises, coupled with scales and arpeggios for 20 years.  And, as was stated heretofore, I am 62!

Lately, I am polishing up the L'Isle joyeuse, the Schumann Piano Concerto, and I am learning the Rach 2nd Piano Concerto, in addition to working on many other pieces

As a result, I am daily stressing my fourth finger, as well as placing the ulnar nerve in both hands in jeopardy.   In that my coach is Thomas Mark, I take extra precautions with every keystroke.

So, what I have added to my cardiac exercise routine is a ten repetition exercise with my chest expander wherein I grab the two handles with emphasis on the thumb and forefinger for half of the exercise, and then the outside of the hand for the rest.  It has made a significant difference in maintaining and somewhat increasing the overall strength of my hand.

My logic goes back to what a body builder taught me 30 years ago about steroids.  He taught me that the reason most body builders get hurt who use steroids is that the muscle tissue grows much faster than the corresponding ligaments and tendons that attach/support them.

As to the original point of the post, what that means is that you have to grow the corresponding ligaments and tendons located in the fingers of your hand at the same rate you are increasing the muscle strength of the lower muscles of your forearm.  And, that ain't going to happen by playing any stupid exercise, arpeggio or scale.

It can only happen through a combined forearm/hand action similar to what I do with my chest expander.  Very old school musicians who were violinists or pianists used to rave about the benefits of working in their home gardens.  This was a natural way of working all of these muscles, ligaments and tendons, along with the mental therapeutic value of this type of physical activity.

My late piano teacher use to relax and chat with his students between lessons/classes while gently squeezing a palm-sized pliable rubber ball.  It ain't a bad idea, come to think of it, because it involves a natural action of the hand.  He had hands like iron.

Does Mark teach rotational motions, shaping, in and out and the sort? How related to the Taubman Approach is it? Just curious as I am a devout student of the Taubman work.

[hardy_practice]

My logic goes back to what a body builder taught me 30 years ago about steroids.  He taught me that the reason most body builders get hurt who use steroids is that the muscle tissue grows much faster than the corresponding ligaments and tendons that attach/support them.

Finally the real the deciding factor! - ligaments and their poor blood supply.

[louispodesta]

"Does Mark teach rotational motions, shaping, in and out and the sort? How related to the Taubman Approach is it? Just curious as I am a devout student of the Taubman work."

Thomas Mark, author of "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body," is a former Taubman practice coach.  He has taken her teaching to the next level by combining it with the training his has as a Certified Alexander Technique coach.

His book is highly recommended by piano faculty members throughout the U.S., and his website www.pianomap.com goes into extensive discussions on the biomechanics associated with playing the piano.

The major difference between his use of rotation and Taubman is that his point of articulation is the sternovanicular joint where the collar bone joins the sternum.  This allows a full range of motion of the shoulder, arm, forearm, and hand, when playing.

[cometear]

"Does Mark teach rotational motions, shaping, in and out and the sort? How related to the Taubman Approach is it? Just curious as I am a devout student of the Taubman work."

Thomas Mark, author of "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body," is a former Taubman practice coach.  He has taken her teaching to the next level by combining it with the training his has as a Certified Alexander Technique coach.

His book is highly recommended by piano faculty members throughout the U.S., and his website www.pianomap.com goes into extensive discussions on the biomechanics associated with playing the piano.

The major difference between his use of rotation and Taubman is that his point of articulation is the sternovanicular joint where the collar bone joins the sternum.  This allows a full range of motion of the shoulder, arm, forearm, and hand, when playing.

Thank you, I believe we've talked before about this. Unfortunately, I do not have intention of switching

[louispodesta]

"Does Mark teach rotational motions, shaping, in and out and the sort? How related to the Taubman Approach is it? Just curious as I am a devout student of the Taubman work."

One more time:  Yes, he does all of those things, and here comes some bad news:  I have learned that most so-called Taubman teachers (those recommended by Edna Golandsky) do not strictly adhere to the Taubman method when teaching private students.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am playing effortlessly for the first time in my life thanks to Thomas Mark, who as a PhD. Philosopher adheres to the pedagogical philosophy that one size does not always fit all.

The first thing that he tells you in a coaching session is that your goal is to position your finger/fingers over the right note/notes by first positioning your whole body to be in balance and then moving your entire arm (articulating from the sternovanicular joint) so you can rotate, shape, or do anything else required of a particular passage.

This nonsense of rotate the forearm and the rest will follow is like telling someone to stick their foot out and then start walking.  And make no mistake about it, Thomas Mark will be the first person to give full credit to Dorothy Taubman for her immense contributions to piano technique pedagogy.

[cometear]

"Does Mark teach rotational motions, shaping, in and out and the sort? How related to the Taubman Approach is it? Just curious as I am a devout student of the Taubman work."

One more time:  Yes, he does all of those things, and here comes some bad news:  I have learned that most so-called Taubman teachers (those recommended by Edna Golandsky) do not strictly adhere to the Taubman method when teaching private students.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am playing effortlessly for the first time in my life thanks to Thomas Mark, who as a PhD. Philosopher adheres to the pedagogical philosophy that one size does not always fit all.

The first thing that he tells you in a coaching session is that your goal is to position your finger/fingers over the right note/notes by first positioning your whole body to be in balance and then moving your entire arm (articulating from the sternovanicular joint) so you can rotate, shape, or do anything else required of a particular passage.

This nonsense of rotate the forearm and the rest will follow is like telling someone to stick their foot out and then start walking.  And make no mistake about it, Thomas Mark will be the first person to give full credit to Dorothy Taubman for her immense contributions to piano technique pedagogy.

Sorry, I meant to thank you before saying that. I do respect his great contributions as well, I'm sure it is very effective as well.

[thomasmgill]

Just by comparing the first phrase (G#,C#,E,G#...etc) between Valentina and Glenn in moonlight 3:

1. You can hear Valentina's notes are dense, solid, even, steady, articulate, with gradual crescendo in between EACH note, and her legato is flawless
2. However when you listen to Glenn, although articulate, but the "density" of each note is less, and the legato and clarity isn't as well

However, Beethoven did not write in a crescendo there.
Additionally, her sforzandi are bombastic. They are sforzandi within piano, not forte sforzandi!

[louispodesta]

Finally the real the deciding factor! - ligaments and their poor blood supply.

In that I have a small hand and spiindly fingers, I should have know better than to aggressively try to polish the Rach 2nd, which I love.  Subsequently, I injured the ligament/tendon on the top of my forearm just three inches above where the hand joins the wrist. (I assume some of you have or have been in a similar predicament).

So, initially, I changed repertoire to let it heal on itself, and that had only minor success.  Then, I remembered the old physical therapy regimen of "hot and cold."

No need to bore you with the details, but that regimen of therapy drastically increased the blood flow to the affected area, and the results were instant.

Thank you "thomasgill."

[louispodesta]

The forearm is healed, and furthermore due to the temporary rest I forced myself to do, the tendons in my right hand have (at the age of 62) actually grown stronger allowing me to aggressively make the Schumann Concerto ready for rehearsal with my practice coach.

Thank you,  "thomasgill."

[mohab95]

Yes there exists finger strength. However it is not what you develop primarily through your studies of piano, rather the coordination and independence of each finger, even the weak ones. This is usually misunderstood as strength where as if you observe a little child can move the keys of the piano just fine without much effort.
Strive for complete finger independence (which never happens due to the anatomy of the hand) but as they say: "Shoot for the stars, for even if you miss you will be among them".

[nyiregyhazi]

The forearm is healed, and furthermore due to the temporary rest I forced myself to do, the tendons in my right hand have (at the age of 62) actually grown stronger allowing me to aggressively make the Schumann Concerto ready for rehearsal with my practice coach.

Thank you,  "thomasgill."

I'm glad to hear that, but be aware that if you put less pressure on to your hand with the arm, you wouldn't be working them so hard.