I'm afraid the mechanics are that complex. You're lucky, the brain deals with it on a pre-conscious level (until you damage yourself).

Agreed. Personally I'd say that understanding how to move comfortably from the knuckles is all you need to worry about for this aspect. I'm not currently seeing any benefits or practical differences that derive from worrying about the physiology.

Well so far I've managed not to damage myself. And considering my repertoire, I think I'm safe..

The mechanics are rather simple. The simplest basis for technique involves reducing the number of variables, by setting up a two-sided support system where the finger moves the key and the arm provides counterforce through passive actions- followed by a state of ongoing balance at both ends. It's only complex if you make it complex by adding too many variables- eg. employing muscular efforts around the wrist and elbow and having to cope with the countless changes in state that must follow.

Met with the considerable resistance of piano keys, whatever strength they do have won't last long.

This is where you go wrong. If you actually read about the hand rather than wait for me to post, you'd know differently.

End of the lesson, I think.

For practical purposes, I agree with this:
But if you're determined to be theoretical, I agree with this:

Yeh, I can go with that. For players, think of it as simple, no fixing less'n it's broke! It's different for teachers.

I read your post. What I FEEL when moving my fingers in what I perceive as being simple actions IS simple. So I do not need to worry about those complexities. My brain has covered them, thankyou. By doing a lot of very slow movements away from the keyboard I have learned the lowest effort for different types. That is all you need. When you interact with the complexity of EXTERNAL forces that you need to maintain as much simplicity as possible. The fewer the variables the easier it is.

A "Hitler salute" uses countless muscles but is felt as a simple action. Why would we need to make that complex when it simply doesn't need to be?

This is not where I am "going wrong" but precisely where I am going right. By turning a complex jumble of previously intricate interdependent issues into a simply premise of pulling with a finger and supporting/releasing at the shoulder (keeping both elbow and wrist 100% supported without internal efforts), my technique has been transforming itself beyond recognition. This part IS simple. The finger acts, aided by the passive existence of the arms weight and then maintains the balance it arrived in. It's inherently simple- compared to an intricate web of rapidly fluctuating fixations and intentions of instant releases.

I do not fight the resistance of the piano keys head-on, as you do. I use the absorption of loosened joints, not ones that stiffen and then try to release before impact.

Get yourself a powerball if you're worried about strength. Compared to that, moving a piano key feels like moving your finger through a piece of sponge. You just have to be conscious of how to redirect spare energy.

As for fixing unless something is broke, are you telling me that your videos illustrate the epitome of piano technique? Perhaps you're settling for what you can do within your limits, but as far as I'm concerned, until something like the Liszt Sonata is extremely simple to play (rather than merely manageable) my own technique is certainly "broke". I intend to go on fixing it for as long as it takes.

Speaking as someone trained in human anatomy and with an advanced degree .....and who was interested enough in the subject to take electives in hand surgery, I agree with you in terms of any practical standpoints for 99% of us, 99% of the time. Regarding the other 1%, I'm just not sure.

Let them do this stuff. It looks interesting -- to them at least.

And you never know what might come of it -- as long as they keep their heads on straight and don't try to make more of any finding or factoid than is merited, which unfortunately people in that field usually tend to do.

Frozenicicles: I see that you said basically the same thing, but more efficiently.

Nyir: I think that you and KBK have been conducting this quite well, considering your differences. Let me add that you don't seem to realize that when you keep referring so prominently to what you experience, you are reinforcing the point that many of us speak of: that the teachings coming out of such work don't necessarily apply to everyone. You're getting it very much from your own personal experience, which is how it usually is for this kind of work. The findings and teachings could be valid for the author himself, but not necessarily for pianists in general. To the extent that much of the mechanics (you would probably say "all") is pure fact, there is still the issue of the extent to which those aspects are important, in the context of all the other mechanics that are involved -- and there are always more than any given analysis deals with.

Godwin's law already?

That's just the example I always give for this. It uses an intricate combination of a number of muscles in very precise coordination but is felt as one singular action. No implications are to be drawn from that reference. It just illustrates the fact that some complexities have no practical consequences. When looking at what is perceived, the simpler the better (as long as it does not overlook important factors in order to be simple). That is very much the basis of my own model- contrary to the assumptions that a number of members are eager to leap to.

True. The basis for my model however, is that consistent two-sided balance of a series of freely supported joints (except at the extremities) always contains considerably less intertwined variables than one sided balance with constant fluctuations of state. It also contains substantially less internal efforts for stable balance to occur. I believe that is fully factually verifiable.

Thanks for the nice reply -- but let me say that this brief and nice reply shows one of the problems with much of your work: even though you're speaking to someone with more of a relevant background than probably 999 out of 1000 readers, I have little idea what you're talking about, and to the extent that I can make something of it, it seems overly dogmatic and simplistic.

(Yes -- both too complex and too simplistic at the same time.)

I think people with any less background just won't get it at all, and those with more background will find much that they disagree with.

Bit short on the facts though? Not that I get any of it either.

That's why I'm writing it up thoroughly on the blog and using diagrams to illustrate. Check out the end of my most recent post, where I establish the concept. You seem interested in discussing the merits of my intentions aplenty, but I still haven't heard any thoughts from you regarding the actual work in progress. Something that is horizontally outstretched from a fixed point cannot keep free hinges stable unless supported at the other end. In one way support Each hinge must be stabilised, or they will collapse. Simply balance at the other end, and the hinges are supported for "free".

That such a simple and obvious premise is not used as standard for explaining HOW to release the wrist and elbow is beyond me. And no, kbk. That is not short on facts.

I'd be nice if you cited some references in your work.

Try any book about mechanics. It is an absolute. Not opinion. There is no disagreement upon the fact that a system of joints that is supported by two ends does not require fixation of any of its joints. That's why a chain that is anchored at two ends is stable, as long as it is kept taut. Neither does anyone have the opinion that a series of free joints can be extended horizontally without collapsing- unless added forces hold it together (ie. tensions at the elbow and wrist). That is why a chain falls to the ground when supported from a single point.

Do I really have to sound like a conspiracy loon for stating something so mind-boggling obvious?

kbk and N, it might be nice if you two actually thoroughly examined each other's work out of professional interest rather than trying to disprove each other. As Mark has said, you may find that your techniques are not mutually exclusive - you are also approaching them from vastly different theoretical grounds. Anyway, I don't think there's anyone else on this forum who is as motivated to wade through all this theory as you two...I considered reading all this in-depth, including reviewing my physics and anatomy, but I have other things I'd rather do (and should do).

That's got to be the poorest citation I've ever encountered!

Yes -- and, to give proper credit, I was largely following up on what Kreisler said on another thread.

I'm not portraying anything as mutually exclusive. I'm explaining the base level of the simplest and lowest tension means of movement. I use countless variations- even fixation of the arm once in a while- if I deliberately want a really rough, percussive tone for an occasional effect (quite handy in the Horowitz Carmen Fantasy). However, I don't believe that any pianist in history has ever acquired even a remotely professional technique without some basis in being able to use this style of low-effort balance. There's no other way I can conceive of to play rapid legato without strain and uneveness. Such things require consistency, not perpetual instability.

You're asking me to find a book that proves that 1 + 1 = 2. I believe there is one using sets, but I'm not going to waste my time. I literally mean ANY book on foundation mechanics. Unless written by complete idiots, the laws have not differed for hundreds of years. Citations are for matters of opinion, not for facts.

If you want proof of what I say, fix a chain to the wall and see if it will stay out horizontally or not- without each successive link having to be fixed to the next one, instead of free. Then connect a chain to two ends (spaced the length of the chain) and see if it hangs without collapsing or not.

If you want proof such a stupidly simple premise then buy a chain.

The first half of the sentence I get - I can see why you have no sources.

I have no sources because mechanics is fact. Were I to waste my time writing the full proof, you would not understand it without any background in the subject. I do not appreciate such tedious, flippant sarcasm. Do you ask a mechanical engineer for "sources" too? Do have any interest in the subject matter- or simply in trying to discredit me with empty spin?

If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing.

If you are not prepared to further this with anything other than the absurd request for sources, please do not waste my time. I should be asking you for your sources of how a structure of free joints can supposedly "hang" without internal efforts or a second point of support. That's an "opinion" that definitely would require a specific citation, if you'd like to attempt to promote it.

Nyir: Before getting mad and telling him not to waste your time, please realize that he's the main person here -- probably the only -- with whom you have any chance of getting somewhere. The rest of us are either left behind, turned off, and/or largely uninterested.

The whole point of citations is you don't need to write full proofs - others have done much of the work.

Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature. ~Martin H. Fischer

Funnily enough, mechanics is based on using your OWN application of fundamental laws- which others have done. Those laws are in every textbook of foundation mechanics, as I told you. Surprisingly enough, not every single possible mechanical scenario has been written out in a text book. I'm not being drawn into such a ridiculous attempt to divert this from the subject- and neither am I spending my time preparing a detailed model of forces that you would be clueless about.

If you're so skeptical, get yourself a chain and start preparing those photos for me and find me your own source of how free joints can "hang" in a one-ended system of support, as you claim. If your mind is even slightly open (and you're actually interested in the subject matter rather than in arguing a predetermined idea at all costs) you'll stop to ask yourself why its impossible to do make a chain do that and what implications that has about an arm at a keyboard...

This is not a political forum where we can put a nice spin on our favourite politicians and a negative one on opposing sides. We are discussing absolute laws that determine possibility in piano playing. If you're only interested in trying to discredit my argument with flippant remarks, there is nothing to be gained for anybody. If you're interested in learning more about what is physically possible at a piano, try looking at what I have to say with an open mind.

Well, just don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't supply your readers with the appropriate references. I can't think of one non-fiction volume or paper I own or have ever seen without them - unless it's autobiography!