I'm very aware how dangerous it is to have students playing with tense hands, but I don't seem able to find the trick to relaxing them.

I've tried the tips in the start of the piano adventures primers - arms like heavy ropes, unfurl hands like flowers, an arms length from the fallboard etc. I am very strict about getting students to play on their fingertips. I've told them to lift their wrists higher, relax their shoulders, let their arms hang heavy, use the weight of their arm to push their fingers down instead of muscles in their hands...it's driving me nuts that i can't get these kids to play with relaxed fingers!

What am I doing wrong?

You cannot play on fingertips without tension. If you use the pads the hand can take its natural shape as Chopin advocated.

I observed this exercise at a master class:

Take both hands, raise them a foot above the keys, and just let the hands fall freely onto the keys. Repeat several times until the student is completely free of tension. Let gravity do all the work. Then, gradually let the free fall land on specific fingers and notes.

I used to be strict on hand shapes, but I've worked with a few kids who play with flat fingers--not by choice but by physical necessity. As soon as these kids try to form round hand shapes, their joints collapse inwardly.

mitts off, are you talking about dhildren or adults.

I'm talking about children. I know partly it's to do with building strength in their hands, but I'm sure there must be more tricks out there that haven't crossed my path yet and I wanna know em!

I agree with AZNpiano's technique which I also observed through a master class with jazz pianist Kenny Werner. I think this technique can work for kids and adults. Kids tend to take to it because it's kind of fun to just drop your hand on the piano...

Probably more suitable for your older students, but having your students check out Kenny Werner's book "effortless mastery" could be a resource on how to relax tension at the piano. The book also comes with meditation like cds to promote relaxation

I think it's also important to realize that for many students, fixing a problem like this can take months. There is no exercise that, done only a few times, creates the habit you want.

All of the above advice is good, but a big part of teaching is having the faith to take that advice and implement it in every lesson the student has over a period of months or years. I've seen kbk's hand shape advice and AZN's arm drop in countless masterclasses with students ranging in age from 6 to 26. Why? Because it's good advice and deserves attention throughout one's student years.

Good point Kreisler, like most things important with learning piano there isn't an easy fix!

Mitts off, what you're doing wrong, in my view, is
trying to force some theoretically correct way of
playing on your students. This way might work for
you and the person who devised it, but everyone
is different physiologically and psychologically,
and no one way of playing is going to suit everyone--
in particular this arm-weight method, which I see
as fundamentally flawed. In the 17th to 19th centuries
students where taught to play with a coin on the
back of the hand, for the very reason that it prevents
using arm-weight to play and gets you playing mostly
from the fingers and hands, which is the simplest
and most efficient way to play. People today sneer at this
old way of playing as out of date, but all the great
players, Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmanioff, etc.
learned this way.

If you play like that on a modern grand piano, you are severely limiting your range of dynamics and tonal colors.

It cannot be simultaneously true that (1) "no one way of playing is going to suit everyone" and (2) your method is "the simplest and most efficient way to play." Furthermore, your assertion that "all" the great players learned that way is absurd.

Steven

This is important:

The key is quietly observing then subtly guiding. Many teachers CAUSE tension by micro-managing technique. Most people will do too much of whatever we tell them to do. This is especially true with adults, but it happens with children too.

As usual Gyro's technical advice is very wrong.

Not only that. I learned with a coin on the back of my hand, but I do not teach it. I don't think it's a good idea, and my students do not have tension issues. Just because someone is taught that way does not mean they teach that way. Also, the pianos we play today are not the same as they used to be. I've played on period instruments and replicas. It is way different.

I don't buy this arm-weight/gravity-based/relaxation,
modern way of playing. I see it as an inevitable
result of the continual modern trend toward ease and
convenience. Modern players want to do it the easy
way and don't want to sweat and sacrifice, and so
naturally, modern methods have evolved to accommodate
this with techniques that imply lack of hard work
and ease: let gravity do the work for you; let
the weight of the arm do the work of playing for
you while you loaf; just relax while playing and
everything will be fine; etc. That's okay if
you just want to play unchallenging pieces your
whole life, but if you want to rise as a player
you're going to have to work and suffer.

Ya, all the greatest pianists of our time are slackers. They don't play challenging stuff. They don't sacrifice time and energy to learn pieces to perfection. It's all because they want to be lazy and play without pain.

Add Chopin to the list of slackers. He was one of the first to start all this "silly modern stuff".

The only challenging piece you've spoken of learning is Chopin's Op. 14, which has apparently been stalled at 3/4 speed for years. It might be time to question your own assumptions about what works if you ever want to progress.

You've said, too, that you lack talent, which could be a factor in the sweat, sacrifice and suffering you find necessary. I think playing (and even practicing) should be pleasurable, and it is—as I think it generally is for people whose goals are reasonable. Even if it's not always exactly "easy," it certainly never involves the brutal struggle of brute-force repetition to which you so often refer.

Steven

Hehehehehe i love a good laugh in the morning. I'm pretty sure gyro doesn't believe the stuff he says most of the time and is just trying to get a rise out of everyone. It's funny stuff.

So hmm, interesting conclusion everyone's coming to - that by micromanaging I'm doing more damage than if i calm down and realise this is going to take time.

Incidently I started my youngest student ever yesterday - a girl who has just turned 5, and she has hands like a babies. It's terrifying. She kind of just poked at the keys. I'm going to have to take a way different tack to how I start off 6 year olds I think!

Only Gyro knows why he does what he does. If he is being humorous, he's maintained the practical joke for 3304 posts.

Don't expect tiny fingers to play on anything other than a light keyboard. Teach 'drop and flop' (down) and flick (up) instead. You'll find them here: www.youtube.com/isstip

Thanks a tonne KK :*)

I recently had a little girl who had pain in her pinky on two chords that she played with no problem at home, on her unweighted tiny keyboard.

Her mother wanted her to "be brave and play through the pain in lessons".

It took me three weeks to fix that!!!

Evidence: I learned with the coin on the hand thing and now, decades later, the tension has indeed limited my technique sacrificing speed, articulation and tone. I am now struggling to learn how to relax all that tension.

(BTW my teacher has me doing the ropey arms thing, slow scales while concentrating on releasing tension, heavy arms, exaggerating movement in my wrists, etc. The key seems to be in my shoulders. If I concentrate on relaxing them, it helps all the way to my fingerips.)

I have been telling people for YEARS that the muscles in the shoulder/neck area are trigger points. The moment you get students to release unnecessary tension there, you will see the upper arms, elbows and forearms release tension, and it goes right down into the fingers.

Usually children only hold tension there when they are badly instructed, but adults will hold those muscles so tight, they will actually spasm.

My dad always told me "it's better to work smart than work hard." Why torture yourself and suffer if the same results can be achieved with less work?

I always remember meeting a student of Matthay at a conference. The fluidity of the playing was overwhelming. She said afterwards it's in the shoulders where the last bit of tension is found and released, then all the fireworks start.

Gary, HOW do you get this to happen? What do you say/do to get that tension to go away?
I have a young lady that plays like this and all of my attempts to get her to relax have been temporary fixes. Her mom says she doesn't play that way at home (not sure though). When she comes to lessons she is strung tight!

This will sound extreme.

Make relaxation more important than correct notes.

Make relaxation more important than correct fingering.

Make relaxation more important than correct or even rhythm.

Make relaxation more important than anything else.

This will be TEMPORARY. But you have to get a tense student to believe that being relaxed is more important than playing well. The reason is that you can NOT play well with unnecessary tension. Sooner or later tension will kill everything AND cause serious health problems.

I never listen to parents or students about what is happening at home. According to them, the play correct rhythms, correct notes, relaxed, and everything that goes wrong in lessons ONLY happens HERE.

If you honestly think that placing a coin on sombody's hand would provide an antidote to an excessively tense manner of playing, I seriously hope you're not a professional teacher.

The best thing I've found is the advice of Alan Fraser about activating proper grip in the hand. Unless the hand can support, relaxation in the shoulders is futile. If you don't achieve balance, the tension will have to occur somewhere, no matter how hard you try to relax. I was badly affected by the ludicrous idea of a slack hand. It held me back for years. Once I finally got my fingers to support, it became possible to relax. Free shoulders are important, but concentrating on the shoulder itself is futile unless you can find balance at the key. I find the most important thing is to get the kid to learn to rest on the fingers in between the notes. Once they get used to a solid platform to balance on (without need for much effort), things can start to ease up. I'm convinced that tensions in the shoulder usually come out of necessity when then the hand is not supportive enough.

Concentrating on tension in the arms and shoulders etc. before using the hand properly is like trying to fix a leaking bucket by adding more water. First you have to plug the hole, before you worry about adding more water. I think this is a rather uncoventional appraoch, but it certainly worked for me. Relaxing in the wrong places was the underlying cause of the most destructive tensions.

Andrew

Ludicrous!? If anything's ludicrous it's resting 'on the fingers'. Why not just rest on the keys, they don't seem to mind the tension.

Welcome to PW, I do hope you've done more than just watch a DVD though.

[quote/]Ludicrous!? If anything's ludicrous it's resting 'on the fingers'. Why not just rest on the keys, they don't seem to mind the tension.
[/quote]


What else did you think I was suggesting the fingers ought to be rested upon, if not the keys? This is usually the problem when kids suffer negative tensions. If they don't support by resting on the finger, they find it hard to play the following note. Playing the next note is like trying to start a sprint while standing on one leg. Once you get them to find a comfortable neutral position in between the striking of keys, the benefit quickly carry across into the following fingers.

Also, if a slack hand were not a ludicrous idea, presumably it would not be ludicrous to put a layer of foam over the keys? If there is a lot slack at that end, energy is wasted and a larger workload is hence placed on the shoulders. It's simple physics. It was the idea of keeping the hands as 'loose' as possible that screwed up my playing for years. A hand that has a lot of give in it is the eqivalent to trying to play through a foam pad.

You rest nothing on the fingers till the moment of key depression. Even then, that's just for one particular articulation

You misunderstand my point. Whichever finger is depressed needs to support the gravity, not fingers that are not in use. I used to think in terms of tension and release but that led to a slack, useless hand after the strike and a workload on the shoulders, rather than a balanced support at the point of contact. I actually got very tired from playing technically straightforward pieces, because I was 'holding' my arms, rather than supporting on the keys. Tensions would arise all over the place, regardless of how much I tried to relax. It wasn't that I didn't know how to feel the weight of my arm, but that fingers were not up to supporting it. The laws of moments have to add up somewhere, regardless of how much you might intend to relax.

The way I'm finding at the moment involves a very small but consistent level of tension to grip at the keys themself- rather than a sense of full release. If you line the fingers up just right, the sense of effort is so miniscule that there's not any need to 'relax' from it.

I'd strongly recommend Alan Fraser's work to anyone, although personally I see it as the missing link for arm-weight ideas, rather than as an alternative.

Fingers have no role in supporting the arm other than during key depression. You have shoulders to do that.

Sorry, but that goes against all rational sense. The shoulders aren't going to stop your hand from going limp. That only occurs within the hand. When you use gravity in the most productive way, it helps to solidify the hand in a manner that reduces the need for muscular effort. Regardless of how you approach it, a hand with zero grip has no fuction whatsoever. Even if you choose not to exploit the return force that the keys exert against gravity, you are gripping with your hand to some extent. Otherwise you would waste most of the effort through slack fingers. You could not play a note. I think the problem is often that those who get it right feel a release but still use sufficient grip while doing so. However, for a lot of people, they end up relaxing into a point of no grip. For such people, it doesn't matter how much you try to relax- the forces cannot balance until the hand finds more stability at the key. This was certainly my problem. In your case, you may not be aware of how you continue to grip slightly with your finger, but if you did not do so, they would collapse after the strike. Regardless of which end you approach it from, stable fingers seem to be the common link in any efficient technique I've seen. How many famous pianists have fingers that notceably give way when they strike a chord?

Why would you want to physically hold your arms in the air at all times, when you can rest upon your fingers? Obviously there are times when you have to hold from the shoulder (such as in rapid staccato- but isn't there a good reason why rapid staccato is so tiring? Because the hands are never a rest surely?)? For what purpose? Why be thinking in terms of realeasing effort at the fingers, yet constantly be having to hold your arms in the air, without biving yourself a platform to balance on?

Before key depression there is no function for the hand. Function comes through use.

You are contradicting yourself. You said that the effort stops after the strike. By that logic, the function that comes through use should stop, when the strike is finished. If the shape of the fingers remains the same, there still needs to be activity. By your logic the function would be lost, if there were a full release of the effort.

This demonstrates one of two possibilities to be occuring. Either the armweight must be resting, for the keys to maintain the balance of the structure. Alternatively the hand may be gripping. Personally, I believe both are required, to find the balance.

Also, if function came solely through use, every finger would lie slack until it played the note. That simply is not true. If you look at any good pianists hand, you can see preparation in the fingers. This can only come through muscular activity.

Don't get your problem - you 'strike' (hate that word), and the hand goes back to its natural shape.

Would you care to name any great pianists who play every note in a movement that is instantly followed by a notable slackening of the hand?

If a key doesn't need holding, don't hold it. You'll find any number of 'great pianists' doing (or I should say not doing) this.

Sure, but when a key DOES need holding (as it so often does)? Where are these slackening movements in the greatest players? You really don't see a lot. I was really skeptical of Alan fraser's book at first, but since I read it, it's fair to say that virtually every great pianist I've seen has a notably solid (yet controlled) arch to their knuckles. When the balance is there in the hand, there's hardly any need to ease after the strike. I think this is the key to young pianists with tense arms. They're compensating for not having found this balance. I'm convinced that one the balance is found, slackening movement have little purpose. In any case, they don't do anything to stop overly tense movements occurring. They are merely a short term solution.

Not a great player, but a good illustration of relaxing between chords.

No offence to the pianist, but I asked where do we see it in great players? You can see why he needs to move his arms a lot, because he isn't balancing on the keys. It's a classic example of needing to make big movements to free up the tensions that are caused by the fact that his arms are not being supported. The muscles are seizing up due to lack of neutral balance points.

His relaxation movements are a mere short-term fix. The real problem lies in the reason why he needs these emergency measures. Sorry, but there's a reason I asked where we see it in great players (just as there's a reason why he doesn't control his sounds like a great player).

If you want to see somethign really terrible, look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTs3wsirpNo

It's how I used to move, before I started working on balance at the keys. It's a really ugly way of moving (and ironically, very tiring despite the ease of the piece and the 'relaxed' hand)

No pleasing some people.

Actually, one of Alan's teachers taught me that.

I employ the same exercise. Another technique is to play scales (or a repetitive figure similar to Hannon) in common time as sixteenth notes. Let the wrists fall while playing on each beat. While working up to the next beat, allow the wrists to slowly raise again. This way, the wrists are in constant motion and never get a chance to "lock." Once the student gets the feel, the same technique can be used with any piece. Sometimes tension is required; however, it should be relaxed as soon as possible.

Which one? I don't believe that Alan learned his approach from teachers, but from studying how great pianists move (with his in depth knowledge of the human body in mind). Having relied on the relaxation movements for years (because it was either use them or be massively tense) I was very skeptical of the idea of throwing them out. However, since I learned to balance on the keys, I've learned a way that rarely requires such emergency fixes. I don't see it as movement that is not be used but if it frequently MUST be used to return to comfort, I see that as a major warning sign- not a solution. Whenever it's happening, I usually discover points where my hand is not settling properly and my upper body has to compensate with effort. If improve those points, the necessity goes away (along with the unproductive tensions).

As I say, no offence intended, but if that's you playing, do you get shoulder ache much? I see a lot of muscles being worked very hard, when simply learning to rest on the keys would remove that extensive workload upon the upper body.

If someone came and played that way in a lesson, the first thing I'd do personally would be to drop their palm on the keys and demonstrate the amount of pressure that occurs without effort. One you've learned what it's like to be truly at rest on the keyboard (rather than with arms held so stiffly in the air) you could start to remove some of the negative tensions that are causing limitations. However, as long your hand goes slack after every chord, you have no means of achieving a balanced whole except through extensive upper body tensions. I'd really recommend trying to learn that same feeling of support while resting on a chord. Once your fingers can support it's really far less effort than what you are putting your arms through.

Well, I'm not vastly ashamed of the sound, but the movements were uncomfortable and did not provide ease of control. The slack hand made the whole thing a big effort, when the same results could have been achieved with comfort. Should I have been pleased with moving in a way that felt physically uncomfortable and led to frequent shoulder pains (supposedly in the name of achieving plenty of 'relaxation')?

The way I see it, the old fashioned finger school has many flaws and sometimes led to injury. However, the relax everything as much as you can school cause just as many problems, unless the hand learns to operate in sync. Sadly, this now widley being left to either work by mere fluke or to not work at all. There needs to be a middle ground, based on understanding of what tensions are productive when done within a comfortable limit. I've lost count of the number of people I've heard of who went through the 'relax everything' (including the hands) approach, and who injured their shoulders or neck- no matter how many times they dropped onto the keyboard. I do believe thoroughly in the dropping school of thought, but when a slack hand is promoted that can be as dangerous as an uncontrollably locked hand.

You see what you want to see. And if that's you playing you've gone from one extreme to another. Resting on the keys is fine, it's resting on the fingers that is full of tension. Don't think you can take away tension by adding it! I shan't comment on Alan's knowledge or experience, needless to say anyone can write a book on piano playing.

Having just visited http://www.pianotechnique.net/ I see where all this is coming from. Here's the only sensible comment I could find:this is on Peter Feuchtwanger. The rest is pretty much uninformed verbose junk. You certainly can't fault his self promotion! Personally I find it quite obnoxious.

As obnoxious as dismissing a guy as being 'uninformed' after reading a few words on the internet? Surely not?

As long as you refuse to question the doctrine that all relaxation is constructive, you will limit yourself (and have tense arms). Have you wondered why those who slouch at all times get back pains, or considered the fact that a healthy posture comes from utilising the muscles in the lower back? That is an example of healthy muscle tension. The harmful process of slouching is caused by limp muscles, offloading their workload and producing strain elsewhere.

The point about Feuchtwagner is highly insightful. Look at Carola Grindea's hand and you see a hugely solid arch. If flopping around doesn't chance upon that, no amount of relaxing will produce adequate function.
You really missed his point. He's neither criticisng nor promoting Feuchtwanger's relaxation. He's pointing out the simple fact that the approach does not work unless the arch forms. If you don't get it by luck, you don't get the function.. For those who do not find it by fate, they need to LEARN a way of finding it. Otherwise other muscles will tense to compensate. There are different ways of playing, but I'm afraid that the same laws of physics apply to all of us. If you were willing to question the relax-all doctrine and work on providing basic support to your hand, you could easily take those collosal tension out of your forearms and shoulders. I didn't believe a word of it, but when I opened my mind, it removed the tensions that years of flopping around did nothing to fix.

Incidentally, I don't play with a very tense hand at all and Alan Frase does not encourage extreme tensions anywhere. I've simply discovered that it's possible to make progress if I learn to balance it securely (via a few simple exercises), rather than flop it around every time my arms seize up (which they have since stopped doing for the first time).

PS The fact that you didn't answer my question about whether your 'holding' method results in shoulder ache seems to have answered it for me. Can you play for a few continuous hours without getting tired? Isn't worth asking a few rationally orientated questions, rather than assuming that anything that sounds different is 'uninformed'?

No, dismissed after a couple of workshops, a private lesson, the book and the video! Don't say I don't do my homework.

Well, it may not have worked for you, but it certainly isn't uninformed. Your argument seems to boil down to this: the (frankly miniscule) tension that is required for the hand to rest on the keys is inherently bad, but tension further back in the arm and shoulders (which is the only scientifically possible alternative, when gravity is not supported by the fingers) is fine. If Alan Fraser's idea of seeking the stable hand (that can be seen in virtually every accomplished pianist) is uninformed, could you please give us your own (presumably) informed explanation of why your alternately tense and slack fingers are more productive? You haven't offerred any other explanations as to why resting on the fingers should not be desirable- although you own video demonstrates both how poorly settled the collapsing hand method of playing is, and just how much tension it puts into your arms within even slow chords. Sorry, but I'm really struggling to see any evident justification to your arguments (other than the fact that it's what you're used to doing). It's also notable that you haven't even tried to refute the most pertinent points I've made here. Does your approach allow you to play continuously for a few hours without pain? If not, how can you even keep a straight face when claiming that your locked upper body is preferable to that which puts the hands through the tiny of effort of resting weight on the fingers (an effort which, once mastered, is scarcely more than the 'effort' of resting your hand on a table top)? Frankly it's comical.

Your notion that having the shoulders resting on the spine and arms hanging loose from the shoulders is tension is somewhat specious. Add to that the fingers/hand resting on the surface of the keys and you have the beginnings of a tension free technique. You cannot just add tension to the fingers, tension will occur all the way along the arms and come down to the center of the body. If you've ever played with no tension you'd feel that instantly.

Besides, even your chief is happy with Peter Feuchtwanger so I don't see your argument.

Well, I'm increasingly seeing how littler point there is in arguing with someone who is not willing to consider new possibilities but let's make it simple. The problem is not with Feuchtwanger. His arch works. The stable hand makes it wor. You however, DO NOT have a stable hand, so you have tensions elsewhere. Physics dictates that gravity has to be supported SOMEWHERE. If it does not happen at the keys, it happens in the upper body. I didn't say that the shoulder shouldn't hang lose- quite the opposite. I said that if the hand is not supportive the shoulder CANNOT truly hang lose. It's not possible, because the forces will not balance. Do you play with your forearm pointing directly down? There are only two things that can keep it parallel- either the force that the keys return when you rest on them- or muscuar effort to hold the elbow or shoulder rigid. Otherwise you would fall off the keys. I'm afraid that you're subject to same laws of science that everyone else is, whether you like it or not. What I'm saying is that in no sense are your shoulders free in that film and in no sense CAN they be if you do not support at the key.


How long can you hold your arms out in front of you for without getting tired (not resting them on anything)? A few hours at a time perhaps? Without your shoulders feeling any discomfort? Really? Conversely, how 'tired' or tense do you get when resting your hand on a tabletop? Which accumulates the most most uncomfortable tension?

It really pays to use a small amount of rational thought.

Incidentally, if I'd ever played with no tension I would have broken all the laws of physics. However, since I began to balance my hand I have started to play with less upper body tension than ever before. Anyone with a slack hand can easily learn to do the easily do the same, (although, sadly, the procedure of opening your mind is apparently vastly more difficult than the simple process of learning to remove the workload with a comfortably supportive hand).

So, ' Which accumulates the most most uncomfortable tension?' resting your hand on a table top or supporting your hand on your fingers on a table top? No brainer.

Seeing as you've obviously never employed such muscles, I'm sure you do get tired. Personally, the difference is now negligible- whether I form an arch like that which is used by virtually every pianist of competence or slop my hand down on the palm. I could rest either way for ages without fatigue. No problem at all. If you stopped to try it for the first time, maybe it wouldn't be so difficult before long? Perhaps you could even learn to hold chords in pieces of modest difficulty without having to constantly release through fatigue?

What really screws things up is holding my hands out in front of my body unsupported. It places a huge workload on the muscles and becomes faintly tiring within mere minutes.

If you think that is a natural way to use your shoulders for a hours on end (or that they are 'relaxed' when having to supporting the weight of your arms at this angle!) you're really not kidding anyone but yourself. Sadly the laws of physics don't seem concerned with whether you understand them or not. They still apply.

Each to his own, but I know which accumulates the most tension for me and I shall avoid it and recommend others to.

You may think that you know what accumulates the least tension, but the laws of physics beg to differ. Seeing as you've neither learned to balance on your hand nor understood the most basic rules of the universe I am afraid your opinion is simply- what was the word you used again? 'Uninformed', I believe.

The law of moments defines that if you do not support the lever that extends from your elbow at the finger, you require substantially greater tensions to stabilize near to the pivot point. To put that in layman's terms, if you're not resting on the keys at the finger, you're locking your elbow and or shoulder with far greater tensions. That is a scientific fact and not an opinion. If you don't stabilise on the key, the only thing that prevents your hand from falling off the keys is a locked shoulder and/or elbow.

If you're happy to teach a system that is based on a method that necessitates profound tension in the elbow joint (while simultaneously preaching the importance of relaxation in such joints- in square contradiction to the ironic fact that your approach makes a relaxed elbow and shoulder a scientific impossibility), then I certainly admire your willingness to persist in the face of all reason. I'm just amazed that you feel a method that does not even permit you to find comfort on a series of slow chords acutally 'works'- or that it might seriously be recommended to anyone else.

You have little idea of physiology. The biceps hold up the forearm. The wrist extensors/flexors utilize the hand. There's no 'locking'. Come back when you (and Alan) know what you're talking about. I'll stick to Peter Feuchtwanger. Goodbye.

In an efficient technique, the biceps have little need to hold the forearm still. The forearm is supported by the pivot point on the keys. It shares the load out. That is why you don't get tired while resting you hand on a table- while you do get so tired that you can't rest on a simple chord for more than a few seconds without having to release the massive build of tension in your arms. I note that you had no response to issues of physics and leverage that I stated. The fact remains that a lever is vastly more stable when anchored at both ends. There's a reason why the structure of a bridge undergoes a collosal amount of strain if you only anchor them at one end. It's called physics. That is what induces tremendous forces upon your arm, when you deliberately avoid settling it down at the finger end. It's like the difference between trying to hold out a long heavy sword out unsupported and allowing the end of that sword to rest on something. That is why your theory actually yields a comprehensively inefficient result and large amount of physical effort.

Sure, if it ain't working, you might as well just stick to it regardless and advise others on how to succesfully impose the necessity of similarly collosal tensions on themselves (apparently in the name of promoting 'relaxation'). I'm sure it will continue to reap wonders.

This has turned into yet another AWESOME TOPIC.

Just to illustrate the sheer importance of a supportive hand, here's Carola Grindea's hand. Do those pronounced knuckles reveal the shape of a 'relaxed' hand, or a shape that has been formed through efficient, well-controlled grip in the hand? I have rarely seen a more solidly formed arch. This is clearly the kind of hand that supports enough at the keyboard to reduce the requirement of extensive balancing forces further back in the arm- in a fashion that (unlike some methods) does not purport to break any laws of physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQoWnvdGn7Q&feature=channel_page

Without that support, flopping cannot work any more than playing the piano through a thick layer of foam can work. Too much energy is lost to the excessive give. It's all very well if the support does happen to evolve through dropping alone, but if the hand still remains limp and flaccid, there needs to be an alternative approach to directly address that lack of support.

I see what physical principles you are invoking here Nyiregyhazi, but I'm not convinced they really back up your argument on technique. Granted, I still have questions about exactly what you are proposing. And don't misunderstand, I have a tiny fear that the technique you are advocating may have merits. I was taught with this very "floppy" technique for 5 or 6 years, and always had reservations about it.

I was bothered by a statement you made along the lines of "without grip your finger is useless" (paraphrased). That would imply, unless your definition of grip is different than mine, that you could not even strike a key if there was zero friction between your finger and the key. Well, that is certainly not the case, as the normal force is still present whether friction exists or not. Granted, it would feel unstable and probably very uncomfortable, but as long as you struck the key in the right location, a successful keystrike would result. Perhaps you could elaborate on that statement, or more generally on your definition of grip.

But I have more observations and questions about your argument. First of all, the reaction force at the end of the lever arm is only acting in 3 different possible modes: 1) as the key is being depressed downwardly, 2) as the key is "bottomed out", and 3) as the key is returning upwardly to rest position. These are obviously the only 3 situations in which the key exerts an upward force on the fingertip. But it's also true that Modes 1 and 3 can only produce, even during forte strikes, about 400 "grams-force" (not near enough to support the cantilevered arm - which is why the motion occurs in the first place). But more importantly, this reaction force will be exactly the same, for a given key strike profile, no matter what technique you are employing. So I assume your argument is not about these two modes, but rather Mode 2, where the key is being held down. But wait a minute: even then, if the key is being held down, and everything is essentially static at that point, the reaction force on the fingertips will be exactly the same, no matter what the shape of your arm, hand and finger are. That is of course assuming a player was not silly enough to actually produce a net downward (CCW looking from left side of piano) torque/moment about his shoulder joing during held notes. But as long as the player is just letting his arms and hands rest there (and assuming the same horizontal distance between the fingertips and the shoulder joint), the force at the fingertips will be the same. So I'm not exactly sure now where all this talk of different supporting force at the finger is coming from. Are you simply saying that "your" technique involves remaining in the "bottomed out" mode longer?

Rick

That's my hand you dope!

WHAT AN AWESOME THREAD!!!!

I'll have to have a good think through about the points you make, Rick, but there are couple of things there that are not strictly correct. Your point about friction is not quite true. There must be SOME friction created at the finger. Also, the return force of the keys is totally dependent upon how much weight is applied to it. It's nothing to do with the required to strike the key. When resting, it returns what is applied to it, or it would be moving.

A totally 'relaxed' hand and arm that involved neither friction at the keys nor physical tension would collapse from the wrist and fall off the keys. The forces that prevent this can only come either from grip at the key or tension in the arm. There's nothing else that's can do that. The fine details here of precisely which muscles are involved in this are more complex of course. However, the basic premise is solid. The support really MUST come from either grip in the hand or tension in the arm. In absolutely any technique that doesn't hold the arm entirely rigid, there is likely to be some degree of both. However, the guy I've been arguing with claims that you shouldn't attempt to rest any further weight on the keys after the strike. There's a video on the 2nd page of this topic where you can see just how much his hand slackens and how little support he gets at the keyboard after each strike. He also claims that you should have a 'relaxed' arm while doing so. This contravenes all laws of physics. When a hand does not 'rest' on the keys, the arm is required by the laws of physics to provide the entire force to keep the arm in position. That means enormous tension.

The sword analogy is really the important thing here. The details are slightly more complex (due to the added levers and pivots with many different joints). However, the basic premise is comparable. If you hold a long sword outwards, you have to work very hard to hold it like that. Rest it at the other end, on top of something and you have a balance of forces at each end that is more comfortable. HOWEVER, this isn't quite the same as the arm, due to the greater number of levers. The arm falls off the keys due to slack in these levers, unless physical tension serves to prevent that. This tension can occur close to the key or further back in the arm. If it comes primarily from further back in the arm, there is a far greater workload than if there is also a stable point of support in the hand.

There's plenty of room for argument over the fine details of how to balance these forces, but any technique that claims to operate under a premise of relaxing everything (while not resting weight on the fingers between chords) is a rational impossibility.

Going beyond that though, I wouldn't say it's silly for the finger to actively produce a small force on the key after the strike. You have to induce some friction, or once more you are 'holding' your whole arm in position from the upper body. It may be that some people want to play this way, but it's important to understand that physics does dictate that the less actively your hand stands up and supports on the key, the more tension is a physical necessity in your upper body.

In the real world there is friction there, but I'm just telling you that it doesn't have to be there for a keystroke to occur. The normal force (between finger and key) is what performs the movement, and what performs the mechanical work.



Your usage of "weight" is very misleading here, as weight is a body force (works at a distance) while we are talking about contact forces. But aside from that, the upward force exerted by the key against the finger is not determined by anything except:
1) In the case of extremely soft playing, the geometry of the key mechanism itself. That is, the net torque created by gravity forces acting on both ends of the key lever, any spring forces, any magnetic forces, and friction in the mechanisms. In other words, all "non-inertial" forces that automatically resist movement of the key, and
2) In the case of stronger playing, where the key and hammer are being significantly accelerated, everything from (1) PLUS the inertial forces created by various masses (particularly in the hammer head) throughout the key mechanism. Your statement that "the return force of the keys is totally dependent upon how much weight is applied to it" is simply nonsense, and in fact has no meaning at all. Weight, which is always measured in a static situation (e.g., a calibrated scale) has a very limited place in a discussion about reaction forces between bodies. It is a body force, not a contact force, which is what the key is reacting to.



This all makes perfect sense, but when you used the earlier piano example, you said:



That's just not true. A perfectly good normal force between the finger and key (and some torque/tension generated in the elbow to prevent that from collapsing, as I think you were insinuating) would prevent this "falling off the keys" and provide a static equilibrium. The world is full of perfectly stable truss structures that are supported at one or more points by joints that can't support sliding friction. But you better believe these joints have tremendous normal reaction forces.

Yes, we are in total agreement for this "bottomed-out key" situation. The downward force exerted by the finger (assuming for the sake of discussion that only one finger is involved) is totally dependent upon the geometry and mass distribution of the player's cantilevered arms and hands, and this force is exactly opposed by the bottomed out key. Nothing surprising here, and nothing very interesting either.

"In the real world there is friction there, but I'm just telling you that it doesn't have to be there for a keystroke to occur. The normal force (between finger and key) is what performs the movement, and what performs the mechanical work."

Sorry, but physics dictates that there very much DOES have to be a friction involved. Also, if there were no friction at all, there could be no resting whatsoever at the finger end. In other words, you have the sword analogy, where all the work needs to be done from one end- creating a huge workload. If this doesn't happen, the hand slips off the keys and down to your side. However, you approach it, the weight of your arm MUST be supported somehow.




"Your usage of "weight" is very misleading here, as weight is a body force (works at a distance) while we are talking about contact forces. But aside from that, the upward force exerted by the key against the finger is not determined by anything except:
1) In the case of extremely soft playing, the geometry of the key mechanism itself. That is, the net torque created by gravity forces acting on both ends of the key lever, any spring forces, any magnetic forces, and friction in the mechanisms. In other words, all "non-inertial" forces that automatically resist movement of the key,"

I'm talking about resting on the keybed after the strike. The key returns whatever force is applied to it, or it moves. If there's no balancing at this end, the weight of the arm must be balanced at the other end, as in the sword analagoy. Only muscular tension can create that state of balance.



"2) In the case of stronger playing, where the key and hammer are being significantly accelerated, everything from (1) PLUS the inertial forces created by various masses (particularly in the hammer head) throughout the key mechanism. Your statement that "the return force of the keys is totally dependent upon how much weight is applied to it" is simply nonsense, and in fact has no meaning at all."

Sorry, but I'm really not seeing what point you're trying to make. It's a fundamental of physics that F=ma. If the net force is nil, there is no movement. If there is a net force, there IS movement. Whatever force is applied to keys is returned by those keys and cancelled out to zero. Otherwise they have to move. When a person sits in a chair, the chair returns the weight that is applied to it. Otherwise the chair collapses. When you settle down into the keybed, the keybed returns whatever you apply to it- balancing a proportion of your arm's weight. If you do not settle into the keybed at all (preferring to 'hold' over it) you can only stop your arm from flopping to your side through muscular tensions further back. Better still, you can grip to achieve friction and stability at the key- allowing the upper body to release much of that workload.





"That's just not true. A perfectly good normal force between the finger and key (and some torque/tension generated in the elbow to prevent that from collapsing, as I think you were insinuating) would prevent this "falling off the keys" and provide a static equilibrium."

Sorry, but to achieve an equilibrium, you have to maintain muscular tensions. They may be slight or they may be pronounced, but they are very much in existence. I do believe that some alignments are more stable than others (particularly when there is a good support achieved at the finger end). However, there is simply no alignment in which the wrist will not collapse unless there is muscular activity. Try it. If you are completely relaxed your wrist drops. The wrist acts as a centre of gravity more than any part of your arm. If your wrist does not drop that really does prove that there is tension somewhere, to maintain that equilibrium. You cannot balance a genuinely flaccid arm.

The key is to find the most efficient ways of balancing out the tensions so as to make them functional and productive. However any technique that insists that you should not actively be supported by the keys is demanding that the upper body take on the entire supporting role. There's simply no other possibility. If the arm is not supported somewhere it hangs limp.

I come from a dance background, and I use the lessons I learned there in my piano teaching, as far as relaxation goes. I also practice Tai Chi, and find that after I have done a Tai Chi session, my piano playing is inevitably better. If I could have all my students do it, I would. (Incidentally, a stiff drink has the same effect. They both relax the body.) I find that the best way to play is relaxed.

As I have been reading on this topic, certain people have said that the problem is that tension builds up in the upper arms and shoulders. Many times, I find that when I play, the key to doing it better is relaxing the knots in the upper body. Everything in our body is connected, and so energy spirals up from the earth, through our legs and torso, and out our shoulders into our fingers and hands. If there is even one blockage or tension point in that flow, it can impede your playing.

Naturally, my students are too young to understand energy flow through the body. So with my really little ones, I do an exercise called "Stone on a Mountain" that is in the Piano Adventures Pre-Reading book, and focuses on relaxing starting way up at the top of the arm.

With the rest of my students, if I notice them being especially tense, I will have them stand up, yawn (releases tension in the jaw and face), swing their arms around, and sit back down. Then if I still see tension in their fingers, while they are playing I will slip my hand under theirs and pop their hand up, then let it land and have them keep going. Eventually I find myself having to physically "loosen" their hands less and less as they understand what I am after. It is so hard to describe relaxed muscles to a young child, that I find it is better just to DO, rather than talk.

(I also fix wrist position by holding their wrist in the right spot, but still wiggling it from time to time to keep it loose. Sometimes I will demonstrate correct postures and behaviors, but mostly I find it helpful to manipulate the student.)

THIS THREAD KEEPS GETTING MORE AWESOME!!!!!!!!

The problem is that there really IS some muscular tension within that flow or you would collapse onto the floor. Relaxation is vital in certain places, but if simply try to relax everything, you might end up relaxing the wrong muscles (for example the ones that cause slouching- what with good posture coming from controlled use of tension in the back). Good posture only feels 'relaxed' to those who have already learned it. You don't learn to stand up straight by 'relaxing'. Good posture is actually rather tiring to those who are new to it. It takes development of stamina.

It's good to focus on being able to relax muscles, but there are cases where students relax the wrong muscles in a manner that demands that tensions occur elsewhere to compensate. No matter how hard they try to relax their upper body they will be unable to- because the laws of physics will not permit them to.

Relaxation approaches can often be helpful, but there are times when you need to focus on the CAUSE of tension. In an unbalanced mechanism, it sometimes just as important to look at activating certain muscles more- so as to permit the possibility of relaxation in others (which have fallen into being forced to compensate, regardless of whether you intend to relax them or not). Before you can relax a muscle, you first have to find a way of transferring the effort that it is being forced to exert to balance the mechanism.

I'd been aware of how to relax for years. My upper body rarely feels so free as when I come out a sauna. However, it was only when I started using my hand more actively that I reached a state of where it was possible to relax my upper body when playing. When my hand was limp, my upper body had to compensate at the other end, or the forces could not balance.

You're right. I should be more specific. One cannot relax EVERYTHING all the time, or you would just be a big noodle on the floor. And you make a very good point about proper posture requiring some tension.

I suppose the total relaxation I am talking about is not so much going "noodle-limp" but rather being aware of your body. You can have good posture and still be able to wiggle or move your arms and hands freely. This is what I meant about a connection of energy spiraling up through the body. You can sit up straight and still have that feeling of absolutely NO blockage of energy. It's a visualization thing. However, with young students who won't understand that, I tend to just help them feel all loosey-goosey in their arms. If in maintaining good posture, you lock your arms at the shoulder or elbow joints, you will lose the ability to play well.

I will also agree that you cannot have totally loose, floppy fingers. Finger strength is key to build up, and again I should have been more clear here. In manipulating my students' hands, I am encouraging not only proper wrist height and finger curve, but ensuring that they will learn how to use their fingers with strength and precision. I do make sure to lift and change their hand position so that they have no choice but to play with strong fingers, whether it feels easy and natural or not. And eventually, as I said, I have to correct less and less, and I can see the finger strength building in the correct and proper way.

Okay, I think we're in full agreement then. I use dropping exercises as much as anyone, myself, but I've only recently come to see how vital it is to be able to balance that freedom at the hand end, if the freedom is to have any chance of being maintained. Sadly, a lot of people seem to obsess over relaxation alone or finger technique alone. As a teacher, I think it's vital to be able to work from either side, depending on which aspect is in need of attention. If either side is lacking, the body will tense more than is desirable- as the only possible means of compensating. Ironically, overly exclusive focus on relaxation can end up being the cause of such compensatory tensions. That was certainly the case with my own playing.

Not entirely true. The normal force is equal and opposite to the gravitational force (i.e. the weight — not the mass — of the object) when the object is resting on a flat surface, perpendicular to the ground. That instance is given by the equation:

(Fn = normal force)

Fn = Mass * Acceleration due to gravity

Acceleration due to gravity on earth is ≈9.81 m/s^2

Thus for a say, 30 kilogram object,

Fn = 30 kg * 9.81 m/s^2
Fn = 294.3 kg * m/s^2
Thus, Fn ≈ 294.3 Newtons

However, when the key of a piano is fully depressed, it is not perpendicular to the keybed which we will assume is level for the sake of argument. In that case, one must multiply the result of the equation above by the cosine of the angle (cos θ). I do not know what the actual angle is and I assume it will vary based upon the keydip a particular piano is regulated to. Let's assume it is 10˚, again for the sake of argument.

Fn = Mass * Acceleration due to gravity * cos θ

Substituting the result of the above equation:

Fn = ( 294.3 kg * m/s^2 ) * cos (10)
Fn = ( 294.3 kg * m/s^2 ) * (0.9848) [cos (10) rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth]
Thus, Fn ≈ 289.8 Newtons

In conclusion, the normal force is not the same for an object of a given mass in every instance.

Well, that's stretching my knowledge of physics, but the point I was making was simply that whatever you rest on a key is balanced by a return force. That return force is variable, depending on how much force is being applied to the key. It's not accurate to say the return force is always the same. I think your detailed explanation backs that up.

You obviously know your stuff in plenty of detail. Would you agree with the premise that a hand that is not well supported by the keys at the finger end would lead to the necessity of considerable balancing forces further back in the mechanism?

But that point is virtually self-evident; the normal force is always present. The force you apply when you are playing with proper technique — not consciously using your strength to bang out the notes; instead using gravity to help you out — is precisely that, the force of gravity at work. The normal force is equal and opposite to that. Gravity is what give you your weight. Weightlessness is either complete lack of gravity or microgravity. I don't think they will be playing much piano in the International Space Station!

Well, it should be evident but apparently keyboardklutz believes that you shouldn't rest any weight on the keybed between notes. Apparently he also believes that you can have a 'relaxed' arm- while transferring the workload of supporting it's gravitational weight solely upon the muscles within that arm. Frankly, it's the least convinving theory of piano playing I have ever heard.

I don't believe in weight alone though, personally. What I'm talking about here is merely the process of balancing the weight of the arm on the keybed between notes- in a way that spreads out the workload between the two points of finger end and the arm (rather than imposing the lot on the arm). Anything that doesn't involve adequate resting at the finger end logically involves having to support the weight of the arm with muscular tensions in the arm itself. Would you agree with that?

However, I do personally believe in the role of muscular activity beyond that which comes merely from gravity. I'd been taught in the weight school and while I do believe in using its benefits to the full, I've also come to believe in the importance of using more activity to add to the benefits of gravity. It would make life harder in zero gravity, but I'm sure that a pianist with hands and arms like Richter or Gilels wouldn't exactly struggle to draw sound out of an instrument. Gravity is a huge head-start, but I'm really not convinced by the idea that we should never actively add anything beyond that which it can offer. Merely to achieve support on a finger requires a frictional force that is not provided by gravity.

When you see a pianist make a resonant fortissimo that initiates from fingers that are directly in contact with the keys, I'd struggle to believe that gravity could account for even half of the sound that emerges. Merely 'letting go' of the weight really doesn't account for that kind of movement.

Yes. A simple test (not involving a piano at all) will tell you that. Hold an forearm at the approximate place you would playing. Feel the bicep (and the tricep for good measure). Then let the arm rest on a table. Feel the bicep again. Then let the arm hang limp at your side. Feel the bicep.



Notice I said gravity to help you out. I think you are confusing the frictional force with the normal force. Friction is there, but it is not supplying the force equal and opposite to gravity; that's the normal force.

Notice I said gravity to help you out. I think you are confusing the frictional force with the normal force. Friction is there, but it is not supplying the force equal and opposite to gravity; that's the normal force. [/quote]

In this case, surely the normal force is not adequate though? I suppose it depends on seat height and other issues to an extent, but when I let my hand and arm go flaccid, my fingers slip off the keys. Gravity does not stabilise them. Due to the countless levers (notably the wrist) the result of the arm's gravity as a whole does not act perfectly downwards upon the fingertips. It's more inclined to drag them slowly along the keys. This serves to demonstrate that even in the most exclusively gravity-based methods, the hand MUST employ some grip to achieve adequate friction at the fingertips (or the joints in the arm must seize up to compensate again). It's this grip that can serve to channel a substantial component of that gravity in a more productive direction.

Does this not imply then that friction is not enough, but rather it's usage of the upper arm that keeps your hands on the keys? I am guessing that the coefficient of friction of piano keys is rather low, so you can't depend upon friction to keep you from sliding off.

Ah, but that's my very point! Isn't it better and easier to employ a tiny amount of grip from the fingertip itself- in order to stabilise with a little added friction at the very point of contact? Isn't it vastly more effort to try and achieve equivalent stabilisation further back in the arm?

I believe this is the very reason why Horowitz employed flat fingers- so he could grip at the last joint of his finger. Overly curved fingers cannot serve to grip the key. Start with a flat pad and you can 'pull' very slightly from the fingertip, to achieve all the stabilisation you need at the most direct point. I think this is the key to removing the need for tensions further back in the mechanism. I'm absolutely certain that it was my insufficient grip that used to cause shoulder pains, etc.

Well, I vary my finger profile depending upon what I am playing. I use naturally curved fingers for Bach, flatter fingers for Chopin and Romantic music. Octaves in particular work best with flat fingers in my experience.



But you just got through basically saying above that friction is insufficient...



Consciously "gripping" the key is a recipe for more tension. Releasing tension in the shoulders/neck is better. Whenever I get "tense" at the piano, it is always in the shoulders/neck and sometimes even the jaw! I tend to use a natural hand profile (varying as necessary to fit the demands of the music), allow gravity to assist me when necessary (as in when the music calls for a mf or louder dynamic), and release tension in the shoulders, neck, and jaw. The best way to do that is to breath deeply and naturally. Works well for me, and I recommend you give it a try, and forget about this "gripping" stuff.

Well, I did that for years and experienced collossal tensions. I knew HOW to relax (I demonstrate the free-fall drop to students constantly) I simply wasn't ABLE to relax because otherwise the forces did not balance. Since I started gripping the keys so I could support at that end, the tensions disappeared. What more can I say?

I only said the friction is insufficient if you don't grip and allow gravity to act unaided by any muscular activity. If you do grip, you can make plenty of friction against a key. That also helps to channel the effects of gravity more consistently into the plane where you want it to go- rather than partially into the perpendicular plane along which your hand slides over the keys when you go flaccid.

There are plenty of people who've tried to relax their shoulders and failed. However, you have to create a stable contact with the key if you intend to do so. As you said yourself, if grip doesn't come at the key, it has to come further back in the arm. THAT is a considerable tension! How can this rationally be done in the name of relaxation? A little grip in a fingertip (at the direct point where contact actually occurs) is barely any effort at all by comparison. I think it's a real shame that people rarely stop to consider this side of the equation. It makes perfect rational sense. It's not an alternative to relaxation, it's a means to make desirable relaxations physically possible.

Everyone is unique. What works for me, may not work for you. Are you certain you aren't holding your breath while you play? That causes massive tension that tires you out quickly. As to contacting the keys, one does that anyway to play the piano; so for myself I see little or no need to attempt to somehow contact the keys more.

You've made your point many times over now, so why don't we give this topic a rest?

It's the fact that everyone is unique that is my point. Why keeping pushing the old you-need-to-relax-more on people who have been told that for years but not been able to do so. Why not consider the possibility that activating their hand might be the means by which they could be capable of doing so?

I've well aware of the benefits of dropping and relaxing the shoulders etc. However, it could not provide any assistance until I learned a means by which to maintain that state of relaxation. I have to say that you really don't seem terribly open-minded about the possibility that many people might be better served by learning to grip the keys. Why restrict everyone to the old you're not relaxed enough dogma when it clearly doesn't work for everyone? Perhaps it helped you, but why would you suggest that I should drop what has worked for me- in favour of returning to something I already explained provided me with no benefits at all?

Frankly, after all the rational explanations I've taken the trouble to offer in response to your points, I'm rather stunned that you'd round it all off by suggesting that I just forget the whole thing (for reasons unexplained) and return to the manner of playing that had actually served to cause unwanted tensions.

Seeing as you've evidently dismissed the notion that this approach could possibly benefit anyone (assuming for unexplained reasons that I probably just didn't breathe enough) could you explain what reason there is why gripping slightly from the fingertips should be more problematic than trying to stabilise the fingers by tensing up the arms?

Meh. It's fairly obvious to me now that you believe that your method is the only correct one, and that everyone is somehow "out to get you". And you feel the need to prove something. Furthermore, you are twisting my words; whether it is out of malice or ignorance I don't know and frankly don't care. This discussion is over.

Not at all. If you read my words more carefully, you would have noticed that I didn't say a word against exercises that are designed to release tension in the shoulders (although, conversely, it's abundantly clear that you will not even consider the possibility that there are cases where more grip can be a solution). I'm a firm believer in dropping techniques and in many cases they can fix a problem. However, in those cases where shoulder tension is caused by an imbalanced mechanism (which perhaps you deny might ever exist?) merely having the ability to relax the shoulders is not enough until you can determine what forces them, to start tensing up in the first place. Perhaps I just imagined this personal experience, though and there is never any case in which seeking a more stable position at the keys could possibly be the solution to upper body tensions?

The fact that you would sincerely advise me to drop that which has helped me (after I explicitly stated that traditional relaxation exercises had never removed the root of former upper body tensions) makes it quite clear that you are only willing to consider one single approach. If you'd read my words more carefully, you'd have seen that I have never discounted the value of relaxation exercises. I continue to stand by them. I simply don't believe that they can solve every problem. Having used them on myself and all of my students as standard, they simply didn't work on everybody. When the root of the tension remains, you need alternative approaches. If I didn't have an open mind, I would never have moved on from the solely relaxation based methods that I was brought up on and I would never have made any progress beyond the limitations that they can impose when used as a one-size-fits-all method.

Nyiregyhazi, you said:

Sorry, but physics dictates that there very much DOES have to be a friction involved. Also, if there were no friction at all, there could be no resting whatsoever at the finger end. In other words, you have the sword analogy, where all the work needs to be done from one end- creating a huge workload. If this doesn't happen, the hand slips off the keys and down to your side. However, you approach it, the weight of your arm MUST be supported somehow.

No, there doesn't have to be friction involved, as long as your main joints (elbow, wrist) are producing a torque (i.e., tension). That is why I said the following:

That's just not true. A perfectly good normal force between the finger and key (and some torque/tension generated in the elbow to prevent that from collapsing, as I think you were insinuating) would prevent this "falling off the keys" and provide a static equilibrium. The world is full of perfectly stable truss structures that are supported at one or more points by joints that can't support sliding friction. But you better believe these joints have tremendous normal reaction forces.

Notice how I mentioned having torque/tension generated in the elbow (add to that the wrist and even the knuckle joints). As long as you have all that, which in effect creates a simple little one-dimensional truss, you can be totally supported at the free end (finger) by a good solid, happy normal force, with NO friction whatsoever. No "falling off the keys" will occur, unless you remove the torque at the above-mentioned joints, or lean way back from the piano of course. Why don't you try it by putting some vaseline on top of some keys (unless that is harmful for the keys, which it might be). As Horowitzian intimated, the coefficient of friction between finger and key is SO small that, even if it were required to do what you say, it wouldn't be up for the job.

Nyireghyazi, you said awhile ago:

If there is a net force, there IS movement. Whatever force is applied to keys is returned by those keys and cancelled out to zero. Otherwise they have to move. When a person sits in a chair, the chair returns the weight that is applied to it. Otherwise the chair collapses. When you settle down into the keybed, the keybed returns whatever you apply to it- balancing a proportion of your arm's weight.

That's all good. I said what I did about the 3 different "modes" of key depression (including acceleration) because I was never quite clear from your posts if you were talking about forces on the finger during "key-bottoming" or also during the movement stages. You have since made it clear that you were only talking about the former. We're cool there I guess.

You then said:

Sorry, but to achieve an equilibrium, you have to maintain muscular tensions. They may be slight or they may be pronounced, but they are very much in existence. I do believe that some alignments are more stable than others (particularly when there is a good support achieved at the finger end). However, there is simply no alignment in which the wrist will not collapse unless there is muscular activity. Try it. If you are completely relaxed your wrist drops.

Yes, I agree, which is what you see in my quotes I restated above. If you don't have a "one dimensional truss" (i.e., won't collapse in on itself), then it matters very little what may have happened at the finger/key interface. But assuming you do have the truss, created by torque at all the vital joints (elbow, wrist, knuckles), it can be and is fully supported by the normal force between the finger and depressed key. And this allows the shoulder itself to be free of torque (tension), which should make you a happy man, right?

"Notice how I mentioned having torque/tension generated in the elbow (add to that the wrist and even the knuckle joints). As long as you have all that, which in effect creates a simple little one-dimensional truss, you can be totally supported at the free end (finger) by a good solid, happy normal force, with NO friction whatsoever. No "falling off the keys" will occur, unless you remove the torque at the above-mentioned joints, or lean way back from the piano of course. Why don't you try it by putting some vaseline on top of some keys (unless that is harmful for the keys, which it might be). As Horowitzian intimated, the coefficient of friction between finger and key is SO small that, even if it were required to do what you say, it wouldn't be up for the job."

Okay, I see your point. However, there still is at least SOME friction. I see how this approach would reduce the extent of the friction, but it would not prevent it. For zero friction, the arm would have to be locked perfectly stiff (surely not a case of positive tensions, by any definition???), the finger would need to be flawlessly aligned, the movement would have to be perfectly aimed on a downward plane etc. The point is that, even if you intend to avoid this friction, there really has to be SOME involved (unless we are talking of things that are merely theoretical and not possible within any form of reality). In any case, could anyone honestly argue that an arm that is held so stiffly (as to enable the finger to act on the key without a trace of grip) is more 'relaxed' or functional than using a faint bit of stabilising grip from a finger- coupled with a balanced support of the arm's weight? I don't quite see where you're going with this. As you say, it stands that if the finger is not gripping, the arm's joints are having to be 'held' together with some muscular tensions to compensate. Why would that be inherently preferable to the tiny amount of finger grip that can serve to stabilise between notes? Why should the muscular effort needed to solidify an arm be seen as an okay tension, but the idea of a gripping finger would be a sacrilege? Incidentally, before I started actively gripping with my finger, I slipped off keys aplenty, with or without vaseline. Gripping definitely reduced that.

"Yes, I agree, which is what you see in my quotes I restated above. If you don't have a "one dimensional truss" (i.e., won't collapse in on itself), then it matters very little what may have happened at the finger/key interface."

I think I'm looking for something very different to you though. In my own technique, the finger's grip is vital. I'm not saying there are no other possibilities, but the truss you are talking about sounds like a LOT of tension to me. Only by locking the arm to the point of hugely pronounced tensions can the role of this connection from finger to key be reduced. Why on earth would anyone consider that superior to balancing with a tiny bit of friction through a virtually neglible bit of finger grip? I honestly cannot see a single reason how the tension in the arm could possibly be inherently healthier. It's like the sword analogy again. Why hold out a heavy sword from only one end, if you also can settle it down at the other end? The arm is not stiff like a sword, but you can generate a very close equivalent by simply adding a minor bit of grip at the finger end. Then you have the two sided stabilisation. You can get SOME stabilisation with a less gripping finger, but I find that if I don't grip much, I am certainly less beneficially stabilised by the keybed. If you don't get stability there, the only other alternative is to lock the arm. I do not see that as a productive approach. I'm seeking a point of actively connected support at both ends, not an arm that has to be solidified into a single body from forearm to finger.




But assuming you do have the truss, created by torque at all the vital joints (elbow, wrist, knuckles), it can be and is fully supported by the normal force between the finger and depressed key. And this allows the shoulder itself to be free of torque (tension), which should make you a happy man, right?
[/quote]

Well, I differ about the point about the normal force. As mentioned in an earlier post, the normal force does not keep a flaccid arm and finger on a key. It cannot therefore entirely explain a stable connection betweeen key and finger. However, if you can create a stable point there, then yes- you have the basis to operate in the most 'relaxed' (or perhaps better, the most 'comfortable') way possible. Some may achieve this state through intentions of relaxation alone. However, I think it's very important to realise that (in reality) this state can only be achieved with the inclusion of certain tensions (whether the player is conscious of them or not). A flaccid arm cannot ever achieve that.

Of course, a rigidly locked arm that suffers tensions that serve no function. However, for those who do not succeed in learning a balanced position through the intention to relax as much as possible, there needs to be an alternative. In effect, we're (almost) all looking to converge on the same ability to maintain a neutral position without excessive effort. However, it's important to realise that for some people (myself included) achieving relaxation is not necessarily the issue. For some people, they need to learn how to improve the support within certain areas, before they can relax other muscles. Apparently this is quite a heresy, but the truth is that negative over-relaxation can be a source of compensatory tensions. I learned HOW to relax years ago. What I only just discovered was how to integrate everything in a whole where it is POSSIBLE to relax. In my case, the shoulders weren't the problem. They were a symptom of the problem.

Whether such cases are in the a minority or not, it's important to realise that problems are not only caused by excessive tensions. As long as people retain the blanket fix of- you need to relax more (regardless of the specific symptoms) a whole of students are going to remain at dead-end. I my case, it didn't matter how much I was told to relax until I learned supportive fingers. That was the link that finally permitted my arms to relax. For some people, no amount of flopping around will necessarily take you there.

(My own bits are in italics, by the way, although I probably ought to have done it the other way around)

BTW Perhaps I should just stress that I grip from a position of very flat fingertips- with a large surface area on the key. I don't play with especially flat fingers as a whole, but the type of of grip I'm using is not possible with traditional playing on the very fingertips. I like to stabilise with a large surface area on the key. At this angle, gripping reinforces the contact. Start with a pointed finger, however, and any gripping is obviously not going to achieve anything.

EDIT Actually, I've been thinking about various issues including those you raise, and I now think that even a very pointed finger requires grip. Do your knuckles collapse in a standard position? If not, there's certainly an element of grip involved from the finger tip. It's very slight in some positions, but I just realised that my knuckles collapse entirely, unless my finger is pulling slightly on the key. Once aligned, this force is very small indeed. However, when I sense it and release it, my knuckles instantly sag under the impact of gravity. This instantly robs my hand of all form or support and imposes a feeling of far more exertion that which is involved in the grip that keeps the knuckles standing. Small as it may be, the fingers are involved with a very real force- even in the traditional pointed finger position. Some people may not even realise the force exists, but something has to make the knuckles stand up, in the face of the gravity that acts upon that joint.. What else could serve to do that (in the overwhelming majority of great pianists who do not allow their knuckles to collapse) other than grip in the hand? Even if the arm were to be solidified into a single joint, what else could possible explain what is going on in a hand that does not collapse?

Nyiregyhazi said the following:


I think I see the problem here. I'm not suggesting that whatever it is that you are doing to achieve this so-called "grip" is not helpful. I am now starting to see that what you consider grip is not what I would consider grip at all. Again, I'm not saying that what you are doing in your own hand is not helpful. I'm thinking that what you are doing is producing the torque in your knuckle joints (which I referred to in my previous post or two), which necessarily puts your final digit or two in an orientation that you want. You are "sensing" it as grip, and calling it grip, which implies to me as an engineer that friction is suddenly and miraculously created/improved. But in reality you are simply finding a way to orient the last inch or two of your playing apparatus in a way that feels extremely stable and comfortable. I think it's all simply about what you are doing at the last joint or two, while you choose to call it "grip". That may be about as far as we can go with this from a technical viewpoint. From a practical viewpoint, as a player, and as one who you probably remember in the other thread has problems with my fingers slipping off the black keys, I am still very open to making some changes.

What's wrong with referring to it as 'grip' though? I don't follow what your problem with that word is. I've certainly seen plenty of students who 'grip' in a negatively excessive manner. In that case, I'd probably refer to it as 'clenching' rather than 'grip'- which I consider to be a basic requirement from any hand that is capable of fulfilling what is required of it. Why should this be referred to as a 'sensation' of grip, rather than as a very literal example of gripping with the hand?

When I rest on a chord, I feel a very literal 'pulling' from the final joint of my fingers against the surface of the keys- as well as from the knuckles. I've used exercises recently that activate one or the other independently, so I'm certainly aware of the different sensations. I experience grip at both places, without a shadow of doubt. This is what achieves the stable support on the key and the stable knuckle. I cannot think of any sensation that is more literally one of 'gripping' within the hand. Years of being told to relax more did very little for me and my collapsed knuckles placed a huge limit on my progress. The gripping function of the hand is one of the major things that started things working. No mere sensation of gripping makes my knuckles stand up and support. Actual grip in my hand is what causes that to happen. Some people may have that instinctively but, whether they know it or not, a hand that supports from the knuckles is a hand that is gripping in the most literal sense conceivable. There's no other plausible explanation for it. Just because an excess of grip can cause problems, it doesn't follow on that grip should never be regarded as a positive. It's vital to a balanced whole as a free upper body.

PS Just to prove how literal the grip is, if I start with depressed knuckles and squeeze inward from every finger, my knuckles stand up and balance. That is how I form the most natural hand position, without any excess of tension. I grip from a neutral point until the knuckles stand up. From this point I use no more continued grip than is necessary to maintain that position. However, there certainly is still a literal grip. The moment I release this grip, everything collapses again. I cannot think why this could or should be regarded as anything other than the gripping function that it so evidently is. It utilises all of the same muscles as my powerball- a 'grip' training device. It could well be that some shape hands require considerably less active grip to formulate a stable position. However, my own hand does not balance without the most literal kind of gripping. Look at Richter's hand or Horowitz's and tell me that's a hand that does not use grip! Why the stigma?

Nyiregyhazi responded:



Well, again, what you are doing is creating torque at those last couple of joints, which necessarily causes your knuckles to rise and your final digit or two to increase from their initial horizontal angles. If it were truly "grip" (i.e., a forward-acting horizontal force acting on your fingertip), it would not even be in the proper direction to do this knuckle-raising job.

If you sketched a free body diagram of this situation, this alleged "frictional/gripping force" would have to be acting back toward your body in order to cause raising of the knuckles. And that is exactly 180 degrees opposite of the direction of the true frictional force (however tiny it may be). Just to help explain the force direction problem, imagine you place a curled piece of paper on a flat surface, where it ends up "concave down" (standing up in the middle). And then let's say you fix one of the contacting edges, and say "I want to push or pull on the other contacting edge to make this piece of paper stand up even more (i.e., more convex as viewed from above)". Well, you can probably see that you would have to push that opposite edge back toward the fixed edge in order to make the paper more convex. If you pull it away from the fixed edge, it becomes less convex and stands up less. So back to your hand, the frictional force is acting away from your wrist and body as you perform the squeezing motion you describe above, and simply can't result in the lifting of knuckles. Another culprit must be involved.

If you simply acknowledged that this squeezing involved inducing torque at your final couple of knuckle joints, then everything falls into place, including the summation of forces and moments in your hand which cause your knuckles to rise. Your fingertip has to slide inward toward your body until you sense that the torque is sufficient, and everything is at an equilibrium. I think this is just a very common case of a person describing something in one manner, because it is very difficult to discern what is really happening. This is very common in all kinds of activities and sports (like golf, where teachers say to accelerate the clubhead through the ball, when in reality the clubhead is decelerating there). Doesn't mean the sensation or ill-formed description is not helpful.

By the way, I performed your squeezing/raising action on several different surfaces, some rougher and some much more slippery. I get the very same sensation on all of them. Would you try this? This also implies that friction is not really at play here. Of course, I can't be 100% sure that this sensation is the same one you have been trying to describe. But my bet is that you would arrive at your same "gripping" sensation on any surface, even with vaseline added into the mix.

Rick

Well, again, what you are doing is creating torque at those last couple of joints, which necessarily causes your knuckles to rise and your final digit or two to increase from their initial horizontal angles. If it were truly "grip" (i.e., a forward-acting horizontal force acting on your fingertip), it would not even be in the proper direction to do this knuckle-raising job.

As I stated, I grip both from the fingertip and from the knuckles. Why is it so hard to believe that I would actually be doing that? No, offence, but I think you could open your mind a little more. I'm not discounting techniques that don't use the final joint to any great extent. However, I can assure that mine does involve it. In any case, aren't the knuckles the primary source of what we refer to as grip? Even a solely knuckle based grip is very much that- a grip.

If you sketched a free body diagram of this situation, this alleged "frictional/gripping force" would have to be acting back [i]toward your body in order to cause raising of the knuckles. [/i]

EDIT I just changed this bit after going to the piano. Why would it have to act that way? I think you're mistaken Pop a fingertip on a tabletop and drop your wrist. Pull a little from the finger. Does your hand get pushed aways from it or pulled towards it? Doing this raises up my knuckle. However, try the same thing without resting on anything. Only your finger moves, obviously. It shows the importance of that stable contact and which way the forces are channeled. When you have a component that acts towards your body in the finger, the friction pulls your arm the other way- towards the piano. That raises the knuckle. I really don't follow your point on why a return force towards the body should raise a knuckle. You can easily observe in practise that the reverse is true. Pulling with the finger is the equivalent of pushing the paper IN- not of pulling it away. The friction draws the hand in, towards the point of contact, not out.


By the way, I performed your squeezing/raising action on several different surfaces, some rougher and some much more slippery. I get the very same sensation on all of them. Would you try this? This also implies that friction is not really at play here. Of course, I can't be 100% sure that this sensation is the same one you have been trying to describe. But my bet is that you would arrive at your same "gripping" sensation on any surface, even with vaseline added into the mix.

Doubtful. While the force my finger tip exerts is rather direct into the key, nobody is going to manage that force so perfectly as to ensure that there is no perpendicular component whatsoever. I can say from experience that sweaty keys now cause me less slipping than ever before, but I'm still not immune to slips. Gaining the support in the arm may raise the possibility of greater solidity, but the way I used to have to fuse my arm before my fingers started to get involved was most certainly NOT a healthy form of muscular activity. Maybe the constant of your own fingertip is the issue here? Maybe your skin balances more easily. Unless the force is aimed perfectly, there is some horizontal component that needs to be stabilised by friction. Perhaps my own fingers are inherently a little smoother and need to induce a little more friction to be stabilised?

Anyhow, regardless of the fine details of the fingertip, I really struggle to see why can't get past the stigma about 'gripping'. Any knuckle that supports does so through grip. Literally. Nothing else can provide that. Does the muscle that can draw the finger towards the hand not count as a gripping action in your book? I think any doctor would be rather quick to disagree. Honestly, why try to pass off the idea that something so literal is merely an impression? On the contrary, I would say that anyone who has a supportive knuckle and who thinks are their hand is relaxed merely has the impression of relaxation. If the knuckle is raised, this illustrates that they are employing grip. There's no other rational way to look at it. Without grip, the knuckle joint drops. What else do you think could possibly do that? A few months ago I'd have likely taken the same stance as you, but it just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.

You said the following:



I didn't actually say that a return force towards the body would necessarily raise the knuckle. I said that an outward force from the body (which is the direction friction is acting when you perform your squeezing motion) cannot raise the knuckles. Sudden initiation of torque (i.e., contraction/tension) in those last two knuckle joints certainly can though, and will. I don't know exactly what would happen if, for some reason, you put a force on your fingertip toward your body, but I do think it might hurt a bit.

No, "pulling with the finger" (which is likely better described as torque generation at those last two joints) is NOT the equivalent of pushing the paper in, referencing my earlier example. Coulomb friction always acts in the opposite direction of the motion. So during your pulling/sqeezing motion, the friction is acting away from your body. That would correspond to the unfixed edge of the paper being acted upon by a force away from the fixed edge, not towards it. The friction can't "draw the hand in", because it is acting in the opposite direction.

And you said:



I think maybe if you opened your mind just a bit, instead of just apparently only caring about winning an argument, you might see that those couple of sentences you just wrote could very easily correspond to the torque generation in the last two knuckles I keep talking about. "Aren't the knuckles the primary source of grip", you say? Yes, I think so, and that is what I've been saying. And YES, even a solely knuckle-based grip is very much that - a grip! I am simply trying to show you how this "gripping sensation" or "gripping movement" you keep referring to has nothing to do with friction between the key and finger. If anything, I think it would work better with less friction.

Well, with so many different joints in action, obviously such an explanation is an oversimplification. What can be said for definite is that the gripping action (from both fingertip and knuckle) both helps to raise my knuckle and stabilises the point of contact on the key. I think the real point is not so much about friction but about the fact that you need a stable contact on the fingertip for the muscular activity to either draw the hand into shape or for it to maintain that shape once formed. It doesn't happen the same way when you use those muscles with the hand in the air. Equally, if you do not achieve friction at the key, use of those muscles can simply makes the finger slide along the key- rather than affect the hand as a whole.

Once you have a stable point at the end, the whole mechanism serves to draw the rest of the hand in. I didn't say friction alone achieves that. However, remove the vital cog of friction from the complex machine (at least, the one I'm employing, even if you are going a different way) and the whole thing falls down. If I do the motion in the air my fingers move. If I put those fingers on a surface, my finger remain rather still and my knuckles get raised instead. That is why you need a point of friction. I didn't say it accounts for the whole equation, but that it is an integral part.


What I'm talking about certainly comes from gripping and it's no illusion. To analyse every detail of such a complex mechanism would require a vastly expensive computer simulation. The problem with the paper analogy is that it's oversimplified and doesn't reflect the sheer complexity of a hand. For a start I'm pulling from at least two differnt joints, where the paper is a single piece of very flexible material. The details may be different but the net result of gripping at my finger is equivalent to pushing that paper in. My physics may not be up to a full analysis of every component and the force exerted by every single muscle, but I can say for definite that the forces do balance out when I utilise these gripping muscles. What are you suggesting is actually happening, if not gripping- when I go from a slack hand at rest on the keys to one that stands up? I can not only feel the grip, I can feel the change in the event that I should slowly slacken that grip- either at the tip or the knuckle. You have my assurance that there is no illusion. I'm not saying this is the only way to play, but it is very much what I am doing.

On the other hand, whatever level of detail you go into, there is no possible explanation for a hand that purports to have found stable knuckles without employing those muscles that grip. So can we simply agree achieving a balanced whole through grip (coupled with upper body freedom) is perfectly real and perfectly possible? If not, you seem to be suggesting that I am just imagining each and every one of the sensations that involve both the ability to grip and the ability to confirm it was there by going on to observe the effect of releasing it.

As I already said, my hands slip off the keys when I do not acheive friction. So how is less friction going to help? As I suggested, some people have rougher or smoother skin the others. You may well be lucky enough to have skin that makes achieve good contact more straightforward. In my case, the friction that I gain from an active grip is vital. It's either grip from my finger, or lose the quality contact at the key.

I'm glad that you concede that (what was formerly merely "so-called") grip is indeed real thing that can be of benefit, not a mere illusion. That's all I was really suggesting before. I would far sooner lose an argument if it made me realise something I had not considered before. All I'm interested in is increasing my understanding of the elements that are involved in finding stability and function at the keyboard. I'm taking your points on board and I'm grateful to you for inspiring further thought, but I haven't yet seen anything to convince me of a gaping hole in my approach.

Sorry, but gotta stop you there. The muscle that grips is in the forearm (flexors). The knuckles have nothig to do with it, each joint has an annular ligament marked a2, a3, and a4 here:

They are the pulleys that prevent the flexor tendons from ripping out of your hand. a1 is under the knuckles, a5 under the top joint.

Fine, but I'm talking about the function that each joint serves in a balanced system of forces. That doesn't contradict a thing I've said. It just illustrates the technical details of what iniates those forces. I'm interested in such aspects, but I'm really most concerned with the function that stems from joints- as opposed to what causes that function.

To complain that it's inaccurate to say that the grip comes from the knuckles is a little like complaining of someone referring to two snooker balls coming into contact (when they are actually repelled by electrons and never touch).

'causes that function'!? What does that mean?

The knuckles are the joint. They function as a joint. We're discussing the physics of how that joint functions. We're not talking about which muscles initiate that grip in the knuckle. There's one reason for that- that's it's not a matter of immediate relevance.

While you're at it, don't you want to insist on pointing out that the signals that cause the muscles in the forerarm to contract come from the brain and not within the hand itself?

Without their tendons and ligaments they're just a hinge.

is that just another random statement of fact, or does it pertain to anything under discussion? I already explained we are discussing the FUNCTION from the knuckles. Not the details of what initiates such function. Need I say it again?

And they function solely as a hinge!

Yes, a hinge that moves. The point under discussion is that the fact that it DOES move, not what muscles make it move. If you're going to be pedantic about pointing out every step, perhaps you should begin by explaining to us the electrical impulses in the brain, before taking such an almighty leap to the movement in the tendons? Or perhaps, you might go all the way with the period of gestation, after the moment of conception?

Are you one those people who insists on loudly telling people what year a composer was born in, every time you hear one mentioned?

I remember now! I can even hear Alan's voice in my head going on about 'skeletal structure'. Take away the tendons and ligaments and all you have is a bunch of small bones in a heap! A hinge is a hinge, is a hinge. He knew nothing of physiology either. What's to discuss?

Nobody wants to take away the ligaments- merely the irrelevant reference to them. Take that away and you have a knuckle that you can grip from. Perhaps if you were more interested in how the forces that act about joints and how they have to balance out (as opposed to memorising the latin names for muscles) you would be capable of getting to the roots of why your muscles seize up so tightly before you have to slacken them?

Obviously you have not even read any of the posts in this thread, because I'm talking muscular balancing, not mere skeletal alignment. However, I don't need to try to impress anyone by listing the name of each muscle, rather than the joint which it serves to control. If you want to contribute anything other than irrelevant facts, please read the posts first.

The knuckle, being only a hinge, has nothing to do with the 'forces' (as you call them). Does a door shut itself?

We are not talking about WHAT exact muscle acts on the hinge. We are talking about the fact that a muscle CAN act on the hinge. Is that really beyond your understanding?

How do you move a muscle without a brain? Does that mean that you would need to explain the workings of the brain, before referring to movement at the knuckles?

WHAT AN AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid we are talking what muscle because the hinge itself is pretty irrelevant (being just a hinge).

And yes Horo, AWESOME indeed!!!!

The fact that you think a hinge is 'irrelevant' in a complex mechanism speaks volumes. You really need to couple your knowledge of anatomy with more understanding of physics, if you're interested in trying to analyse such matters.

I sense you're going to repeat yourself ad infinitum but, for the final time, the point we are discussing is how much grip is functioning at the point of that hinge. We are discussing THE FORCE, not the details of which muscles creates that force.

The mechanism is made complex by the tendons and ligaments that either pass through or attach. The hinge is simple - a hinge!

Good, now what muscles are gripping?

One could say the same about you...since you found the very straightforward calculation of the normal force to be above you head in this very thread. That's simple high-school physics. If you can't grasp even that you have no business telling us what we need to understand.

I think I see the problem here. Our friend is looking at the form of the knuckle, rather than it's function. Here's some high-school biology - form follows function.

I'm familiar with the principle of components of forces. The point I made was simply that the normal force varies with what is applied to it. It didn't require your more detailed explanation of vectors.

I seem to recall that you were the one who failed to realise that the normal force that acts upon a loose finger is not sufficient to balance that finger on a key (due to the fact that the force of gravity that acts upon the finger is partially redirected onto a perpendicular plane, due to the complex array of joints in the arm)?

I'm no expert in physics, although have a solid understanding of the basics. I'll certainly be putting these points to somebody who knows more than myself at some point. I would be very suprised if they didn't confirm the notion that a balanced whole requires either substatial tensions to solidfy the arm into a single body (so act to act in a perfectly aligned plane on a finger that is not actively gripping) or a degree of friction that stabilises at the point of the finger. Assuming that holds up (and I would be stunned if I was told otherwise) I'm favouring the slight grip in the finger over the idea of fusing my arm into a piece of rock.

Okay, you still don't get it. We ARE talking of FUNCTION! The FORCE that is acting on the hinge IS the function of the muscle. We are talking of the EFFECT that comes from a muscle.

Still too complex for you to realise why we didn't stop to deliberately state that the muscle is connected to the forearm, or to list the latin names of each particular bone, or the chemical composition of muscle?

...and what muscles are gripping?

I seem to recall that you were twisting what I said, and that's leads me to believe this is a pile of rubbish, my own experience notwithstanding. Bona fide people have no need to resort to twisting what people say to fit their preconceived notions.

I didn't twist anything. I pointed out that the normal force alone does not balance a finger on a key, due to the complexity of so many levers at work. Hence you can either balance with a stiffened arm or a gripping finger or some combination of each. Sorry if that seemed to bother you so much.

...and what muscles are gripping?

Of equal importance, what is the average density of human muscle? What percentage of the human muscle is composed of the element carbon?

There is no force on the hinge. The force is on the phalange to either extend or flex.

Getting more AWESOME!!!

Indeed, I should have said a force that acts 'around' the hinge, not on it. Are we discussing grammar or physics now?

I didn't say you twisted my words there; in fact, it was quite a different place.

What you said I said:



What I actually said:



Notice I asked you a question. You never answered it. Rather you attacked me for some dismissal that was a figment of your imagination. The suggestion to try breathing was a suggestion, and in retrospect is a reflection of the fact that I now think your "method" is bogus.

If you'd like to tell me again you weren't twisting my words, we'll know you are just here to push an agenda rather than contribute constructively.

How about that bit then? After the detail we went into, I'm still amazed that you would so casually just drop that in. By all means criticise what I laid out on specific points, but why advise me to just forget it- after I explained the various benefits it has provided me with and the various reasons why it might provide less tensions that stabilisation within the arm?

You didn't even offer an explanation as to why I should just forget what I had laid out...

PS I didn't answer your question for a reason. It was a random guess that had nothing to do with the discussion. No, I don't hold my breath. Surprisingly enough, the benefits I have gained from gripping are not related to breathing. But hey, why not just stop gripping, despite the improvements it caused and worry about breathing instead? I'm interested in alternative approaches, but certainly not when I am so casually advised to forget what I have spent a great deal of time and effort thinking about- without a word of just cause.

Around!? What kind of physics is that, quantum!? What is the force acting upon and how is it repelled?

no, high school physics. Did you bunk off very much?

What is the force acting upon and how is it repelled?

I told you, I think your stuff is bogus. Gripping = tension. Breathing and relaxing ≠ tension. If breathing and relaxation don't work, there's underlying technical problems that you probably aren't aware of. Remember that most pianists are unaware of the source little technical problems that pop up. You need someone who is competent in piano technique to watch you play. Perhaps you need to get lessons with a good teacher of that sort; i.e. one that doesn't push this "gripping" rot.

Not falling off the piano stool = tension

Until you can get past the assumption that every tension is bad, you are obviously not going to look at this with an open mind.

Obviously you are not willing to open your mind to any alternative possibilities. Gripping has never caused me a single problem. Years of relaxation training never did a thing for me. I stand by the purpose and still use the benefits, but it's only when I came to grip more actively that I was able to remove the cause of negative tensions.

If you cannot put preconceived views to one side for long enough to even consider that to be a possibility, clearly we have nothing to discuss.

Hey, hold on there. What is the force acting upon and how is it repelled?

I've considered the possibility, and even tried it for myself. And I discovered that it does not work. What happens when you grip? The flexors in your forearm pull on tendons that close the hand. When you do that — big surprise — your forearm gets hard and tense!!! Wow! Who woulda guessed it? And what are the results? Your fingers no longer are able to move as freely and your ability to make fine motions required for playing is impaired. I challenge you to play a Bach invention by "gripping". You'll fail miserably. Breathe deeply and naturally, release your shoulders, and allow your fingers to take a natural profile. Your body will handle the rest. End of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2vAsriTZE8

If you want to see the negatives of over-relaxation, look here. The knuckles droop and don't support. There is a constant alternation between flaccidity and uncomfortably pronounced tension. It may look 'relaxed' due to the tendency to become flaccid in the hand, but it certainly was not. The relaxations are compensated for by even greater tensions.

Other than that the piano is out of tune (), his playing is good. His arms move freely in the jumps and his hands at no time look tensed. You're grasping at straws here. Go ahead and keep "removing all doubt" as the saying goes.

So maybe you already grip enough? Have you considered that it's possible for some people to grip too much AND others to grip too little?

My forearm used to get hard and tense when my hand was slack. It's not become hard at all since I started gripping. It sounds like you're referring to poorly controlled clenching, not functional gripping. You can't just make the blanket statement that anyone who grips the keys is doing it too much.

Obviously you will not even consider the possibility, but as I already explained- I have been releasing my shoulders for YEARS! I did dropping exercises with EVERY student I've ever taught! If the hand doesn't support, the shoulders will still tense up, no matter how capable you are of freeing them. The forces have to add up. When I activated my hand, my shoulder became free.

Of course, I'm just imagining all of this though because any form of gripping is always a bad thing. The ONLY way to play the piano is by keeping a slack hand...

That's me in the days when I had countless shoulder pains, before I started gripping and they went away.

At no time do my hands look tense. Exactly. They are too flaccid. My hand doesn't look terribly tense now either, but I don't allow let them sag that way. Instead, I maintain small managable tensions that do not cause discomfort. They just balance instead of tensing then collapsing. Most importantly, they support the weight of my arms on the keybed. What looks like freedom in that film is actually a lack of control in a tense upper body. My shoulders were aching like buggery afterwards.

Keyboardklutz, you said:

Sorry, but gotta stop you there. The muscle that grips is in the forearm (flexors). The knuckles have nothig to do with it, each joint has an annular ligament marked a2, a3, and a4 here:

Well, I am personally talking about torque being generated, or existing if you will, at these knuckle joints. I don't really care about how that is occurring for the current argument, and I don't think Nyiregyhazi does either. In the operation of a backhoe for instance, torques are created at several joints along the boom, including the last one (the bucket). For a wide variety of purposes and discussions, it wouldn't matter if those torques were generated ultimately by massive hydraulic pressure created far away, or by powerful electric motors situated at each joint. For the purposes of digging successfully, it only matters that the torques are created. And thanks for the nice pics...keep 'em coming! I am certainly no anatomist (if there is such a thing).

I suppose next you'll be proclaiming that all the great pianists play with lack of control in a tense upper body.

Keyboardklutz, you said:

And they function solely as a hinge!

in reference to the knuckles. I don't think that is true, anymore than the elbow functions only as a hinge. There is a massive force transmitted by a ligament in tension, and acting at an extremely small distance from the actual point of rotation. That is no more just a hinge than the man on the moon. I think that a very similar mechanism is doing the contracting work at all the various moveable joints, is it not? If not, then what is the different mechanism at the knuckles? We need to know.

Rick

And why might I say that? Have my posts been implying that I believe that upper body tension is a good thing? Or have they been suggesting that it's extremely important to find a balanced whole in which upper body tensions do not have to compensate for a poorly settled hand?

Does Horowitz use his hand in the slack flaccid the way I did in that film? Or does it support with extremely good contact on the keys? Perhaps that's why he doesn't need to lock his shoulder the way I had to at the time I made that film? Look at the hands and you'll see the support that enables great pianists to have freedom where it is desirable. You really don't see a lot of hands that show no sign of grip.

Piano playing works from two ends, not just one.

If you can find a film of a great pianist whose hand slops about in the limp way mine did in that film, I would be intrigued to see it.

I was referring specifically to Valentina Lisitsa. Notice how she carries her hands. And yet, she plays wonderfully with technique far above what most will ever achieve.

Fair point. In terms of the hand she is one of loosest pianists I've seen who plays to a high standard. However, you won't see her knuckles collapse even close as much as with my 'loose' hand (before I started to grip)- which you apparently thought was working very well in that film. That's not the sight of a hand that employs no grip at all.

Also, that approach to the keyboard is certainly vastly less common among those at the top level. So why are you preaching the idea that any form of grip is always wrong and looseness is always better. Based on numbers, that level of looseness in the hand is the exception not the rule.

Does that in itself not make you question the doctrine the would have you believe a little active grip is necessarily a bad thing? Or are you still happy to believe that the only way to learn productively is take the approach that Lisitsa succeeds with- and that the grip employed by the likes of Richter, Gilels, Horowitz etc. ad infinitum is always a bad thing.

Perhaps you also believe that I'm mistaken, when I say that an improvement to the stability of my hand eased upper body tensions? Perhaps I was actually imagining the discomfort back then and perhaps I'm now undergoing crippling upper body strains?

Is it really so hard to open you mind even a fraction, towards an alternate possibility?

The forces are not acting on the hinge, they're acting on the annular ligaments. They are balanced by antagonistic muscles.

Here are the joints. The knuckle simply one of the phalangeal joints.

Horowitz most certainly did not "grip". He played with flat fingers! He was very loose in his fingers as well. Watch this video and tell me he was "gripping".

He was gripping. I aim for similarly flat final finger joints myself. They're ideal to grip the keys from. With a slack hand, the space does not open wide between thumb and second. When that opens out, it shows that the hand is grasping with the opposable mechanism of the thumb. You see this with Horowitz as much as anyone. Slacken the knuckle of your second finger and the space is reduced to nothing. In fact, there are frequent occasions where you see a very pronounced movement in the final joint of his finger. That comes from hand activity.


Look at the knuckle of his left hand here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LZnGADAaFA&feature=related

How about this still? No grip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdqK_w4I2iU&feature=fvw

Just because a hand doesn't clench unproductively doesn't mean it's loose. You really don't see any slack in Horowitz's hand.

Finally, you'll never see a more active fingertip than in much of his Mozart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2oM5DE1Mk&feature=related

Surely even you can't twist that one into supposedly supporting a theory that any utilisation of grip is bad? Can you HONESTLY watch that and deny that his fingers are gripping the keys?


Saying that Horowitz doesn't grip the keys is like claiming that a golfer doesn't grip his clubs. He had some of the most active fingers you ever see from a pianist.

In fact all this knuckle talk is pretty bogus. The strong flexors in the forearm attach just beyond the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints. The metacarpophalangeal only has the weaker intrinsic muscles of the hand to flex them, that and some secondary action from the flexors.

That's an invalid analogy; The golfer grips his clubs. The pianist does NOT "grip" his piano's keys!!!



So? That proves nothing. He's merely pressing a key in what is likely a posed photograph.


Again, that proves nothing. Once again, a photograph that was posed in all probability. It's from the recording session of Mozart's K. 488 Concerto in A major with Carlo Maria Guilini and the La Scala Theatre Orchestra in 1987, BTW.

Shall we have a round of applause for the unprompted irrelevant fact? Or were you still planning on establishing some context for that point?

You probably missed the bit I added in an edit:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2oM5DE1Mk&feature=related

Surely even you can't twist that one into supposedly supporting a theory that any utilisation of grip is bad? Can you HONESTLY watch that and deny that his fingers are gripping the keys?

In fact when you think about it, after you've worked your fingers, are the knuckles ever tired? As opposed to the distal and proximal joints?

Go ahead and keep projecting your own behavior on me.

As to the video, you can rest assured that I have seen it many times. There is NO WAY he is "gripping" anything. To claim he is is utterly absurd, almost to the point of not warranting a response.

Sad, if you actually showed some interest in the physiology of piano playing you may learn something.

You haven't had a golf lesson, then. Golfers are notorious about gripping their clubs too tightly, and golf instructors spend a LOT of time trying to get people to loosen up!

Well, if that's not a gripping action from the fingers, I'd be highly interested to know how you define the act of gripping.

Mine was the other way round.

Sure, but they also spend plenty of time telling people to grip tighter, if it's not tight enough!!! That's exactly what they used to tell me! My club would slip through insufficient grip. Only on the piano does anyone make the blanket assumption that you can only grip too much, but never too little.

The right amount of grip is NOT no grip whatsoever, whether we're talking golf or piano. Anyone who perceives it that way is simply deluding themself about what their hand is actually doing.

I said nothing about too tightly...the sense was that the grip a golfer employs is totally different from and cannot be compared to piano technique.

Squeezing a ball.

Not true. A hand with no grip will slide off a keyboard, just as a club can fall out of a hand.

I'm reminded of a sig line someone around here used to have. "Never argue with a fool; people watching may be unable to tell which is the fool".

Adíos!!!

There's another quote. "Never bother to argue with someone who is not open to the idea of alternate possibilities".

Considering that you will not even contemplate the notion that any amount gripping at a key can EVER be useful, I see what a waste of time responding to you and your doctrines was.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that finding a settled arm is a matter of balancing tensions in the arm against grip and stabilisation in the fingers. Reduce one and you necessitate more of the other to balance the equation, but you can never entirely eliminate either aspect from the equation.

However, it seems that you will not even stop to think about the notion that there is any possibility other that which is solely based around tensing up the arm to steady the fingers. How ironic that this is being preached as a 'relaxation' method, when the alternative actually serves to spread the tensions around in comfortable moderation.

I know, I'll just go back to my 'relaxed' technique that you admired so much in that film- the one that caused a whole lot of shoulder tension and neck strain. Obviously I am just deluding myself, when I think that I've recently been able to practise for hours each day without any discomfort- because its an unquestionable axiom of truth that any active involvement of the hand is ALWAYS a bad thing. A solidified arm is the only acceptable way to stabilise a finger- NEVER a trace of grip in the hand! After all, just look at how the limp the hands of Horowitz were... etc.

Keyboardklutz, you said:

The forces are not acting on the hinge, they're acting on the annular ligaments.

I think that is pretty much what I described. No torque in human or earthly history has ever been created at zero distance from the rotation point, as that would require an infinite force. So what? Just as in the elbow, a large force, acting at a small distance, produces a pretty good-sized torque about that joint. Yes, that is the terminology that is commonly used in solving all kinds of problems in the real world. Engineers sum up moments about whatever point of rotation that makes it easiest to solve the problem.

And tell me Rick, after a keyboard 'workout' do your knuckles ever feel tired? As opposed to distal and proximal interphalangeal joints?

Good quote, but why does it seem everybody like to dissect each and every single line like the poster is writing a peer-reviewed academic journal?

Isn't the point of forums to ask intelligent questions so everybody can learn from the answers? Not to one-up someone's comments to get some short-lived sense of superiority or correct someone's grammer mistakes. Like this other poster said, " It that's not thats." wtf??

...and your intelligent contribution is?

I don't recall you having answered any of the questions about how tired your physics defying 'relaxed' arms get?

My knuckles have never felt tired in the sense of either pain or discomfort. However, when I play for 4 hours of more, I can feel the light fatigue I would expect from using them in a supporting role. I would be very surpised if the 90% plus of all the great pianists who also supported here didn't also experience some degree of tiredness. However, my hands would usually feel more 'tired' after a lot of typing, than from playing the piano.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not advocating rigid 'clenching' of muscles. I am just saying that for my hand to balance it DOES involve grip. Apparently certain others would have me believe that anything other than zero grip (which would necessitate substantial clenching of the forearm muscles, out of physical necessity, in order to stabilise the fingers) would be a blasphemy...


Tell me, can you even play for four hours with your 'held' arm approach? If not, where does the discomfort emerge?

Can't wait to hear the results of that poll.

Am I going to have to do a Jeremy Paxman or are you going to answer the question that has already been put to you so many times? I've answered yours, now it's your turn to give an honest answer.

Or is the answer better witheld through your fear of setting your theories in a bad light? Your silence implies you'd still prefer stick blindly to your guns, whether they're actually firing anything or not.

I'm fine with hours of playing,thank you. Could you elucidate on the 'substantial clenching of forearm muscles' thing?

Learn some physics and you'll learn why a limp hand cannot play without a clenched arm. Without grip in the hand, compensations must be made. If you cannot understand the principle behind that, go and read some books and then come back to us.

This may be starting from point a again but can't a hand rest on the keys without 'substantial clenching'? Surely doing curls is 'substantial clenching'?

I play with FLAT FINGERS!

I tried a slack hand last night from a variety of angles and seat heights. Every time I relaxed my hand fell off the keyboard. Too things can stop that- tension in the hand or tension in the arm. Ideally, a combination of both will reduce the severity of any tensions.

I mean curls as in weight training.

So you're saying that not all tensions are bad? I seem to remeber someone else having made that point a long time ago.

So now you conceded that you're not really 'relaxed' please explain WHY you think tensions in a held arm are 'better'? Why is it better to support with tensions in the arm than with the very slight ones that can achieve the same thing at the key itself? Physics demonstrates that stabilisation in the hand requires vastly less force than stabilisation further back. This is the sword analogy again. It's VERY hard to stabilise it from only one end. Stabilise at two ends and the forces are considerably less pronounced.

Also, a hand with no grip at all is slack. The only way to compensate for such slack is to fuse the arm solid. That is why a slack hand CAUSES tension whereas a very slight grip is a full-on necessity.

As I said before, you're under the illusion that by adding tension to the finger and wrist extensors you can reduce the tension on the forearm flexors - the sums don't add up. Hopefully we're done with shoulder tension (a total illusion).

You need to stop all this 'Physics of the Universe' stuff, you seem to neither understand it or be able to elucidate on it. Why don't you find a picture? I'm not about to wade through any of those crazy 'physics' rants.

So obviously you don't know what a centre of gravity is. Or why it would be tiring to hold your arm out unsupported.

Okay, forget it. I'm not going to waste my time any further. Even when these fundamental factual errors are pointed out to you, you're not interested. You don't even understand how the sum works, so please don't have the audacity to tell me that the sums don't add up.

You simply don't understand the notions I'm putting across, so I'm not going to bother repeating them any further. If you have a serious interest in technique, go and read some physics books. Simply knowing a few muscle names is woefully inadequate to understand the issues here. You need to understand issues of moment and torque etc. and how forces balance out. You cannot analyse the complex mechanims productively, unless you have at least some basic knowledge of such principles. Rotelearning a few Latin words really won't make up for that.

So, the slack hand hanging from your arm, as your arm hangs from your shoulder when you are stood up is causing tension!?

If you want to achieve basic understanding, look up the 'centre of gravity'. I'm not going to teach you what you should have learned while you were bunking off your physics lessons.

To try to analyse technique without getting something so simple is like trying to cure cancer without having studied either biology or chemistry. This is going nowhere...

it would help if you could actually had the vocabulary to talk about parts of the body.

So it does cause tension? Maybe I should get a cane.

We have been discussing physics and what forces act on joints. Not the irrelevance of which muscles act on those joints. Rick was not interested and neither was I. If you want to join in (rather than quote muscle names) go and learn about physics.

That wasn't my point. Go and learn about the 'centre of gravity' and you might understand.

You might have been, I'm discussing the physiology of piano playing.

So it doesn't then?

Congratulations. Now ask yourself why raising the forearm DOES introduce the requirement of stabilisation at the shoulder.

Here's a clue: look up the CENTRE OF GRAVITY

I'm not going to teach you anything else. Go and do some bloody research of your own.

Hold on: 'Also, a hand with no grip at all is slack. The only way to compensate for such slack is to fuse the arm solid. That is why a slack hand CAUSES tension whereas a very slight grip is a full-on necessity.'

oh..., it does.

You might have been, I'm discussing the physiology of piano playing. [/quote]

Yes, far easier to change the subject when you don't understand the one under discussion.

Surely you're not telling me that you've finally understood this simplistic premise?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - the subject is 'Physics of the Universe' - a bit OT don't you think?
Civility costs nothing my man!

Lol I find it funny that I wasn't pointing my "sniper" comment towards anyone and then you lashed out at me.

Well, it seems you've stepped up to the plate without me having to point out anybody. And yes this pointless arguing is an example of the exact problem I was talking about. But maybe you are angry about being a "keyboardklutz" (your screenname not mine) or maybe it's just the bad economy having everybody being a little grumpy.

I think you'll just have to confirm for me, does the slack hand at the end of your arm that's hanging from your shoulder as you are stood up cause tension? Or doesn't it?

I take it another one of your intelligent contributions?

CENTRE OF GRAVITY, LAWS OF MOMENTS, EQUILIBRIUM

Look these things up. I'm not answering such a staggeringly idiotic question. Surely even you have it in your capacity to wonder why an arm that hangs by your side settles for totally different reasons to one that is either resting on a keyboard or held over it? Have we been talking in the context of flopping your arm by your side, or about what happens when playing the piano?

PS. While you're there perhaps you should even look up 'gravity' first?

So, I think you're saying the slack hand in this instance doesn't cause tension. Now what if we flex the elbow so the forearm is horizontal - hand causing tension yet?

The fact the arm is being HELD like that causes the tension. Resting it on a point of support would RELEASE the need for the tension. The hand CANNOT support unless the arm locks or the hand grips (or realistically both, in a balanced compromise- whether you can bring yourself to believe that fact or not) Too complex?

go and study GCSE physics. I'm not going to grace these overwhelmingly ignorant questions with any further answers. You're also quite clearly uninterested in trying to understand the basic science behind such responses.

WHAT AN AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!

So, is the hand causing tension?

When you put it on the keyboard, if a hand is truly slack and does not fall of the keys then YES- it is the reason why the arm will have to be locked up. Either the hand is gripping at the key or the arm is locking to achieve stability. That is what creates an equilibrium in which your arm does not fall to the floor. There is no possibility in which some amount of both does not occur. Anyone who claims that their hand and arm are totally relaxed is mistaken. If either part is overly relaxed the work load increases on the other (or you fall off the keys). If the arm is too free, the fingers have a huge weight to bear. If the hand is overly loose, the arm takes the brunt of it. In a natural technique, the load is shared out comfortably. Nothing works too hard and you don't fall off the keyboard. In order to prevent that, you have balance the forces somewhere.

If you still cannot see the reasons why that is the case then you need to study GCSE physics.

No, I mean is the slack hand causing tension when hanging from your forearm while the forearm is raised horizontally by the elbow flexors sans keyboard?

Do I have to repeat myself forever, before you can grasp this simple premise? A slack hand PREVENTS ANY OF THE WORKLOAD BEING TAKEN OFF THE ARM. Do I have to refer you to the sword analogy for the 100th time, before you stop asking this stupid questions? A supportive hand SPREADS OUT the workload- hence REDUCING the balancing tensions in the arm!

When a seesaw is balanced, if you add weight at one end you can remove it from the other.

A simple yes or no would suffice. Still, I'll take that as no. So if we walk over to a keyboard and sit down, allowing the hand to rest on the keys but changing nothing else, is it still not causing tension?

As for seesaws, you need to know where the fulcrum is. In this case I very much doubt you do.

If the hand CAN rest on the keys it releases the need for tension in the arm. For a hand to be able to rest it needs to grip the key- however faintly that grip may occur. When a knuckle stands up, the hand is gripping. No other substitute can make that happen. When a slack hand remains on the keyboard, it does so because the arm holds it there.

I have never claimed to understand most intricate details of every single joint in the complex mechanism. To do so would require a staggeringly complex computer simulation. However, what is important is the fact that a system that stabilises the final joints (ie. the finger) by tensions a long distance from those hinges is not terribly efficient. A mechanism that balances at both ends involves less workload. Once more- the sword analogy. If a miniscule finger grip does serve not stabilise, the effort for the arm to stabilise is substantially greater. If you held out a long pole with a long piece of foam on the end- would it help you very much- to put the foam on something? Or would you still be bearing virtually the entire workload. Alternatively, balance at a point on the stability of the pole itself and you vastly reduce the workload. It's a very close analogy. The only way to ensure that the hand does not offer a lack support, like the foam, is to introduce a little grip to solidify it's structure enough to support.

That is a lot easier than only stabilising from one end.

Only those who have predetermined doctrines (or who simply don't know enough to understand the principle) could possibly argue with that. The only mechanism that can free a performer of excessive tension is one that achieves balance from both sides. Anything else is intrinsically flawed as a system, or it is based upon a misunderstanding about what actually takes places.

The first statement fine. The idea that the hand has to do something in order to rest is beyond me. What matter its shape? Does your mouse not rest on your pad regardless of shape? Does a ball not rest? Or a piece of paper?

This thread has become too tedious for me to follow, but I wonder if anyone's suggested that private messages might be a better place for it. I only mean to say that it's become a conversation between you two anyway. Where's it going? Common ground and reconciliation are far more likely to be found in private than in an impersonal public setting more suited to display, dismissiveness and one-upmanship than real communication.

Steven

Nah, I'm finished. The idea that this guy actually teaches this stuff to children is scandalous.

I read over it about once a day, think about replying, then come to my senses, log off, and go practice.

If you pull the cord of the mouse, does it stay there?

The gravity that acts on your arm is channeled towards you by the result of many joints. That is why your hand falls off the keys if you slacken it. It is pulled towards you by the result of gravity acting on a complex mechanism. That is why you have fuse your arm solid, in order to keep a slack hand on a keyboard. If there's give in your arm and the hand is slack, the forces don't balance. The hand is pulled on a perpendicular plane, as surely as if you pull the cord of a mouse.

If you can only look at this from an ignorant point of view, you will not understand it. Please go and read some books about physics and stop wasting my time these naive, ill-thought out questions. You simply don't understand the topic. Why are you wasting my time and yours trying to pick holes in something that is beyond your comprehension? You're not succeeding in picking any holes here, you simply keep illustrating your failure to understand the issue.

Can't say I blame you. Talking to people like this is a bloody waste of time.

Well I agree that this thread is not arriving at any definite conclusions but I wouldn't say Nyiregyhazi is a troll. I think both kbk and Nyiregyhazi have firm and decided views which are each not compatible with the views of the other one. Whether they're really arguing about terminology or something more fundamental I'm not sure, but I'm happy to let them keep at it in the hope that when it's all over I might be a bit more enlightened. So if it really bugs you, Horowitzian, just leave them to it

Well, I think the big problem is that kbk really seems to think that the laws of physics do not apply to him. I am not going to push this any further, as there's really no point in arguing with someone who simply does not understand what you are saying.

If anyone would like to pick any genuine holes in my points I should be grateful to hear them. For anyone who thinks my mind is already made up, that is not true. However, it isn't going to be changed by someone who simply doesn't understand the principles I've set out here. If there's any fault in the theory, I should be glad to rethink it. What kind of an idiot would persist with something in the face of all reason- when doing so would limit their playing?

Having scrapped plenty of the traditional principals that were set into me at an early age (when at 28, I realised that not only had they left me at a dead-end but that they simply did not stand up to rational scrutiny) I am willing to rethink almost anything. I'm only interested in finding an efficient way to play, not in winning an argument. However, I'm certainly not going to rethink anything as the result of a point that stems from an inadequate understanding of the most basic rules of physics.

PS. One thing I've rethought recently is the role of stabilising in the arm. I do believe that this has a purpose. With the loosest arm possible, it can place a fair amount of stress on the fingertip- just as a truly slack hand will requires the arm's muscles to support it's entire weight without assistance (or fall off the keys). I'm currently believing in the importance of an approach that is ALWAYS in some balance between the two points of stabilisation. That way, you can sometimes rest more on the fingers and sometimes support more with the arm. The idea of a truly slack hand and the compensatory fused arm (that MUST accompany it, for the forces to balance) is still a nonsense to me (as it would be to any physician or phsyio, unless I am vastly mistaken), but I do believe in an infinite variety of ways in which the supporting role can be balanced between fingers and arm. It's good to have options.

So, a closed or predetermined mind? Shall we compare that to kbk and horowitzian- who both insist that a hand must NEVER grip in any sense at all and one who whom feels the hand should NEVER find support at the keyboard- and that the arm must be relaxed while doing so (apparently being supported by mysterious forces that prevent the arm from falling under gravity, without employing any muscular effort whatsoever)? Personally, I'm rethinking the fine details of how things fit together constantly. However, I'm not going to rethink anything as the result of someone regurgitating a doctrine that cannot even provide an explanation for.

Point well taken. I think it really all boils down to Nyiregyhazi misinterpreting what is going on during the act of playing the piano, and subsequently using terms that are not an apt description. However, the fact that he refuses to consider that he might be wrong — while vociferously insisting that everyone else must be wrong — frankly pisses me off.

There's no misinterpretation. A slack arm and hand falls off a keyboard. This illustrates that the normal force will not balance a hand on a key. Therefore, the force that does keep it there comes from either grip, fixing within the arm or a combination of both.

That's very basic science indeed. On a slightly more advanced level, any force from the finger will provide vastly more stabilisation per unit of force, than that which can be provided further back in the arm. Hence the analogy about holding out a long pole with a load of foam on the end- and the fact that it would be VERY hard to stabilise from the end, if the other end achieves no stability- as the result of slack at that end. You didn't deal with ANY of these points.

If you can then please do. If not, simply claiming that I'm wrong really looks pretty flimsy. The very reason I'm explaining in such specific, rational terms is because simply saying 'relax more' is better or 'fingers are the most important' never leads anywhere in the case of opposing views. If you're only prepared to say that your own approach is better (without dealing with the rational points that I set out) it really isn't terribly conducive to fruitful discussion. If I am wrong, I am interested in WHY- not in casual dismissals without just cause.

As does the word of an obnoxious person on the internet who I don't know from Adam.

The only thing I see that is obnoxious is your casual dismissal, coupled with your inability to follow it up with rational justification. Still, I'm not interested in wasting any more time arguing with those who are only interested in whether what I said conflicts with their doctrines. If anyone else has a grounding in physics and sees a hole in the argument however, I remain very interested.

Still, if it's just going to be another "you're wrong and I'm right" without explanation or thought, please save it for those discussions where one person merely shouts that "finger technique is the most important" while another shouts "armweight is most important". While I'm always interested in logical reasonsing, I have no interest is such pointless, brain-dead exchanges.

Gas on, buddy, you're digging a deep hole.



As if your ideas are any more rational...

Well, you have to admit, Horowitzian, that you haven't actually said anything here.

But just to stall the "is" "isn't" "is" "isn't" stuff which seems to be developing, when I first arrived at PW a couple of years ago, a few remarks struck me so much that I wrote them down. Here's one:
It's what you *think* you do and how you use your ears which are the important thing.
And who said that? Keyboardklutz.

If they're not rational, the onus is on YOU to illustrate that through explanation. That's how debate works. If you can only say "you're wrong", how do you expect that to be fruitful or productive in any way? And you referred to me as a troll? If you can say WHY, it might progress.

I'm always willing to re-think things. I threw out half of the stuff that I had spent my whole life doing, a couple of years ago- when I opened my mind enough to realise that what I had been told and believed (particularly regarding a completely relaxed hand) neither worked for me nor made any sense (in terms of the basic physics that I learned at school). However, do you think anyone has ever stopped and changed their mind because someone else said "you're wrong"- without even attempting to explain why? Do you think that has ever led to something productive for either party? I changed my own ways so drastically, because when I assessed a logical premise I saw that it stood up to scrutiny. Had I simply been told to grip more, I wouldn't have believed a word of it.

Go back through the thread. I gave up on that several pages ago. As I said, it was a bloody waste of time.



That's a good one, too. But I'm an obsessive-compulsive type when it comes to stuff like this. I like to have the correct idea about what I am doing. Sorry if I interrupted this guy's fantasies about what he thinks he is doing.

What is truly sorry is that you cannot deal in logic. Sorry, but you didn't make any points earlier that would undermine a thing I've said. If you had, I would have readily acknowledged it. However, you did make the classic mistake of claiming that the normal force keeps the hand on the key. In reality it isn't adequate to do so, without either a gripping hand or a solidified arm. A fully loose hand and arm slip off.

I remember that you were not able to proceed after that, so you simply leapt to telling me to forget it and check that I'm breathing properly...

Well, since your entire premise is based upon the fallacy of Begging the Question — assuming the truth of the conclusion based upon the premises — you're one to be talking.

Ummm... no. Actually, it's based on a few fundamentals from the laws of physics. I set them out above. They illustrate that the only way to stabilise an arm is through a combination of support within the arm and at the key (or with an arm that is fused absolutely rigid and no grip). If you don't believe me, ask a physics graduate.

If the argument's flawed then deal with it please. If I have missed something I can sincerely say that i WANT to hear about it so I can rethink the matter and further the thought processes. If you can't find anything however, I'm really not interested in hearing you chanting "you're wrong" while you stick your fingers in your ears.


The truth of the premise is illustrated by the improvements to my own playing by the way. At no time have I said that everyone needs to grip more. In fact, I believe that certain hands require very little grip to stabilise the mechanism, whereas for others (different proportions between bones and muscles) it is a particularly important aspect, in finding a comfortable balance. However, you have made it evident that you do not believe that grip should even exist in any form (contrary to the laws of physics once more). For years, I followed your doctrine of a loose hand. It caused constant problems and poor control. Since I've started to grip, I've found that I can actually control Chopin Etudes in a manner that had never been possible (and I have removed countless negative tensions that plagued me for years).

But of course, I just imagined that because grip is NEVER the answer to ANYTHING and the world is actually flat and uou must NEVER consider anything that does not fit what you already decided upon etc. etc. ad infinitum

You've assumed that your conclusion – consciously resting the hands on the keys reduces overall tension — is true based on your own experience, which is your premise. That is a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question.

The laws of physics do apply to everybody, but the human body uses muscles, ligaments, and tendons to support itself; we aren't talking about a static non-living mass here, like those model skeletons in every anatomy classroom. There is human physiology as well as physics at play here.

I find that good breathing and relaxation habits allow my body to handle the demands of playing without "slipping off the keys", "falling off the bench", or most importantly without any of the tension you claim is caused by relaxation. That is personal experience that should be taken FWIW. You've not, however, supplied us with empirical evidence that relaxation causes tension as you have claimed so often. And yet you are surprised that you didn't get warm welcome? Look in the mirror.



There's the root of our disagreement there. Your own experiences can certainly be supporting evidence such a claim, but they prove nothing. Let me say that again. They prove nothing. We have no way of verifying them. In fact, it's important to remember that "personal experience" as touted on the internet can easily be made up. And when said person is rude and belligerent, that casts a great shadow upon his credibility.

Let's just agree to disagree, and be done with this much ado about nothing.

What would be really interesting is to have people demonstrate the technique in action in a variety of contexts. Some passagework from Mozart or Beethoven, some octave work in one of the Liszt sonettos or Sposalizio, and some kind of bravura setting - an etude, Scherzo, or a Haydn finale...

I agree, Kreisler. I would be fascinated to see that. But all we've gotten so far is platitudes.

Another interesting aspect involves how technique is taught. Someone might have keen insight into the physiology of piano playing, but if you can't communicate that to a student, that insight is rendered pedagogically ineffective.

On the other hand, a person's knowledge of physiology could be limited or flawed, and yet they may have a knack for imparting good technical fundamentals to students.

And then there's the specter of actual practice hovering above all this theory. We cannot deny the existence of pianists who have very different technical approaches to the piano and who also play with a great deal of skill and comfort.

Agreed. Everyone is unique. There's certainly no way we can stop our friend from grabbing his piano's keys!

[edit] Can you delete that troll picture above? Or will Ken have to do that? It's not really constructive in hindsight.

Well, I am flattered! And I think I'm right! But we shouldn't grab at things, the grabbing hand is an ugly hand - the relaxed hand is a thing of beauty, a production of nature.


Nyiregyhazi, I stated pages ago that my upper arm hangs freely, and vertically, from my shoulders. Where's the cord pulling the mouse? And even if you 'observe' otherwise, is that not the way to go - alleviate the stress by realigning the body rather than attempting to shift the tension?

If you pull the cord of the mouse, does it stay there?

"Nyiregyhazi, I stated pages ago that my upper arm hangs freely, and vertically, from my shoulders. Where's the cord pulling the mouse? And even if you 'observe' otherwise, is that not the way to go - alleviate the stress by realigning the body rather than attempting to shift the tension?"

Do I really have to repeat this again? If it's in balance, that's because you have countered that force. Relax EVERYTHING and your 'cord' pulls your mouse away. If that force is being countered, you are either gripping at the key or locking your arm solidly into position (or most likely gripping slightly at the key and merely stabilising with the arm muscles).

Ask ANY physicist to confirm that for you. That is FACT and not opinion.

You talk about difference etc. but where have I ever said that I am proposing a method for EVERYONE to follow? Conversely, I am being told that this is nonsense and (despite all the laws of science) ALL grip is NEVER positive. So who has a closed mind?

When I teach I alernate between complete slackening exercises and light gripping ones and demonstrate what a tiny difference in exertion there is between the slack hand with collapsed knuckles and the gripping hand where they stand up. If you think that I tell students to clench up, without demonstrating how to control or balance comfortably, you are wildly mistaken. If I showed you a photo of my gripping hand, I doubt whether you'd describe it as 'tense'. However, you'd see the difference if I slackened it.

I agree that a lot is down to sensation and not necessarily down to what happens. However, the reason I am particularly interested in this is that the relaxed hand approach DID NOT WORK FOR ME! Can I stress that any more? After years, my hand was still functioning poorly. How about all the other people who didn't achieve results? Should they ALL believe that grip is ALWAYS bad? Or should there be an alternative that might be considered? If there had been no alternative, I would have gone nowhere. But, of course, that alternative is ALWAYS wrong and never good...

Finally, in terms of perception it's those who have supportive knuckles but feel a relaxed hand who perceive differently. A relaxed hand collapses. Anyone who feels relaxed but has a good level of support is gripping, regardless of whether it's so slight that they don't realise it. A relaxed hand (which is not acted on by tension in any muscles) collapses. That is a fact and not an opinion.

As words seem to fail with you:


Now, where is the 'pulling force'.

And where are the joints of the wrist and the fingers etc in your ludicrously simplified diagram?

Are we assuming that everything from the elbow is a single piece of solid material? Precisely how much muscle tension are you proposing is supposed to be going on here, to create a situation that bears any relation to your diagram? Introduce a wrist hinge alone to your diagram and you have a situation where the forces are not balanced. The whole thing would fall off.

Why do you keep asking these absurd questions when you don't understand such simple physics? If you want to pick holes, go and buy some textbooks and learn the fundamentals. If you still don't trust the simple premise I outlined, put it to any physicist. Assuming that you put it across correctly (without twisting my words) he'll certainly tell you that it's sound.

Once more, put your hand on the keyboard. Relax EVERYTHING. Does your arm fall off the keys? If not, I doubt whether you have relaxed the muscles properly. Your hand should slide along the keyboard and fall off. That is for the reasons that I have outlined at least ten times here. Why do you think this happens?

The force acts upon your hand, with a component that acts directly towards your body. This hold true for any person with any shape body (unless they fuse their arm solid, as in your diagram). This force needs to be balanced.

As I understand it, I am not permitted to balance any percentage of this force by gripping the keys from within my hand? I am only permitted to fuse my arm into a single stiff line?

Do you think you could just point out where the pull is? Maybe draw an arrow on my idiot's guide? Add a wrist joint if you wish, though it's perfectly relaxed, so not relevant here..

Draw the hinges then. Your diagram currently bears about as much relevance as a smiley face.

Happy now? Where is the pulling force?

Not even faintly. You are still proposing that the wrist hinge and finger hinges are held FIXED in position- with not give AT ALL? I thought you were proposing a relaxed hand? Yet apparently you believe that everything from the elbow down functions like a single block of granite?

If you want to pursue this further, go and LEARN about physics. I'm not even going to bother responding to any more of these inane, ill-informed questions.


If I were your physics teacher, you'd be standing outside the headmaster's office by now.

Happy now? (though I must admit the flexors are simplified). So, pulling forces on the hand?? Where??

Look at any film of a pianist whose knuckles don't collapse. If the knuckle does not sag and droop, it demonstrates the hand is gripping. The force may be slight but it exists. A completely relaxed hand that incorporates no grip whatsoever simply cannot support in that fashion.

Can you not read, either?

IS YOUR ENTIRE ARM SOLIDIFIED LIKE GRANITE FROM THE ELBOW TO THE FINGER!!!!!!??????????????

DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THOSE JOINTS WOULD REMAIN BALANCED IN SUCH A POSITION??????

There we go. Joints! Now where again is the pull on the hand?

I don't know where the 'granite' comes from, the wrist is quite soft, really! Now, where did you say that pull on the hand was?

Is your wrist held rigid? Yes or no?

If not, it will drop, pulling your hand with it. Would you care to explain how a 'loose' hinge might stay rigidly in position, while gravity acts upon it?

The reason it does not drop (despite not being held rigid) is because it is also partly stabilised at the finger end. Otherwise, you ARE holding the wrist joint absolutely rigid. How else do you propose that the balance could occur? Is that what you feel consitututes a good 'relaxed technique?


Are your finger joints held rigid? If not the same principle applies there.

The weight of the hand is supported on one end, by the fingers, on the other the elbow flexors. Where again is the pull on the hand?

So now you do you believe in supporting weight upon the fingers? That's something of an about turn. I thought they had release instantaneously?

Gravity acts upon the knuckles, just like the wrist. If they drop, the wrist stops being supported and also drops (unless its locked). Everything gets pulled away.

The only way the knuckle hinge can support without active grip within the finger is if there is a forward force coming from the rest of the arm. Are you saying that the arm should push slightly forward, to achieve this stability? That would balance things out, I believe.

Actually I think you're easily deceived - the hand is actually hanging from the wrist but is sooooo carefully done that it looks fixed!

Only as much weight as the elbow flexors wish, which is less than its own weight.

You said the majic word pull! Where again is there a pull on the hand?

No sorry, that would not balance the forces.

I agree that it LOOKS fixed when the forces are balanced. However, if the knuckle is not actively supported (what I refer to by gripping) this balance falls down. The level of grip that is required to achieve this may well differ from hand to hand. For own my hand, it needs to be done very actively, or the whole mechanism collapses (or I have to hold my wrist still, rather than balance it).

As soon as any joint drops, it pulls the hand. Let your wrist drop. It pulls the hand.

Let your knuckles drop and your wrist will also drop (unless held in place) and it pulls the hand.

Unless there is stabilisation in the hand, joints give way and pull the hand towards you.

The knuckles are the key point that enable the wrist to 'float' while retaining balance, but they do not stand up entirely of their own accord. THAT is where grip lies in the equation. No matter how slight it may be, the equation will not balance without it (except with substantial locking in the wrist)

The distal phalange hangs from the middle phalange which hangs from the metacarpals which which hang from the wrist. Where is the support? Where again is the pull on the hand! Where is the pull on the hand. Show me!

Finally!! The elbow flexors don't allow the wrist to drop!

In COMBINATION with the knuckles. Drop the knuckles and the whole things falls apart. Neither end is more or less vital to the whole.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Wave your knuckles in the effing air if you like, the wrists going nowhere!

What's supposed to be so funny? When my knuckles support I do not have to hold my wrist. When my knuckles collapse, my wrist falls under the weight, unless I start 'holding' it there. The whole mechanism falls apart.

You are only seeing this one dimensionally. For the midpoint of the wrist to 'float' it needs stabilisation at both ends.

No that's funny!

If that's the case, and you're not obtaining support from the finger end, you've locked it. With a truly relaxed hand, the wrist will drop unless held there. All this really boils down to is the fact that either your hand isn't as relaxed as you believe or your wrist isn't as relaxed as you believe.

Otherwise, you're claiming to defy the laws of physics again. There really is no array of free hinges that can stabilise without an active force occuring on the end points- UNLESS one of the other hinges ( the elbow end) is locked rigidly. Otherwise, gravity wins.

The elbow flexors hold your forearm level with where the wrist is at rest. What is hard to understand about that? Bit like a drawbridge. In fact imagine a drawbridge with a hinged flap on its distal end and you've got it! In fact imagine lots of little hinged flaps, one after each other and you have the finger joints as well! Do you not see how a smart operator can lower all these so they lie in a straight line and you can walk across?

Okay, now imagine a whole series of hinges at the end of a long stick. These hinges are all free- with no muscles pulling on them (like your relaxed hand). How easy do you think it would to stabilise this stick horizontally, when resting it upon all of these free hinges?

I'd really like to see you try. Tighten up a couple of the hinges a little at the hand end and you'd have a sporting chance. Work at the other end, and you'd only be able to stabilise by supporting the entire weight of the outward structure on the final hinge. Even then, your array of flopping hinges at the end would be absolutely useless, if they had to transmit substantial forces of their own to another body.

I'd like to see you find an engineer who'd be willing to even attempt to build such a structure. Until you introduce an ACTIVE means to control the hinges at the end, you have a complete mess. Ask a robotics engineer. Such structures CANNOT function without active forces working on the joints at the end.


The only issue here is that you are not aware of the functional tensions that your hand employs. If the joints were truly flopping around without any active controlling forces, you would fall off the keys with every note you tried to play.

Let's finish the wrist first. The first joint of your stick will be perfectly stable as long as it is held by a rope something like a draw bridge? Yes?

Indeed, but the problem doesn't lie at that end.

How do you propose that a complex series of 'loose' hinges can possibly serve to transmit energy to a key? They cannot function without their own individual controls. They would be of no use whatsoever.

I challenge you to find an engineer who would be willing to attempt to build such a structure and use it to transmit energy to another body.

Even if you put the whole of the workload at the elbow side, you have no rational explanation of how slack fingers can funtion. With no active input, the fingers would go absolutely flat, before slipping off the keys. The fact that this does not happen literally proves that the fingers are supplying a force that has nothing to do with gravity.

I'm not going to repeat myself any further, as you're clearly neither willing to listen nor to think about these fundamentals.

If you don't believe me, ask an engineer to build that structure for you...

Hold on! Now is there a pull on the distal end of the stick?

I'm not going to go back over it again. If you still don't get the idea that gravity acts upon a free hinge, go and find a physics teacher. If a hand were ever truly devoid of grip, it would be like trying to play the piano with a foam hand. If a hand grips too much it needs to be freed. If a hand has a much function as a foam hand, it needs to learn how to grip more in a healthy manner. Simple...

Don't forget to ask an engineer to build that structure for you. You might as well ask for a perpetual motion machine.

Yes or no would do. But we do need to finish on the forces acting on the wrist first. I have done it in image form:

So presumably your hand can drop from the wrist, but cannot extend upward of horizontal? You ought to work on your flexibility.

What an absurd diagram! You seriously seek to claim that those forces would be balanced- under the action of gravity! Or is your elbow truly held rigid? So you're an advocate of the gyro school of technique now? A still forearm and solely finger based action?

What kind of ludicrous purpose is served by a diagram that either OMITS the freedom of the hinges or requires a completely fused elbow! Is this what you're referring to when you speak of the importance 'relaxation' within your method? Can you honestly not see the contradictions?

Incidentally, if your simulation is anything to go by, you play with a perfectly flat hand? This must cause some interesting palm-based harmonies, when you play full chords.

Your physics coursework receives a score of E-

One diagram at a time please. The elbow is held in place by the elbow extensors (rope). So, where are the pulling forces on the wrist?

So this is indeed the basis for your relaxation method? Hold the forearm solid at the elbow? Rigidly? And channel energy into the keys by allowing the fingers to bend right back to the extremity of their joint's limits? That is what is stabilising the wrist in your diagram. Does that sound healthy?

Tell me, what force would prevent your knuckles from collapsing down into the keyboard, within this arrangement? Is that also the product of a locked elbow? Or perhaps it comes direct from God? Or perhaps it's a small force that the fingers apply to the key, beyond that of gravity?

No, hang on, that would be an insane suggestion...

Where is the force pulling on the wrist? Elbows/knuckles later if you don't mind.

It's GRAVITY you numbskull!

Are you telling me your forearm really is LOCKED into position? That's your best explanation for the missing link? The idea that a SOLIDLY HELD forearm is the key to 'relaxation' technique?

Even with that, your hand has not been explained. How do your perfectly flat fingers operate? They are thing sthat can prevent the hand from dropping at the wrist (even with your elbow of granite). But how do you play, with a completely flat hand that has no curve whatsoever? Of course, it's perfectly relaxed, not gripping.

Or then again, maybe there IS a curve because your hand GRIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the only explanation.

Name-calling now, are we?

Gravity pulling sideways!?

WHAT? I have no idea what misapprehension you're under this time, so please explain. However, gravity DOES pull sideways, when you have an array of joints. Tie a weight to something light and pop it on a table. Does the weight pull it off the table? Is that not gravity? Gravity acts on the string and the string acts on that which is being pulled. In effect gravity CAN act sideways (when properly channelled), yes.

However, I'm still rather more interested in your explanation of how you propose to justify a method that demand a rigid forearm. You haven't even attempted to deal with this.

If you're interested in furthering your understanding (rather than in trying to win a failing argument) you can't just walk away from such a fundamental issue.

I'm sure you don't play with a truly rigid elbow, so it's pretty clear that your very flawed diagrams are offering a very poor representation. If you care to stop trying to 'prove' your approach and consider what role a small stabilising grip at the finger would play, you might realise that the diagram could actually add up- without the absurd idea of a locked forearm.

You're kidding right?

The fact that you would say that, shows how little you know. If you someone tied a long rope to both your and a boulder and pushed the boulder off a cliff (that you were 10 m away from) you'd soon realise how gravity can be channelled into a sideways force.

I asked you about the fused elbow though. Please continue to elaborate on how this fixed forearm fits into your 'relaxation' method...

If he isn't, it's no wonder he found vector math above him.

So you've studied vectors, but never moments or pullies or resultant forces etc.?

From wiki, nothing here about sideways.

So you wouldn't mind if I tied a boulder to your leg and threw it off a cliff? As long as you were some distance sideways of the drop, it couldn't pull you on a sideways plane...

Why both with a handbrake on a car eh? It's not as if gravity could result in a car moving in any direction other than perfectly downwards?

If you are going to claim gravity pulls sideways, and God knows what other directions, what can we do?

Gravity's vector is pointed straight down towards the center of the earth. Quit pulling red herrings (yes, another logical fallacy!) into discussion.

Study harder in physics lessons?

What do we expect from someone who apparently lives in the Bizzaro World?

There's no fallacy. We're discussing resultant forces, not individual ones. Nobody ever claimed that gravity acts directly sideways. As I stated- it can be 'channeled' into a sideways force.

If you have something to add (beyond ill-directed pedantry) feel free. If you're only interested in an argument then forget it. I'm interested by the issues, not argument for its own sake. If I wanted that, I'd post comments on random youtube videoblogs.

By the way, if pedantry is your game, you ought to note that gravity rarely acts perfectly towards the centre of the earth. In fact, there a few places where it actually DOES have a sideways component, due to mountain ranges and inconsistent densities.

I think you're talking gravity + a pulley, in which case that is balanced out by the rope.

HAhahahahaah...we'd have never guessed you weren't just here to stir up trouble...anyway since you don't even recognize the fallacy, I'll point it out to you.



Calling my knowledge into question is a red herring, and it merely goes to show that you are grasping at straws here.

And how about the locked forearm? Why are you ducking the issue? Are you interested in THINKING about this collossal flaw in your argument- or in simply in trying to cover over these gaping holes?

Me ducking?? I'm still asking where is the pull on the hand!! The rope, in my book, has balanced it out.

Why should I even contemplate the fine details of a system that preaches the necessity of a RIGID forearm? How absurd can a system be, if that's a prerequisite of balancing the forces?!!!!

You can seriously keep a straight face when ridiculing the notion of a little stabilisation through grip in the hand, but you preach a system that involves a RIGID forearm?

GRAVITY pulls the hand! If it's the flaccid hand you speak of the rope offers no stabilisation whatsoever to the series of free hinges. You simply don't have any grasp of the most basic fundamentals at play.

Not even stabilization of the wrist?

My do I pity your students.

NO!!!!!!!! Not unless the hand balances at the keys! In your system the hand achieves balance by being totally flat- with the joints collapsing in on themselves. Is that how you play? Or does your hand curve to some extent?

WHAT provides the force that produces that shape (in what you claim is a series of totally free hinges)? I already asked the question and you ducked out of it.

I'm going to dare a little jump ahead here - you mean my hand is balanced? Not causing tension?

Balanced-in that its entire surface area lies against the keys- with some of its joints doubling back at the extreme range of their motion yes. No, how do you intend to actually play with this perfectly flat hand and your FUSED forearm!

My own hand balances with a very modest level of grip and a FREE elbow. No locking ANYWHERE! The end point is the shoulder, not a rigidified elbow.

If you were to stop merely trying to argue your way out the hole you've dug yourself into by putting this premise across, perhaps you might see the fact that any technique involves some combination of a two-sided balance. A one-sided stabilisation simply does not hold up to scrutiny. There is no form of stabilisation that comes from a limp hand. EVERY hand employs some grip, however slight that might be.

In reality you almost certainly do exactly the same thing, although the proportions of the balance may well be very different. Until you get past the idea that your hand lies could or should lie truly flaccid, you will not understand what you actually do.

I don't believe for a moment that you believe this nonsense about a solidified forearm and I certainly hope you don't either teach it or do it. I can hardly think of a more destructive way to employ tensions.

So, my hand is balanced but not flaccid?

What???? Do you have someone pick your arms up and place them on the keys?

No. I would never claim that my shoulder doesn't do any work. However, neither would I even contemplate any form of technique that depends upon solely upon the necessity of a completely rigidifed forearm or shoulder. The workload needs to be spread out, not confined to one single area. Any completely locked joint is a bad thing.

Precisely. However strenuously you will deny it, that balance involves a degree of grip in the hand. Remove the grip and you have a flaccid, incapable hand- just like a hand made of foam.

All I'm saying is that at all times when your elbow is bent, the bicep and related muscles in the forearm are contracted. There's no such thing as a "free elbow" when the arm is in playing position.

I think I'm going to re-read some Abby Whiteside. I always thought her writing was opaque and oddly organized, but I think she'll be easier to understand than this thread.


Now that makes sense.

Steven

I'm holding my arm in playing position now without touching the hand to anything...my hand is not flaccid and remains quite capable. That's because it continues to be supported — without tension — by the ligaments and tendons. Why do you insist so vociferously on ignoring physiology?

Well that shows that you're too quick to argue before reading what I've said. I never claimed that there is no position where the elbow doesn't take ANY of the workload. By free, I refer to one that doesn't have to be RIGID. In a balanced whole, the work is spread between various parts, none of which are locked. The tiny amount of grip that occurs within the hand is one of many parts that function together- so as to avoid placing too great a workload on any individualised component.

You're claiming that a hand must never become involved in the scheme of the overall mechanism. That's really painfully short-sighted. I'm talking about balance between different elements, while you continue to insist that there must be NOTHING in the way of grip?

Would a foam hand be much use? You could even put bones in it, if you want. However, if nothing acts on those bones, the hand doesn't work. The forces that need to act are those of grip.

So when you say 'Balanced-in that its entire surface area lies against the keys- with some of its joints doubling back at the extreme range of their motion yes' you don't mean flaccid?

Why not use more apt terms then? Saying exactly what you mean goes a long way.



Now I'm the one touting grip? Puh-leeeeze.



I said nothing about a foam hand. People don't have foam hands. What do foam hands have to do with how the human body actually works anyway? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Got it?

Now flop to the tabletop. You've forgotten about GRAVITY once again. Does you hand sag into the tabletop and flatten out?

If not, you have gripped. The neutral position does not get retained when you introduce external forces UNLESS something balances those forces. You can change your angle of argument as many times as you want. It doesn't change the fact that a hand with zero grip does not stand up.

My 'relaxed' hand is hugely different from my playing hand. When I grip it position, it still looks vastly more relaxed than most pianist's hands. I use rather flat finger and nothing like as pronounced an arch as Michelangeli or Richter. That doesn't change the fact it's gripping.

I said nothing about a foam hand. People don't have foam hands. What do foam hands have to do with how the human body actually works anyway? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Got it? [/quote]

If a hand is genuinely slack, they're not vastly different in function. How about a skeleton's hand then? Would that make a good sound? Or would the fact that it cannot grip cause a problem?

I knew I shouldn't have tried a jump. In this picture, with elbow, arm, wrist and hand lying on a table - is the hand flaccid? Is it slack?

The dictionary defines grip in the literal sense thus:



No way does that fit your made-up definition of grip. The flexors contract, yes, but they are not gripping unless you are holding onto an object.

Is all depends on how it's aligned. Is the palm resting on the keys? Are the knuckles resting on the keys?

Show me a photo of real hand. It's far easier to speak specifically.

There he goes again, with those red herrings.

Let me make this crystal clear. Foam hands have nothing to do with reality. A skeleton's hands have nothing to do with how the hands of a living person work. Get that through you head, if you can, and maybe we can get somewhere.

that's one very selective definition. I believe that a doctor would probably refer to any muscular activity as a form of 'grip', regardless of whether's it's to hold a weight in the air or simply to form a rounded hand. A muscular contraction is a muscular contraction. I don't believe there's any reason why something has to be strenuous to be justifiably knows as a grip.

Grip is also spoken of in relation of friction. When I lose 'grip' my fingers sometimes slip. Is that a questionable context to use the word in?

My idea of gripping also includes not releasing a position that the hand has gripped into. If I release, my knuckles collapse. If my knuckles stay in position, I consider that to be a form of grip. However you approach it, it is a continued form of MUSCULAR ACTIVITY. That is the important issue. If a hand goes too slack, you need to learn to employ the muscles that generate such a position.

Palm and knuckles are rested on the keys. Is it flaccid, is it also slack?

Sure, that's a slack hand. There are still forces acting on it, due to the gravity. But that's about as close as you come to releasing all willful muscular tension in a hand. I insist that all of my students learn this release first, before they learn how to get the hand to stand up in a functional position. It hepls to illustrate exactly how much (or how little) grip is required to form a good hand.

Anything that is not in this state comes from the employment of grip.

You believe?!!!? How about showing us some proof of that?

and with regard to the sentence

"When I lose 'grip' at the key my fingers sometimes slip."

misleading? Out of context? Sorry, but grip doesn't have to mean trying to rip a telephone directory in two.

Great, now a beaver comes along and gnaws away the table top just below the wrist. Still slack (and I assume flaccid)?

Looking for proof....something other than your word would be nice.

If the palm is still supported, this should still balance without any major change. However, cut aways past the knuckles and (certainly for my hand) if I remain flaccid, the knuckles begin to double backwards (rather uncomfortably), unless I begin to stabilise by very light gripping (or a held wrist). A flaccid hand stops functioning at this point, because the vital joint is no longer supported.

"When I lose 'grip' at the key my fingers sometimes slip."

Try that sentence on a few people. See if they assume you're referring to clenching up, rather than forming a position of stable support.

Anyhow, much as I'm sure you'd love to continue to debate grammar and syntax, I'm not going to join you any further.

Here's another definition of grip:



But seeing as you dislike defining terms, I must say you aren't much of a scientist. And I still see nothing remotely similar to what you define as "grip".

Yes, the palm is still on the keys. We both need to agree that flaccid means lack of tension. Yes? And flaccid is the same as slack?

Still...nothing but your word. Find me a definition from a verifiable source, and you might get somewhere.

But seeing as you dislike defining terms, I must say you aren't much of a scientist. And I still see nothing remotely similar to what you define as "grip".

[/quote]

Perfect definition. Note b- pressure OR strength. Not solely strength. My finger certainly exerts a pressure. If it didn't it would collapse.

How about c- a manner of grasping or holding- but perhaps you prefer not to stay on the key after playing it? Perhaps you do not 'hold' a hand position- you just let your position collapse completely?

If you want to be pedantic, you're not doing a very good job of it.

For the third time, try that sentence on a few people and report back on how many people were confused by the idea of 'grip' on a key...

"Pressure" has nothing to do with this*. And furthermore you are not holding the keys. Notice it says "grasping and holding".

*In the sense of rest. You do use pressure when you must hold a note.

Sure. How about when you come past the knuckles- which I described above?

Pressure has everything to do with it. I use pressure to stop my hand collapsing. What's your magical alternative? You don't apply ANY pressure to the key via your fingertip? So you're from the rigidified arm school as well? I am VERY MUCH holding the keys. Trying to be pedantic about such widely accepted use of terminology really isn't going to help your case.

What you simply cannot understand is that just because something is very slight, it does not mean it doesn't exist. You should really try some exercises on a table-top- where you alternate between full slack and supportive knuckles. I fear that you simply aren't used to the slight muscular activities that would permit you to alternate freely between these states.

We'll get there. Now this naughty beaver has gnawed the table top all the way past the elbow. The elbow flexors take up the role of support as the table disappears. Tension in the hand yet?

So now it's pressure and not grip?

Definition of Pressure:

According to the defintion that you quoted they are synonymous. You're really not very good at this pedantry business, you know.

Another red herring!

Can you clarify, are the elbow flexors holding the wrist still? Is that a loose wrist, in any conceivable sense of the word?

There are two options, keep the hand slack and tense the wrist. Or introduce grip and keep the wrist loose.

Alternatively, why not spread out the load? That's what I do. I would never want to have hold my wrist completely still. Neither would I want the entire load to be on my fingers.

So are we are adding a wrist that is held rigid to the elbow that is held rigid? That still sounds preferable to using a little bit of grip in the finger (which will would also bring shape to the hand that is currently lying limp above the keys)?

Are you really convinced by this means of balancing the forces still? Are you sure? That's two solidified joints we have so far. Want to add any more? Or want to consider the idea that the hand might have something worthwhile to contribute in this equation?

Yes, your failed attempt to pick me up on syntax was very much a red herring. We're actually discussing the role of the muscles that act upon the hand and how forces balance out. Not your limited way of looking at the definition of the word wide-ranging word 'grip'.

No, the topic was defining terms — something you've neglected to do yourself.

We need to go back a bit. Here the beaver has only gnawed a few extra inches back from the wrist. Still tension free?

No, we already moved already it forwards. Deal with the point I made and stop stalling. Once the knuckles are unsupported, how are you going to stay balanced?

Could you explain why the picure above is not tension free and the one below is.

If they table is beneath a joint the table supports that joint. If it's not below a joint, it doesn't support it.

Once the wrist is not supported, the key is the knuckles. The palm of the hand will initially stabilise a little (albeit in a manner that it can never do during playing). However, as you go further and further, the finger has to grip or the wrist has to be held into position (like your rigid forearm is held from the elbow). Once you go past the knuckles. ANOTHER joint has lost support.

Keep the finger flaccid any longer and not only are you having to hold your wrist still, your knuckles will start to buckle in on themselves?

So what do you propose to do now? Hold more and more joints rigid- or start thinking about the supporting role that the finger could be playing- were the hand not lying as flat as a pancake and as limp as a corpse?



Hang on? Are those diagrams supposed to involve a table that continues to support beneath the elbow, to the right of the hole? WHY? What possible bearing does that have on anything?

Forget this nonsense and consider the situation where only the hand is supported and consider what happens as you take more and more away- leaving more and more joints needing to be fused solid or supported by grip at the key.

But you said earlier, as long as the palm is supported:

The point is that the palm is NEVER supported by contact with the keybed- except in a slack hand. You cannot play that way or you hit every note under your hand.

Now move forwards and THINK what happens when the knuckles are not supported. Do they collapse into the keys? If not WHY not?

Why did you ignore the very specific points I made and why did you not answer my question about what is supposed to provide support to these joints?

Is the truth too inconvenient, or have you still not figured out that these forces have to come from somewhere?

Also, forget this ridiculous analogy where the forearm is supported on the table. It has no bearing on anything. You've already spoken of how you have locked your forearm in position. Deal with points about the hand and the wrist please.

I hate to repeat, you said "as long as the palm is supported" "Sure, that's a slack hand". Yes or No?

We have moved past the palm. Deal with the points I made about how you intend to stabilise the unsupported knuckles and answer the questions I asked.

Stop squirming around for time and get on with it...

Yes or no would be fine. I promise you we'll get to the knuckles.

I'm AT the knuckles. Answer my questions. I'm not wasting any more time.

So far we've established that your model for technique involves locking the forearm solidly into position. We're now focussing attention on the knuckles. What prevents your knuckles from dipping into the keys, under the force of gravity?

That's not very sporting. It's a bit hard to move on when we won't cofirm whether the hand is slack "as long as the palms are supported". It'll come back 'n haunt.

You know the answer to that as well as I do. It neither serves to strengthen nor weaken my case or yours. Stop wasting time.

Now, what is a VITAL question is how you propose you're going to maintain this slack in a regular playing position without your knuckles flopping down into the keys under gravity.

WHAT FORCE DO YOU PROPOSE IS PREVENTING THAT FROM HAPPENING?

Well I'm afraid I don't. In one picture, with table top missing just below the wrist, you say the hand's slack and yet in another with an extra few inches missing it's not.

So, it surprises you, to think that when something is unsupported from beneath, it requires stabilisation from elsewhere? If that's too much for you, what on earth makes you think you're in a position to enter into a debate based on physics? Do you also like to try and prove Fermat's last theorem, in your spare time?

Answer the question:

When a knuckle does not collapse into the keybed WHAT FORCE prevents it from collapsing? WHERE does that force originate?

Does it really surprise you to think that a hinge will collapse when unsupported- unless it is stabilised fully at BOTH ends? You've decided upon the locked forearm at one end but the only way it can be stabilised at the finger end is if the fingers grip. Otherwise the knuckles begin to double back in on themselves- as gravity acts upon the hinge of the knuckle. No amount of grip in an arm alone can stop the hinge at the knuckle from being impacted by gravity.

Are you really unable to understand these basic principles, or are simply so intent on refusing to back down that you have chosen not to utilise any form of reason?

EDIT I'll concede that there is a single possible alignment where the knuckles forearm and wrist etc. are all on a perfectly aligned horizontal plane and the fingers hangs down limp. However, once more, if there is zero grip in the finger, the moment you try to move this structure into a key, the whole finger collapses or doubles back on itself. Even in this alignment there is no possibility of moving a key without the involvement of grip. It just caves in on itself instantly.

You can achieve such an aligment in the air, but you cannot balance it on a key. It's not possible without SOME grip.

Also, have you forgotten that this entire premise rests on a solidified elbow? Even without the countless other flaws, I really hope that's not what you teach to students. Do you tell them to fuse their forearm into one solid piece of granite, as part of your 'relaxation' approach? Or perhaps you literally do place a table under the forearm? You'd certainly need something to take such a big strain off.

Well now, that's something. Is this 'single possible alignment' tension free?

Well, let's think, is it supported at both ends- spreading the forces out? Or can it only be supported by a LOCKED ELBOW and a LOCKED WRIST?

Is that the sort of thing that would go nicely with a pan-pipes CD and a few funny cigarettes? Not exactly my idea of relaxation therapy, I'm afraid.

I wouldn't know, 'single possible alignment' is kinda your concept. Is it tension free, even if 'there is no possibility of moving a key without the involvement of grip'?

So the point about the fact that the elbow and wrist joint both have to be fused solid wasn't equivocal enough for you?

Are you expecting me to say something along the lines of "well it requires that you hold your elbow and wrist absolutely rigidly but yeah, other than that I'd say it's probably tension free"?

What planet are you living on? You would seriously rather persist with such a ludicrous argument- not merely here but in your own playing and with your own students? You honestly feel that the idea of only achieving stabilisation at one end could EVER be anything other than subject to collossal tensions?

Whereas the idea of introducing miniscule grip from a finger is a sacrilege? You actually believe that still?

Yet you have no possible explanation for how a knuckle might end up supporting instead of collapsing, despite the action of gravity?

I'm starting to believe that this your views are just an elaborate hoax...

I really have no idea what 'single possible alignment' is frankly. Can you expound on it?

You've got a point there, Steven.

I already did. You just didn't understand. A horizontal plane mean anything to you? Perhaps that just brought to mind images of Concorde?

Are you hoping that I'm going to provide you with something better to work with than your own hopeless attempts to explain how the forces add up? Forget it. ANY system that only balances from one end requires the same fused joints that your own ideas necessitate.

GRAVITY HAS TO BE BALANCED!

It is. It's called the normal force.

Today the entertainment value of this thread went away for me. I have never known good debate to include ad hominem arguments or quibbling. The entertainment has been that each side, IMO, which is never humble, is saying the same thing. (But, then, I also sense that a major contributor is having some fun.) Maybe "flexion," because, if I remember my biology, that's what muscles do, can stand in for tense and rigid. Also, if I remember, muscles and tendons are soft tissue and bones are rigid. It is rigid members that transmit forces and momenta--even to the appearance of gravity working sideways.

I was composing a "treatise" to respond to the entire thread, but decided against it. Oh, BTW, I am an engineer and I design structures. Although, not the law of physics, BUT we COULD travel back to the application of forces and momenta, muscles transmit pain and "tiredness" to the brain. This is a result of flexion and the build-up of lactic acid. Tendons become irritated.

BUT, I ask, what does this have to do with playing the piano? I'm with Kreisler! I think I'll go play Mozart with my rigid, flaccid, non-falling-off-the keys anatomy.

Dan, the root of the issue is that Nyiregyhazi seems to fail to understand the importance of defining terms. We are probably saying the same thing, but since for most of the thread neither side understands what the other side means by certain terms, what did we get? A big ruckus.

If you've got any specific points, I would be interested to hear them.

As I say, I've got an open mind, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who doesn't understand that a form of grip exists in any hand in which the knuckles don't collapse onto the keys. I've never advocated greatly tense fingers. I've simply said that fully 'relaxed' hands (in the literal anatomical sense, not the new age sense) will collapse and fall off a key. If some people regard the term 'grip' as inherently referring to an excess of tension, I have to say that their ideas on terminology would appear to be at least as flawed as my own. I could hardly have stressed more, how faint such grip actually is.

I'm not going to waste any more time with those two posters who cannot see that simple fact, but if you have any thoughts- whether you agree or disagree on anything, please do add them. I'd far sooner get involved back in some purposeful discussion than continue that which has come previously.

I was held back for many year by the 'relaxed hands' method, so I really don't take kindly to people trying to tell me that I am 'wrong' for having realised the limitations of the blanket idea that any grip is NEVER positive. It's a pity that few people are open-minded enough to realise that a hand CAN be too slack.

Don't forget that the ad hominem stuff came from you. Don't go around acting as pure as the driven snow.

I'm not wasting any more time with any of this. Either debate the issues or leave it, please.

Oh, now you don't want waste any time? You're the one who started the name calling and ad hominem attacks that caused this thread to degrade in the first place.

Well that's just the kind of post that will settle things down...

Sorry, I'm still not getting involved though.

There is a nutshell here, and that is the ability to relax at will and in milliseconds - something my teacher took months to teach Alan Fraser (though you can lead a horse to water). Farmer Dan, I'd love to hear your input.

Unintentional irony is quite entertaining.

Me too!

Well, I'm glad there's one thing we agree on. Before any gripping comes into the equation, the first thing I've always done with every student is to show them how to flop on the keys and loosen their hand. Once they've done so, I teach them exactly how much (and indeed just how little) grip is required to convert a slack hand into a supportive hand that doesn't collapse onto the keys.

The process of lightly gripping, in order to carry the hand from one state to the next is an ideal way to ensure that the student doesn't simply switch to fusing their hand solid, before popping it on the keys. In fact, when they've felt exactly how much grip serves to balance their hand, they are LESS likely to over tense their hand.

The ability to switch from tension to release is extremely useful but I think it's equally important to supplement it with gradual conversions from one state to the next. It's vital to be able to feel every step in between, as well as to able to go directly between on or off.

After years of being able to slacken my hand, I still had problems with very brief moments of over-clenching while playing, followed by complete flopiness. Now that I have focussed on grip, I never need to 'clench' at all. It's essential that you are able to sense all the different stages in between full on tension and full on release. Very little is simply on or off, in piano playing. Ironically, students who relax their hands the most, are often those who also tense up the most at moments of great difficulty. Without wishing to sound sexist, you do see this is a lot in young female pianists who have small hands. You can see exactly the same thing in that video I put up of myself from a few years back. The general impression is of very relaxed movement, but if you look very carefully you can see pronounced clenching followed by instant release in the loud moments.

There's nothing wrong with controlled release, but it's vital to ensure that it's not simply a short term fix to tensions that are so prounced as to be unmanagable. You would never even be aware of tension and release, if you watched a master of Tai-Chi.

Do you call them numbskulls as well?

Well, none of them has yet tried to convince me their arms might be more 'relaxed', if they didn't ever rest any of their weight upon the keys.

Maybe they hang them from their elbows when you're not looking!

Oh they 'hang' their arms down alright. They're just taught that resting on the keys removes the need to 'hold' their arms up, in competition with the force of gravity.

I feel the need to do a little summing up here. In the first picture we all agree that the hand, wrist and forearm are relaxed, flaccid, slack, tension free and you have no need of the elbow flexors. In the second picture it's the same. In the third some disagreement, though I can't see any change. In the fourth picture the only change is the elbow extensors take over the support which the table supplied - hand, wrist and arm are still relaxed, flaccid, slack, tension free - a simple drawbridge.

KBKand Horowitzian, thank you for the vote of confidence. I'll do my best not to pontificate.

I understand not wanting to cause repetetive injuries, and I have read many threads on these fora which say, "I get a pain in my...," or "Where is my technique wrong because my ... hurts." The discussion here delves into deep areas. Areas in which I have no expertise to discuss.

When I play for an extended period of time--define that--my hands "tingle." Sometimes they throb. Many times I feel my playing in my forearms. It goes away and doesn't come back unless I push past the last point. Muscle sensations are natural and not a symptom of anything bad. I also build fences and put up hay. Same sensations.

The situation here reminds me of Occam's Razor. In short, it says that the simplest solution is more than likely the best. I don't feel like diagramming tonight, but at the risk of being labelled ludicrous, from shoulder to elbow to wrist to knuckle(s) to piano key, the mechanical situation can be represented by a series of cantilevers with movable pivots to change the angle and direction of force distribution--the diagrams (beaver included or not) aptly represent this situation.

For no motion in any plane to exist the sum of the forces and momenta in that plane, on any cantilever, must be zero. (Newton: For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.) Also, bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest--Isaac again. F=ma. Therefore, for a body, to start movement, to end movement or to change direction an acceleration must be applied. The acceleration causes a force in a certain direction which is controlled (?), in this case, by the rigid members of the body--the bones. If hands "slip off the keyboard" (an experiment I cannot duplicate) then acceleration in the opposite direction must occur if this is to be prevented. Is this "grip?"

Consider this analogy. One is standing. The individual says he is totally relaxed. If this is true and some of the arguments presented here are also true, the individual would fall to the ground. BUT he doesn't. If one were to stand and could feel, without flexing any other muscles, one would discern that certain back and leg muscles were flexed. I think, in this analogy, "tension" would occur if the individual stood at "military attention." In either case long standing induces fatigue, but in the latter people can cramp or pass out.

All other arguments aside, if I "knot" my muscles in playing I can hurt myself or cramp. If I learn to play with the minimum amount of flexion necesary to create the "musicality" that I want, I may tire and ache from muscle use, but I am also getting those muscles into shape, keeping my tendons flexible and not injuring myself.

Please forgive me if someone was looking for a three dimensional differential discussion of the transmission and dissipation of forces, but I'm tired tonight and I believe in Occam's razor.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Dan. Occam's Razor is indeed apt in this situation. Overthinking causes more problems than it solves.

Again, thanks.

Yeah, absolutely. The reactional force of the keyboard is not enough to stabilise a fully limp arm and hand. While the fine details are obviously complex, there is a component that acts towards the body. This must be stabilised, regardless of whether it is perceived as grip, it can only be caused by a grip that occurs within the hand. Any hand with a supportive knuckle is aligned thanks to grip. Because it's so close to the pivot points a tiny force has a big effect. Any forces that occur further back present less stabilisation- like when you try to hold out a heavy sword but do not rest it at the end.

My own belief is that the extent of the necessity for this grip varies, but I can say that for my own hand it is particularly vital. I would never advocate a clenched hand, but without grip, no hand can support at a keyboard. There are many different ways of balancing the forces. You can either let go of virtually everything in the arm and grip a lot of from the finger. Alternatively you can lock your elbow in position (if you really want), and use a very slight grip to stabilise the finger. However, even with a fused elbow, a flaccid finger cannot strike a note without buckling. EVERY pianist uses some form of grip, whether they care to admit it and whether they understand the equations or not. It's a useful exercises to flop your entire palm into a keyboard. THAT is what a fully slack hand feels like. If you're not mashing down into every note under your hand, it's safe to say that some level of grip has gone into preventing that.

I'm extremely interested in how these two stabilising ends of the equation balance together and highly open to different combinations EXCEPT that which involves the impossibility of a hand that is actually limp. This is only an impression, not a reality. The reason why one-dimensional claims that grip is NEVER good annoy me is that I was held back for years, after having been led to believe that you must aim to relax everything as much possible and that ALL relaxation is good. This basically put a huge limiter on my progress, because my hand was too slack to perform the most basic functions. It caused tensions elsewhere because it did not support. The equations could not add up, without compensations further back. Hence I had to alternate between big tensions and big releases. It vastly annoys me when people make blanket statements that a hand must ALWAYS aim to relax as much as possible and it's even worse when people say NEVER use any form of grip. However successful relaxation techniques may be for those who over clench, if you apply the same reasoning to every student, regardless of circumstance, there's a very big danger of holding them back, rather than providing what they need. I still teach relaxation techniques as standard, but I realise now that why they never fully produced the goods with a couple of students I taught who had slack hands. I really wish I could go back and teach them how they could have comfortably aligned their hands, rather than waste time getting them to flop abount with a hand that was already overly inactive.

Grip can be done too much or too little. Anyone who claims otherwise really needs open their mind for long enough to stop and think. Playing the piano is not about physics or diagrams, but such things are an ideal way to prove that grip IS part of the equation. I should interested to hear of any expert on physiology who might sincerely claim that it's possible to play the piano without the muscles that activate the hand becoming involved in any active way. You really wouldn't find one.

A system that incorporates relaxation with zero grip is every bit as flawed as one that incorporates grip with zero relaxation. There is nothing without a balance.

Where are the knuckles? They are the key to this. I really can't see what point you are trying to make, or how it serves either side. Forget the wood on the right. I have no idea what introducing it was supposed to prove. You advocated the forearm being held rigid from the elbow? So whether it is further stabilised from beneath has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at all.

If you really want to pursue this still, you have to answer my question. I've asked it over four times. If you're not going to make the faintest effort to deal with the gaping flaw that I have exposed in your premise this certainly isn't going to lead anywhere.

Remove the wood from under the knuckles. WHAT FORCE can support those knuckles, if there is no grip at all? Assuming the hand is not locked up with arthritis (not an ideal method of stabilising a joint), why are they not collapsing back on themselves under gravity and falling onto the keyboard? Either they ARE buckling under the force of gravity or the hand is gripping to counteract. There is no opinion here. That is a scientific fact. Even if one accepts the implausability of a method that involves something as impractical and tense as a perfectly fused forearm , there's nothing that can support the knuckles from that end. In reality, with even a small give at the elbow, the wrist would also be dropping and the hand would begin to slip away from the keyboard- unless it grips.

If you consider this rationally and sincerely, you will see that the forces do not add up. In ANY such diagram, free hinges CANNOT be supported in such an alignment. They will give way. Even in you found an intricate way of balancing them over the top of the key, the slightest movement would make them collapse. You couldn't possibly apply a force through such a flimsy array of unsupported joints. It would be as good as an attempt to push something (as opposed to pulling it) using a metal chain. There are possible alignments which require less stabilisation from the fingers but there are none that can function with a truly limp hand.

Are you just trying to win an argument (that is about as likely to succeed as one if favour of the possibility of a self-contained perpetual motion machine) or are you interested in what actually goes on? If you're only looking to win an argument, then by all means just ignore it once again and hope that it will go away. If you're interested in what's going on then you need to think about the question.

Obviously you can disprove it then? What's your personal explanation for the magically supported knuckle that gravity seems not to be acting upon? As I said, if you've got something to contribute to the actual discussion, please do.

Or are you just an armchair heckler?

Just you talking about "scientific fact" says it all for me...you're just wasting everyone's time.

The fact that you can only heckle (without attempting to put your money where your mouth is) says it all for me.

Are you denying gravity itself, as a scientiftic fact? So what force do you propose serves to prevent it from inducing a resultant downward force upon the knuckle?

If you have anything to contribute to the actual discussion, please do so. If you're only interested interested in sneering (without the courtesy to back it up), please don't expect me to join in any further.

OK, against my better judgment, I'm back. Here's what N said to you, Horowitzian:

Remove the wood from under the knuckles. WHAT FORCE can support those knuckles, if there is no grip at all? Assuming the hand is not locked up with arthritis (not an ideal method of stabilising a joint), why are they not collapsing back on themselves under gravity and falling onto the keyboard? Either they ARE buckling under the force of gravity or the hand is gripping to counteract. There is no opinion here. That is a scientific fact. Even if one accepts the implausability of a method that involves something as impractical and tense as a perfectly fused forearm , there's nothing that can support the knuckles from that end. In reality, with even a small give at the elbow, the wrist would also be dropping and the hand would begin to slip away from the keyboard- unless it grips.

Now, you obviously have an issue with the word "grip". Forget that for a minute, try to see what it is he is getting at, call it whatever you like (as long as we know what you mean) and answer the question.

Because I (and probably anyone else who has the fortitude to actually read this thread) find it frustrating that little emoticons are trying to pass as answers. I would really like to know precisely what it is that you disagree with in the above statement and why. Just once. For me. Please.

Currawong,

When I play, I do not consciously "grip" (sorry) the keys. Perhaps it's an unconscious thing; in any case I don't think about it at all. When I sit at the keyboard with the appropriate posture and bench height (I have a Jansen bench; max height on that fits me perfectly), and my body is appropriately relaxed, my forearms are approximately parallel to the ground at a height so that I can easily maintain a natural to flattened hand shape with little bed in the wrists; and my knees fall just under the keybed. That is the most stable, comfortable position for me, that I discovered after much experimenting. I find that my hands fall comfortably on the keyboard. They do not slip off. They do not tense up past the flexion that's created naturally by the flexors and extensors in order to operate the fingers to strike the keys. I can play freely, with control, and expression.

N's statement is implausible to me because outside of music played in the manner Chopin's Op. 15 No. 1 or Schumann's Träumerei, where there is a legato touch required and there are many notes that must be held for their full value, you simply very often don't have time to support the hand by resting it on the keys. In Chopin's Op. 44, for instance (or any bravura music, for that matter), there are frequent jumps, and the general pulse is very fast indeed. You simply cannot have your hands glued to the keys and expect to make that next jump! For example, there's a couple of times where the hands must jump over an octave — from double F# octaves to double A octaves a minor 10th higher. That jump is impossible if your hands are resting on their laurels; they must be on the ball, ready to jump up and be on top of the target notes.

Additionally, putting too much weight on the hands makes a deft pp touch very difficult to achieve. This is illustrated clearly by a relatively simple and famous example, the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 27 No. 2 Sonata. The triplets in the middle voice must be soft indeed so they do not overpower the melody. Impossible to achieve if your touch is too heavy. And so is the case with much of the Romantic repertoire, where melody is of the utmost importance.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Nice post, Currawong. I bowed out of this pages and pages ago, but I'd like to take a shot at responding to this. I will respectfully refer to Nyiregyhazi as "grip man" and Keyboardklutz as "beaver man", just to make things easier for me and others.

As much as I argued with Grip Man about his grip definition, and how he tied it to a friction that was, in my professional opinion, in the wrong direction and uninvolved, I do think I see what he is trying to say. I explained what I believe is occurring during the tabletop gripping movement that Grip Man was using back in the teens and 20's (pages that is). It involved moments (torques if you will) being generated at the knuckle joints. These contractions are what cause the knuckles to stand up from their original position against the table. The normal force at the fingertips starts at essentially zero and increases in a continuous fashion to some nominal value by the time Grip Man's movement is complete. I can see this occurring so easily with a robotic arm (think Terminator) having stepper motors at each knuckle joint. Nearly makes me salivate just thinking about it. (Yes, I am much more used to working with machines than people!)

Continuing...Grip Man didn't like this because of his insistence on friction being involved, and Beaver Man didn't like it because he kept suggesting that moments can only occur at an infinitessimally small point, and can only be generated AT that point (i.e., with no help from ligaments coming in from afar, or hydraulic lines, etc). But I think in the end, that is exactly what is occurring. Different people will attribute this action and feeling to different things, because, well...it is not always easy to decipher exactly what is going on in an anatomical situation (even a static one), from a force and moment standpoint. Throw into the mix some careless semantics, and you get what we have here I guess.

So, if both parties agree that the "gripping movement" detailed by "grip man" so long ago leads to a shape of the hand/fingers that is suitable and common for piano-playing, then maybe this is all nothing more than an argument over semantics. Would that be funny? After all this?

Of course, I could be wrong too.

Rick

Thanks, Horowitzian.
I didn't think N was saying you need to grip the keys so as not to slip off - I understood him to mean that totally relaxed hands/arms would slip off. And we don't totally relax everything or we'd be jelly on the floor. Unless I've misunderstood him.

Of course. But was anyone suggesting you have your hands glued to the keys? I thought N was suggesting a certain amount, usually very small, of what he calls "grip", in the sense that the soles of your running shoes have "grip". Not a permanent state of attachment

Once again, of course. But I don't think excessive weight was suggested.


I think it does, actually. I think you agree with N more than you think you do (ducks... )

No, actually, I do think there has been a bit of arguing past each other. But I don't know where to go from here. It might have gone too far to be resolved at present.

You're welcome!

I think everyone agrees that total relaxation is not feasible; in fact I don't think the body is ever totally relaxed except possibly in extreme medical situations. As you say, we'd be puddles if that was true.

Just to clarify, what I mean by "glued to the keys" is keeping your hands right down on them at all times. I have been advised against doing so by several pianists who are much better than myself. My point is that this "grip" cannot be sustained in music that moves around a lot, i.e. "disjunct".

No need to duck! I've stated already that I think the root of disagreement lies in definition of terms, which has resulted in just that – arguing past one another.

I know this school of playing very well. currawong, it is constant weight on the keybed at all times. We do this in slow legato but if you do it constantly you can't do leggiero.

The main trouble I've found with this thread has been to work out what everybody actually meant. *sigh*

Thanks to a few others joining in I think we're getting somewhere. Just before we move on to the knuckles, could you elucidate futher on why the elbow in my diagrams is 'rigid' (how you tell so much from two straight lines is a mystery to me).

+1

Thanks to a few others joining in I think we're getting somewhere. Just before we move on to the knuckles, could you elucidate futher on why the elbow in my diagrams is 'rigid' (how you tell so much from two straight lines is a mystery to me). [/quote]

Have I not been forced to repeat myself enough times? Hold out a heavy sword that is unsupported at the end. Does that position feel free? Now rest the end on something. Does that feel easier? If you do not support via the fingertips you're equivalent to the first. Sadly, with so many free hinges, the fingers cannot simply be 'rested' on something as a sword can. They need an additional force to stabilise their structure.

Okay, so let's assume the elbow is free. Now you've also introduced the problem that the wrist is going be collapsing, along with the knuckles, unless there is active stabilisation at the fingertips.

Now, if you still seriously believe you can defy all the laws of physics with your model

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

I think a drawbridge is a better metaphor than a sword - talk us through that.

"I didn't think N was saying you need to grip the keys so as not to slip off - I understood him to mean that totally relaxed hands/arms would slip off. And we don't totally relax everything or we'd be jelly on the floor. Unless I've misunderstood him."

No, that's precisely my point. A slack arm and hand will slip off (unless supported by a huge surface area, like if you put your whole palm on the keys). Therefore, it IS possible to over-relax the hand. With that in mind, to insist that everyone try to relax their hand more and that nobody needs to grip more in their hand risks imposing collossal limitations upon those who actually fall into the category of relaxing too much. Having been limited by such problems, I really don't take kindly to closed-minded thinking about the issue.

Incidentally, I have also previously slipped off individual black keys from time to time though. The fact that activating greater grip has served to reduce this substantially illustrates that grip can be an important part of creating friction at a keyboard- not just forming the hand's shape. Once more, preach that grip is never a positive and you might rob some people of the solution to a problem.

I have never denied that for some the notion of 'grip' is better replaced with a notion of relaxing the hand (although, frankly, I would be a little worried if a pianist could not actually perceive the difference between a genuinely slack hand and the natural playing position). I pointed that for at least SOME people it is absolutely vital. I'm simply sorry that some people insist that it's one or the other, rather than the balance between finger stabilisation and arm stabilisation that I have always suggested here. On countless occasions I asked people to simply acknowledge this balance, rather than try to tell me that grip is bad (even going so far as to advise me to drop it in my own playing!). The argument has been extended as the result of a blanket refusal for people to accept that grip (which I stressed was very small) plays any role in an equation, under any circumstance.


"Once again, of course. But I don't think excessive weight was suggested."

Indeed, once you have the balance suggested, you have the freedom to put more weight on the finger or support more with the arm. If one does a little more, the other can do less. Resting on the keys is designed as a basis for taking the strain off the elbow and shoulder etc and spreading the workload around. Did anyone ever suggest that you must NEVER withold ANY weight from the fingers? It's a basis for freedom, not a rule for exertion.

If semantics was the issue, would it really have been hard to ask for further clarification on what I referred to a slight grip? Rather than shout "NO!!!!!!!!"?

No it isn't a better metaphor at all. When you hold out a sword it reveals the level of muscular exertion that is involved in both supporting and balancing an extended body from only one end. However, you're welcome to hold a small drawbridge out from your body and gradually lower it. That will illustrate the issue just as well. If you refuse to take any support at the hand, the 'drawbridge' of you elbow is subject to vastly greater tensions. That is a fact. Ironically, your rope is more analagous to the role of the fingers, in stabilisation. The rope would be attached to the far end of the draw bridge. Attach it almost next to the point about which the rotation occurs (like with your bicep, right by your elbow) and the workload is HUGELY more pronounced. Even in medieval times, they knew that it took less force to stabilise closer to the FAR END of the drawbridge.

Anyway, I'm not responding with anything further until you answer the question that has been put to you on no less than five occasions.

If you cannot explain the glaring flaw in your own model, please have the dignity to either admit it, or stop wasting my time with these irrelevant factors.

Debate works two ways. I've answered a host of questions, in order to illustrate those factors that you failed to understand. If you still believe you have a case to make (on an issue that you are clearly not terribly well informed on), you need to answer the question.

You've decided that your elbow is free after all, so you are required to explain WHAT FORCE stops your wrist and knuckles from being pulled down by gravity.

That is not a fact, there's no 'vastly' in it. It's the rope that is subject to tension.