Mechanically-informed practical piano technique

There's a hole in my bucket- issues of efficiency, why tension/relaxation thinking typically confuses and distracts from a vastly greater issue and why the arm can never genuinely replace the role of the hand's actions

2011-11-12T17:41:00.001-08:00

I had written this post some time ago, but decided to hold it back until I'd been through some very direct applications to playing. Now that I've posted about the thumb, I decided that I might as well publish this- before continuing with the actions of the hand. Please note that, while the description should make the practical exercise pretty clear, I will come back and add some videos in the near future.

Picture this situation: a man with a massive bucket is required to transport a volume of water between two points. However, there is a hole in his bucket. He puts in exactly the volume of water that is required- yet upon arrival he finds that there is scarcely any left. Seeing insufficient water, he comes to the conclusion that he obviously did not put enough in. After many failed attempts he finally decides to fill his huge bucket to the very brim, meaning that he is absolutely exhausted upon arrival- although even now he only just manages to retains the required volume of water. Shortly afterwards, another man arrives with exactly the same amount of water, yet without having even broken a sweat. His tiny bucket did not require any excess water to start out and he knew how exactly much he would be arriving with. Not difficult really- seeing as it just didn't have any leak.

By now, you might be wondering where exactly this is headed? No, don't worry- I am not an Evangelical preacher and neither is this the beginning of a convoluted Sunday sermon. I am not about to claim that this somehow "proves" that, while other things fade away, Jesus' love for each and every one of us is both infinite and eternal. Rather, I'm going to show just how relevant this analogy is to some of the most significant flaws that exist in most techniques. Rather than nitpick at mere surface details, this post features an extremely wide-ranging foundation issue (of which I have never personally encountered any objective categorisation or analysis) that relates to every sound that is produced. I want to illustrate how much energy is typically wasted due to technical "holes"- even in some very accomplished professionals! I will give a couple of exercises to show exactly what most typically compromises efficiency of transmission- and introduce issues that determine the means of improvement. Way too many pianists fall into the same trap ie. when they don't get enough sound, their instinctive default response is to press harder with the strong muscles of the arm. However, this is about as productive as the 'add more water' approach. A far more effective solution (but sadly one that few pianists find by instinct) is to start by patching up the metaphorical hole in the bucket.

Pressing harder means there's more energy flying around, but how much of it actually goes into sound and how much is wasted? Without efficiency, not only does much of the energy expended miss out on the chance to affect the hammer, but it goes into creating greater scope for impact at the keybed- ie. the "keybedding" that I spoke of in previous posts. Whatever anyone tells you about the supposed "scientific impossibility" of absolute tone quality, there is actually plenty of very credible evidence to suggest that thudding against the keybeds can affect sound (I'll likely devote a post to this issue, in future). If you start with less energy but direct it more efficiently, you can still get plenty of motion into the hammer- but with very little potential for a following impact. The collapse-free thumb extension in my last post is a particularly good example of a high efficiency movement, that sends little energy into the keybed. However, in this post I'd also like to expose some of the least efficient qualities of movements possible- so they can be more easily identified and improved upon. Odd as it may sound, a little first hand experience of a poor movement can give an extremely clear insight into what you DO need to look for.

Let's go back to the idea of using a pencil as a lever (see here for details). Remember how well you can get into the key when you lever your end of a pencil up, while moving the key. Well, let's deliberately try the reverse for a while. See how much sound you can get by sending the lever in the other direction. Try as you might, you're going to find that hardly anything can go into the key. There's little sense of acting properly against the key's resistance, or of being able to adequately accelerate though it. There's a lot of movement going on but the connection with the key is loose and unproductive. Quite simply, to bring your end of the lever down affects things negatively, whereas to lever it up had a positive effect. Even for a soft sound, you will likely perceive less feeling of control when employing the down motion. Efficiency is not exclusively relevant to making big sounds. Levering upwards will also tend to give a greater margin of error in soft dynamics.

From now on, I'm going to refer to the concept of 'positive movement' and 'negative movement'. The latter is synonymous with the 'collapse' that Alan Fraser frequently refers to. I have to admit that I was rather skeptical about his references to this concept, for a long time. It's easy to think "Okay, so the hand collapsed. What's that got to do with the musical results? Why should that affect the sound?". That is why I want to expand upon his concept and give a cast-iron illustration of exactly why these things not only matter, but to an extraordinarily significant degree. In short, negative movement (or collapse) vastly reduces the proportion of available energy that goes into actual sound- often causing an inaccurate perception of physical weakness and the mistaken belief that it is necessary to possess extreme strength or to press extremely hard with the biggest muscles. The real problem is the sheer WASTE that negative movements cause during transmission of energy. Energy leaks away as surely as water will disappear through a gaping hole in a bucket.

Also, imagine trying to play golf, if a hinge allowed a putter to bend back upon contacting the ball- rather than accelerate through it. Negative movement reduces efficiency of energy transmission, but perhaps even more importantly still, it frequently reduces CONTROL over the hammer and restricts the ability to accurately predict how it will be affected by your actions. It goes without saying that this prevents control over tone-production. I also have a strong suspicion that it can impact on rhythmic steadiness and the ability to play fast. When a finger gives way, there is a bigger gap in time between when the finger begins to to move and the moment when sound occurs. If you eliminate collapse altogether, you are going to be able to predict the instant in which a note will sound, with some reliability. If you have variable levels of collapse, you can never know exactly how great the time-lag is going to be. We may be talking split-seconds here, but if you consider what goes into a rapid Chopin Etude, there's every reason to believe that these could be enough to cause sluggishness and imprecision.

At this point, I want to expose a major fallacy that has been repeated in many explanations- that looseness and relaxation necessarily aid energy transmission. Please bear with me, though- for 'tension' (ie. stiffening joints to withstand force) is NOT what I about to suggest! I am not arguing for the "bracing" approach but rather a whole new avenue of understanding. The reality just isn't simple enough to be adequately summed up by the notion that it's all about whether you are "tense" or "relaxed". Even the realisation that most muscular states actually lie somewhere between the extremes of "tension" or "relaxation" sheds very little specific light on what is required. Tension vs. relaxation simply isn't the best viewpoint to approach it from. When you approach it by distinguishing between "positive movement" and "negative movement", instead, it transpires that the reality is not terribly complex after all.

Particularly with actions that source energy in the upper arm, there are a wealth of joints where relaxation will cause negative movements, that reduce the amount of energy that can be transferred to sound and which compromise control over the movement in general. It's not at all hard to see why people often seize up. They do not do so for the hell of it, or because they are too "stupid" to understand superficial instructions that they are meant to be aiming for a more generally relaxed state. Their subconscious likely realises that allowing negative movements would drain both energy and control. It then leaps in and tries to deal with that problem as best as it can- by using tensions to fight against these unwanted movements. The problem is that braced joints are not a very effective alternative to sagging ones and neither are they a healthy thing to employ. The brain is left in a constant battle between tension and release- each of which has its own pluses and minuses, but neither of which is remotely effective.

So, if you're neither going to brace a joint nor relax it, what's left? Quite simply, the alternative approach is to be in the midst of a positive movement in the opposite direction to that which would be causing a negative movement. Yes, it really is that simple! Forget the idea that it's all about some mysterious and fantastically complex compromise between tension vs relaxation or that it's about tensing for the correct number of milliseconds and then relaxing again. These ideas are completely irrational and there is no reason to believe that such staggering acts of coordination are either required, or even beneficial. All you have to do is notice where relaxation causes negative movement- for example if the wrist collapses downwards while playing an extremely loud chord. Instead of bracing to stop that, seek to move it slightly in the opposite direction as the key goes down. That way, there is neither the need for fixation- nor do you get the energy wastage and poor control that would ensue from pure, corpse-like relaxation.

If that doesn't yet make sense, we'll use the pencil (and later the finger itself) for an irrefutable practical illustration of how genuine (and indeed inescapable) the reality of this concept is. Suppose that I want to use my arm to provide a small "run up". If I simply descend with a light grip on a horizontal pencil, it will be greatly repelled by the reaction force, upon contacting the key. The amount of energy transferred is simply pathetic- even with a big arm drop. It's like what would happen if I moved into the key with a finger made of foam or plasticine. There's so much negative movement, that scarcely any energy is applied at all. The give caused by a relaxed grip is a hindrance, not an aid. But now let's try to render it immovable- ie. the bracing approach. Be careful doing this one- because it's not going to feel pleasant. Also, notice that however hard you might grip, you'll likely find that there's still some negative moment. Trying to fix something rigidly rarely actually achieves a situation of anything close to zero give. Remember that even massive sky-scrapers made of brick and steel sway in the wind!

Now let's abandon this horrible feeling of hoping to fix the pencil and replace it with simple movement. This time, as the pencil reaches the key, you're going to be doing the levering action described earlier. Instead of being left to collapse down, the end you hold will be pulled up. Negative movement cannot occur- quite simply because movement is actively going on in the positive direction. Once you've mastered this, it's possible to get to the point where the pencil barely moves at all. Now, this is on an absolute knife-edge when it come to coordination- so it's not something to aim for immediately. However, when mastered, you can try using only just enough positive movement to cancel out and prevent negative movement. To an observer there is a very still pencil that acts as a mere extension of the arm. To you, there was a very significant intent at movement that balanced everything. It should FEEL a whole world apart from the effort that occurs with intent to brace it still- regardless of how it looks. When using arm pressure, a hand needs to operate under much the same principles that pencil did- if you are to avoid wasted effort. If you want to merely be still enough in the hand to transmit energy from the arm, you first need to get a feeling of what it's like to safely eradicate negative movement- ie. by moving positively, not by stiffening! Only from this starting point can you be sure that you are neither tensing needlessly, nor wasting energy on impact at the keybed. Note that this is why watching what a pianist seems to be doing can be so misleading. A master pianist can match up positive and negative movements, sometimes with the result of minimal movement in the hand, while the arm moves visibly. However, the sheer stillness can easily trick viewers into thinking that the pianist is generically bracing- when they are actually matching sensitive balancing actions.

Think about the consequences of this experiment- with regard to schools that claim fingers only "support" weight or arm pressure! I'm not going to beat about the bush here. Even with regard to slower individual chords, the idea of using the arm pressures as a replacement for the necessity of hand activity is simply an impossibility. If the hand does not seem to take part then that is an illusion- not a reality. For those who succeed under this illusion, it matters little whether what they really do is what they describe. However, the problem is that countless others will find themselves unable to find anything workable, by striving for the same subjective experience. You cannot succeed with this unless you also learn to employ suitable positive movement in the hand. The only issue whether the individual is aware of doing so. When people make it all about the arm, there are some whose hands have adequate experience to bring in the balancing role of positive movement, by instinct alone. But there are many who will simply brace their hands against contact- especially when the explanation specifically says that they are meant to do so! The braced hand approach can be truly ruinous for such people and telling them to 'relax' AFTER is futile. Unless their senses overrule the explanation and tell the hand to employ adequate positive movement, they will be needlessly stiff and uncomfortable.

Countless great pianists have described "firm fingers" and others have described "relaxed" fingers, but either description is potentially equally misleading. Those who succeed with the firmness approach create "firmness" by sensitively balancing out negative movements in the hand with positive ones- not by fixating with the crippling muscular tensions that less accomplished pianists often employ. The fact that this balance is so physically comfortable is what allows others to experience the very same process as featuring a "relaxed" hand. Neither adequately conveys the reality of the situation.

Let's summarise here. Even when using the arm for sound we have three options, regarding the hand's major role:

1. We can brace against collapse, in line with the 'and then relax approach'- but how comfortable did bracing the pencil and then relaxing feel? And did it even succeed in eliminating collapse altogether, or providing any notable efficiency?

2. We can use a relaxed hand, that would waste energy by collapsing on contact- and indeed collapse into a palm cluster, if taken 100% literally. Considering how rarely this happens, most supposedly "relaxed" hands would more accurately be described as fitting into either the first category or the third. The problem is that, if you pretend your hand is relaxed when it isn't, there's no way of knowing which. When you strive to do nothing at all, it's left to your subconscious to fill in the gaps (assuming that you wish to play the right chords, rather than random notes). Sadly, without the right experience, the subconscious typically does a pretty useless job of that. Aiming for a relaxed hand (rather than a moving one) can often make for the stiffest fixations of all!

3. Observe where negative movements will take place, via experimentation with extreme relaxation (of the kind that would be totally dysfunctional, during regular playing). Then start to employ enough positive movements in the hand, for these negative movements to be cancelled out. There are all kinds of different variations that fall into this category- including those where the hand might appear to be perfectly inert and still. But remember- when a hand seems to be doing nothing it's a pure illusion. A hand that ACTUALLY does nothing moves keys with low efficiency- before collapsing into a cluster of notes.

So, do you still think (as most pianists do) that the secrets to power lies in tension/relaxation issues or that the main secret to power lies in generating enough pressure from the bigger arm muscles? Neither is accurate- which is why you sometimes hear even young prodigies making a big tone with little visible effort from larger muscles. The secret to power is to patch up the "hole in your bucket" by replacing negative movements with positive ones- starting at the connection to the key itself (ie the finger) and working backwards along the chain. Positive movement within the hand alone can produce fair power. If you start bringing in positive movement from there AND a little arm pressure the piano can really start to explode- still with minimal impact or exertion! In a future post, I will expand on this concept, with an illustration of how much the hand itself needs to move for truly big (yet low impact) octaves and chords. Neither flaccid relaxation nor bracing contributed to how a pianist like Artur Rubinstein could lift his hand above his head before dropping the weight of his arm into the keys!

I should add that I don't wish to be dogmatic and suggest that negative movements should be eliminated entirely, in the end product. However, I believe that the only way to be sure that they might serve a purpose, is to come from a place of being able to eliminate them altogether- without bracing to do so. From there, you can do whatever works best in a given situation- safe in the knowledge that your way of moving is not the product of having a lack of options. In future posts I will give a number of relaxation exercises, through which to both loosen up joints and observe the effects of negative movement- before illustrating how to cancel them with simple positive movements- not with stiffness!

Action and reaction in practice part i- achieving a big resonant thumb sound without impact and how to activate the thumb for effortless scales

2011-11-08T18:54:00.000-08:00

Okay, I've given a lot of background now, so with no further ado I want to get straight into a couple of entirely direct practical applications- starting with use of the thumb. This post will reveal some important aspects of what goes into an effortless but resonant tone, as well as a means of improving stability and ease in scales. While I wouldn't want to be so foolish as to give a "100% guarantee" of instantaneous magical improvement, I do honestly believe that virtually anyone will perceive some degree of instant difference from the exercises- including many advanced players. Even if you haven't read a single one of my previous posts (with their illustrations of scientific background to technical issues), I hope this will give an immediate feel for just how beneficial the consequences of these concepts can be, and hopefully draw you into deeper exploration. In particular here, I want to show that while the premises are largely based on seemingly abstract movement issues, they can have a rapid impact upon how effectively existing musical intentions can be brought into fruition. However, I'll also be looking at a means of improving raw speed within scales!

(For legal reasons, I should briefly stress that all exercises are undertaken at your own risk. Please note that while the videos provide a valuable illustration aid, it's the thinking that runs behind the movements that matters the most. It's very important to follow the instructions of each exercise- rather than only the videos. If you do so with due care and pay attention to the feedback from your perception, there should be nothing to fear. However, take special care if you have prior injuries or medical issues. Above all, anyone should stop immediately in the unlikely event of discomfort or pain. None of the movements involved should feel anything less than comfortable and even pleasurable to execute. )

Anyway, let's go straight to the piano. Try to make a massively sonorous melody line, using only the thumb of the right hand (plus pedal for legato) for long, broad notes. While you can use whatever piece you like, something like the opening melody from Chopin's op. 25 no. 12 would be extremely suitable. However, I have no desire to exclude anyone. Do a slow thumb-only version of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" if you wish- as this exercise is suitable for all levels!. The performance below gives an excellent idea of the type of sound you're looking to make (with a bell-like quality to the line)- but forget the flurries of notes! Only play a melody line (plus bass, if desired)!

Don't think too much about the movements the first time around- think of the intended sound and just do it! Once you're finished, think a little about how you found yourself moving when striving for that type of sound. Maybe even repeat it and pay more conscious attention this time. Also, how happy were you with the musical sounds you produced? It might be worth recording yourself to see how it sounds upon playback. If you're honest with yourself, did you manage to come anywhere near producing the type of "golden age" sound that (the surprisingly little-known) David Smith produces? Maybe you succeeded in creating a pleasant enough musical line- but only by sticking within a very "polite" and gentle dynamic range? Or maybe you knocked seven shades of shinola out of the piano, but failed to achieve the seamless quality of tone required for a genuinely vocal melodic line? Without thinking too much about anything but the sound and the musical goals, spend a little time trying to improve upon the results and see how you fare.

We'll come back to that shortly. However, firstly, rest your right hand very lightly on a solid table top, palm down. Start to exert a moderate pressure against the table through your thumb. Now imagine the table is a piano key and do the same once again. Was the action the same or different?

Okay, now let's look at what you actually did there. Firstly, I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of people will have performed every one of these actions (at both piano and table) by pressing their arm through either a stiffly braced thumb, or a totally inactive one. Before I go any further, if you hold the typical belief that big sounds should come from actions of the upper arm, I'd ask you simply to keep enough of an open mind to stay with me for just a few minutes- rather than exit this page in disgust. I hope I'll be able to illustrate just how much more versatile your thumb is than you probably realise, and show quite how much LESS impact and exertion is likely to result when your arm stops sending needlessly high levels of momentum into collision at the keybed. Yes- involving a notably pronounced movement from the thumb itself should actually be vastly more comfortable than trying to press the arm through a thumb that merely "supports" and I hope I can show you how to perceive this for yourself.

When you pressed into the table, what happened to the rest of your hand? Did it raise up over your thumb? If not, I'm afraid to say that this is a sure sign that you didn't engage the most useful activities AT ALL!!! Don't worry though- the details on how to introduce them are coming right up. If you did cause the rest of your hand to lift away, that's a promising sign- but how far did it go? Try going back to your starting point and simply lift up the fingers, as shown in example 1:

Don't press with your arm as you do so and don't even make any willful attempt to create pressure through your thumb! Start with it touching lightly and just think of lifting your fingers up and away. Did you feel your thumb starting to lightly engage- simply by lifting the fingers up? Try flicking the fingers up fairly quickly now (see example 2)- but remember to think up! Think of the downward pressure as being like a side-effect of lifting up- not as any kind of a goal. If the thumb feels "squashed" at all (either during the movement or once the fingers have stopped) make sure you start with a lightened arm and think of the hand's actions as being upward all the more. Sometimes try "waving" (keeping the knuckles high but moving the fingers back and forth) as in example 3. Particularly during this wave, be careful not to brace your arm. If it wants to wobble slightly in response, that's fine. Feel the sense of a loose "chain" that is free to sway slightly- extending from the thumb all the way to the shoulder.

Can you feel the slight adjustments that the thumb makes to remain balanced? While you should clearly perceive that downward pressures occur as an indirect result of your actions, they should never be especially large.With the right quality of movement at a piano, you don't actually need to exert a big pressure to achieve a full tone. I can honestly say that the very slight pressures that occur here (without so much as intent) are not drastically smaller than those required to make a healthy level of sound at the piano.

Anyway, if you're the impatient type you may already have jumped the gun and started applying this to the piano- and you may already be starting to get a better idea of the thumb's potential to produce tone. However, we've barely even started! All we've done is get the muscles to act in response to a flick of the fingers. The thumb is merely required to stabilise against a reaction in the opposite direction to the finger movement. It's possible that you'll have instinctively begun to involve the thumb's actions a little more directly than that, but we need to be sure. In the air now, try to differentiate between pulling the thumb down and away from the hand (example 4)- compared to the previous action of moving the fingers away from the thumb (example 5).

Alternate between the two relatively similar actions and try to notice what differences you can either see or feel in the results. However, be careful not to stiffen in a bid to immobilise anything. Retain maximum lightness and ease by going slowly and smoothly. If sympathetic movements still occur, that's fine- don't try to fight against them! Once you can clearly distinguish between the two, try flicking each movement out more quickly (examples 6 and 7)- but keep it very light again and don't fight the responses! If in doubt, it's better to keep it comfortable than to feel anything is being forced with needless vigour. Next up, try cocking the thumb back and extending it outwards (example 8). This will likely involve a slight rotation of the forearm (example 8).

Let's come back to the table. First remind yourself of the pure thumb "pull" by doing it in the air. Now let the table get in the way and feel how instead of moving the thumb itself, a reaction to that intention will instead raise the knuckles up (example 9).

The table "reflects" the movement in the opposite direction, in a manner of speaking. Make sure you still feel everything as an upwards action rather than downwards (with no jamming hard against the table) but try to feel how much more directly the thumb's action is now responsible for creating the lift compared to before. Try going back to lifting the fingers right up and reaching out (as in example 1), to see if the thumb gets more involved there too. Finally, try adding the act of extension. Think of much the same upward lift, but start with the thumb lightly bent and extend out forwards (example 10). Feel how when you lightly contact the table, everything is gently pushed back and away from that point- allowing everything to straighten itself out as the knuckles rise. Don't jam into the point of contact!

Finally, let's take this to the piano. Remember, you still need to think of lifting up though! It's very hard to retain this style of thinking, but you must not focus on moving the key down! For now, feel as if moving the key is a mere side effect of pushing AWAY, without anything resisting that motion away . Bizarre as it may sound, the slightest level of unconscious downward pressure with the arm is often what destroys the efficiency of energy transmission (it would take too long to explain that in passing here, but this will be duly proven in a later post). It also tends to crush everything together and create discomfort at the keybed. It's not impossible to add arm pressure in a useful way, but first you have to be sure that the thumb is playing its necessary role without jamming.

Anyway, try playing that melody again. Is there much improvement in the quality of sound compared to before or in the physical ease of tone-production? Also, do you find habits wanting to come back? For now, you may have to make it extremely conscious, until your brain has a chance to develop an association between a big resonant sound and the activity that most easily achieves it- especially seeing as it feels like that activity is being aimed in what might logically seem to be the "wrong" direction! A great test here is to simply touch the underside of the thumb with the other hand while playing. Any remaining downward pressures will quickly be exposed by this. The underside of the thumb should only be touching (not pressing!) against your other hand. If you feel your playing arm is pushing even slightly, slow down and try to engage the thumb action from a passive arm that merely responds- not from an arm that presses. It's arm pressure that creates a big danger of impact and strain between the thumb and the keybed- not activity from the thumb itself. If you're still trying to lift the hand comfortably up and away when you reach the keybed, you simply cannot cause significant impact. It is only when the arm presses downwards or if the muscles are stiffly braced (or, worst of all, both!) that your thumb can be driven into a hard landing. (I shall upload another video rather shortly, to illustrate the action at the piano).

Next up, let's apply the same upward action to the differing context of a scale. For most students, the thumb is something to be feared in scales. It is often thought to be too "strong". However, this belief often causes an attempt to compensate that typically causes it to become flaccid and unsupportive. When you see a bobbling arm in scales, it's almost guaranteed that this is because the student's arm sags into every thumb note. The sheer inactivity of the thumb causes everything to slump down uncontrolled- preventing any chance for the hand to flow seamlessly from side to side. This typically results in an inconsistent sound that features as many heavy lumps as it does notes that barely sound at all.

Anyway, to feel the benefits of an extremely active thumb, practise the movements shown back in examples 1-3 on each thumb note of a C major scale- with a direct sense of the thumb taking part in the activity. Start with the slow finger lifting and the gentle "waving" of examples 1 and 3- applied to a pause on each and every thumb note. Later you can even try the more vigorous flick of example 2- although I'd be very careful not to overdo this movement early on. Within a few days, I shall be uploading an additional video to illustrate these in practice, but it's basically just a matter of stopping to do the same movements- except this time on a piano key. Experiment both with the more passive thumb response to the finger movements that I described earlier, and with increasingly conscious thumb activity (but always to lift AWAY- not to dig down). When the thumb gets used to the action that serves to float the knuckles right up in the air , the arm can start to drift smoothly across through the scale without any feeling of either bouncing or getting "jammed" stiffly against the piano. It creates the seeming paradox of extreme stability, coupled with a tremendous feeling of lightness and ease- that should carry as much into the other fingers as the thumbs themselves. Contrary to what many believe, the greatest ease of thumb movement comes when you give it a positive task to perform- not when you try to hold back. After work on these more exaggerated movements, the movements required in normal scale playing should feel like the easiest thing in the world. The thumb should start to feel truly athletic, not sluggish!

Anyway, I hope that at least one (and hopefully both) of the two different contexts of thumb usage will have become clearer and easier from this. If you've been surprised at how much powerful your thumb is than you realised, do be careful to build this into your playing gradually. Hopefully the thumb's action already feels natural (rather than a thing of great effort)- but it's still important to take care not to overwork muscles that are not used to doing so much (even if it already feels physically comfortable). However, if you didn't feel any great improvement (and are not already coming from a place of being able to execute lightning fast scales at the drop of a hat) I would consider reading some of my earlier posts regarding the arms and hanging on for future updates. The most likely hindrance to good thumb activity lies in arm tensions- which repress the natural responses and create the illusion of weakness. In my next post I'll look to talk in more depth about how to cross-reference activity of the thumb with the arm,. as well as covering the actions of all the other fingers.

PS. I should acknowledge that the basic concept of bringing in a greatly active thumb is owed to what I have learned from Alan Fraser. While I think it's reasonable to refer to these as "my own" thumb exercises, I should acknowledge that the ideas are very heavily rooted in the same principles as his "thumb-pushups"- which I would also recommend.

Scale fingering made easy

2011-10-28T10:13:00.000-07:00

Just a brief departure from my regular posts here. Having written up a categorisation of the simplest way of conceiving the coordination for every unison major and minor scale for my students, I thought I might as well post this on my blog too. While I cover standard basics in my teaching, one thing I don't want to do here is to put together posts containing information that has been stated elsewhere in exactly the same way 1000x over. However, while this covers something as standard and routine as scale fingering, I've never personally seen scales categorised in this exact way before and feel it warrants posting for that reason. Considering that 22 out of 24 keys actually use one of just two possible physical coordinations (!), I find it rather surprising that these simple time-saving observations have not been widely made. All too often, pianists do not understand just how similar seemingly different coordinations actually are. For this reason, a lot of time can be wasted on trying to get a "feel" for just running the fingers without understanding the basic trends (typically by repeating over and over). However, the process goes a lot more quickly if you realise that the coordination for virtually every scale is identical to that which will already have been learned elsewhere. The key to consistently sound fingering is understanding specific signposts or anchor points, that hold everything together. When properly understood, instead of having two separate coordinations conficting with each other, the two hands should actually help to guide each other. However, I must stress that hands separate practise is extremely useful. This is to show how to combine two hands with understanding- not to replace high quality separate practise altogether.

When working with students, I use this basic material along with various demonstrations at the piano. I've filled in some additional details to the original summary, to clarify certain areas that might potentially cause confusion when viewed without that demonstration. However, I'll likely come back to this at some point in the future and perhaps illustrate certain points (that I typically accompany with a demonstration) with videos. Also- please note that this is specifically about understanding and organisation of fingering. This is not designed as a comprehensive "how to" for starting scales from scratch (although I may write an additional post sometime, about the quickest way to acquire a comprehensive mental grasp of the notes and key signatures for any possible key).

Also, one final point- this is written to summarise the most significant features of each fingering- in an ultra-concise form. Some people may find it valuable or even necessary to cross-reference this skeleton with a fully notated and fingered version of each scale. That's not something I'd discourage at all- but remember to start focussing on the significant features straight away! Don't just follow instruction after instruction over and over- like a mindless automaton! The sooner you can reduce your mapping out of a scale fingering to its most significant features, the sooner each scale will be truly learned- and will stay truly learned.

Scale Fingering

Firstly, all unison scales that start on the white keys involve one of two coordinations. Most involve 343 (ie. for two octaves this means that the thumb turns under 3 then 4 then 3 in one direction, whereas 3 then 4 then 3 is turned over the thumb in the other direction). The only exception is anything starting on either a B or an F! For all 343 scales, practise the exercise of playing both thumbs together on the keynote and going back and forth, with a note on either side.

eg. for C major

R.H. 4 1 2 1 4 1 2

B C D C B C D etc.

L.H. 2 1 4 1 2 1 4

(apologies if the alignment is not quite right in some browsers)

This gives you the location of every fourth finger in the whole scale (which will always sound at the same time as the second finger in the other hand). This is by far the most important point to focus on. Practise hands separate C major scales up and down passing exclusively under the third finger (and the third finger over the thumb), in order to develop a feel for this passing as being a "normal" default action to perform. Once this becomes habitual you are free to focus almost exclusively on the addition of fourth fingers (alongside the reference point of where the thumbs meet)- while everything else can be left to take care of itself. In this fingering, the worst possible sin is to fail to get the thumbs to meet- and especially to fail to even notice if it didn't happen! Even at the very fastest of speeds, there should always be conscious awareness of the thumbs meeting on the keynote. This is the anchor point that continues to hold everything together- even when other details start going on autopilot. Don't forget to keep looking out for that one moment of reference in each and every octave- even if the rest of the scenery is allowed to breeze by unnoticed! In the event that your fingers should start having their own ideas about which order they might wish to come in, a failure of the thumbs to meet here should send alarm bells ringing immediately! This sets up the chance to do immediate corrective work- before bad habits have a chance to set in.

Next up, we have B and F. Both the majors and minors use the next most standard fingering- which is that where thumbs ALWAYS land together, rather than only once per octave. This is very simple indeed as long as you plan for your thumbs and calculate the fingering accordingly. You should always be consciously aware of BOTH thumb notes before you even think of starting (which also applies when practicing any scale whatsoever hands separately)! Once the thumb notes are clear in the mind, practise firstly with a large pause on every thumb, both ascending and descending. When ascending, stop on the thumbs and think about the left hand. How far is the next thumb note for that hand? If it's a long way take 4 fingers. If it's nearer, take just 3. When descending, stop on every thumb note and apply the very same process to the right hand. Of course, this needs to lead to a "feel" for the movements, if the scale is to go quickly. However, by developing the "feel" in a way that is informed by a complete mental understanding of where the fingering comes from, it's far easier to train the reflexes to become reliable.

Additionally you can look at the black keys to help guide this (although you should never use this as a replacement for knowing both of the thumb notes!). When there are two black keys you use the third finger (fitting 2 and 3 to the group of 2 black keys). When there are three black keys, you use the fourth finger (fitting 2, 3 and 4 to the group of 3 black keys). Note that the fact that the left hand starts B major and B minor on finger 4 is a mere passing detail- that true understanding of the thumbs will sort out automatically. If you realise that the first thumb meeting is on E, there's no other finger that could logically end up on the first note, other than the fourth. When a student starts on 5, it is clear that they have not given any thought to forward-planning. If they deal with this merely by memorising "start on 4" that tells them nothing except to start on 4- offering no guarantee of a better plan for the scale as a whole. Understanding nothing more than how to think around two reference thumb notes tells you EVERYTHING you need to know to reliably finger every note in the scale- saving a hell of a lot of time and effort!

Next up, we have the scales that begin on black keys. Firstly, D flat major plus its relative minor B flat minor and F sharp (or G flat) major plus its relative minor E flat (or D sharp) minor. All of these function around an identical principle where thumbs meet twice per octave. In particular though, take care with B major, F sharp major and D flat major. Note that each of these contains every black key- but different white keys. This is why it’s essential to be 100% clear on the thumb notes, as trying to play these by “feel” alone inevitably results in confusion.

That leaves 6 more keys. Surprising as it may sound, 4 more of these are simply 343. C sharp minor and F sharp minor are most easily executed with an identical fingering to their relative majors (note the standard fingering for F sharp minor is different to what I suggest here, although I regard this approach as being far more practical and effective than having to learn the unique coordination required for the "traditional" fingering). Thumbs land on E for C sharp minor and on A for F sharp minor, with 4s on either side. A flat major and G sharp minor work much the same. Look where the thumbs meet and remember that the fours only occur immediately on either side. Be careful with G sharp minor here, however! Note that this time the fingering is different to the relative major of B (and that it does not correspond to the number of black keys!). Relate the fourth fingers to their location on either side of the B- but be careful not to think of B major (which does not operate on the 343 fingering we need here). All other black key minors involve an identical fingering to their relative majors and there is usually great benefit in directly associating their countless common features. It's very good to practise these relative majors and minors together. However, G sharp minor requires a different fingering- making it important to be careful not to associate too directly with B major.

That covers everything other than B flat and E flat majors. For B flat, notice that there are no convenient meeting points. Odd as it may sound at first, the conflict between the hands on the black notes is exactly what holds it together most easily. When ascending the right hand has 4 on B flats and 3 on E flats and the thumb always follows the black note. The flats are the reference point- but the left hand never meets up with the right. One hand always has a 3 and the other a 4. On the way back down the left hand always has 3 on B flats and 4 on E flats and the thumbs turns under every black note. This time it is the right hand that must match the seemingly 'wrong' fingers to the left hand.

E flat major is very similar but we have a natural meeting point to think around. 3s come together for a useful point of reference on E flat- but elsewhere 3 and 4 coincide with each other, as in B flat major.

In the specific case of scales with flats in the key signature, an additional point to notice is that the right hand thumb always falls on C (or eventually C flat, in the case of G flat major/E flat minor) and F. Also, the third finger always lands on the E flat (or E natural, if we include F major) and the fourth finger always lands on B flats. It is only in the left hand that significant fingering changes occur.

Fingering chart

343 scales: C, D, E, G, A (major and minor for each) A flat major, G sharp minor, F sharp minor (relative of A major), C sharp minor (relative of E major)

thumbs together scales: B major and minor, F major and minor, D flat, B flat minor (relative of D flat), F sharp/G flat, D sharp/E flat minor (relative of F sharp/G flat).

This leaves B flat and E flat as the two exceptions, with their own unique coordination.

Addendum regarding melodic minors, issues of turning onto black notes and why I advise A major fingering for the BOTH hands in F sharp minor

Almost everything above applies equally to harmonic and melodic minors. However, F sharp melodic minor and C sharp melodic minor are slightly different. Due to the raised 6^th on the way up, it is necessary to adapt the right hand fingering when ascending. Simply conceive the ascent as a thumbs together fingering (thumbs on A and E sharp for F sharp minor, and thumbs on E and B sharp for C sharp minor). To return to the “normal” fingering, care must then be taken to start the right hand descent with 321- rather than to take the 2 that would normally be used on the keynote. From this moment onwards, the scale becomes a simple 343 fingering- involving wholly identical notes and fingering to the relative major. Additionally, note that G sharp minor melodic reverts to the fingering of the relative major (ie. B) for the descent.

Also, one commonly stated principle is that the thumb turns under black notes and that fingers are typically turned onto black notes. Personally, I would say that it is potentially disastrous to use this extremely superficial (and highly inconsistent trend) as a major part of what guides scales. There are simply far too many exceptions. It's considerably easier to use the two basic coordinations detailed here as the foundation.

Some people use the premise that it is "easier to turn onto black notes" as the explanation for traditional F sharp minor fingering. Personally, I totally dispute that. Not only does the traditionally "correct" fingering make coordination of the hands vastly more complex, but I also believe it is marginally less comfortable. If it's somehow "hard" to turn the fourth finger over the thumb and onto a B, I cannot see why. If that movement is "hard", then A major contains the same difficulty anyway. Does anyone think something as routine as playing A major is "hard"? Personally, I actually feel far more cramped when turning my third finger onto C sharp. When turning onto the B, I feel I have plenty of time to get into position for the following notes. When going straight onto the C sharp, I feel slightly hurried. Having used the standard fingering for many years before switching to A major, I'm perfectly capable of using either. However, seeing as the left hand is marginally easier with a standard 343, I cannot see any justifiable reason to inflict a completely unique and confusing coordination upon anybody, as if it were somehow more "correct". In particular, I can't see why a clearly non-existant rule about turning under black keys (that is contradicted by the fingering for a wealth of other scales) should make it more "correct" to employ a fingering that is arguably less physically comfortable than the more obvious alternative.

Keybedding part ii- achieving a direct line of action without impact (plus an illustration of the REAL psychology behind prevention of muscle tensions)

2011-09-28T07:32:00.000-07:00

This will be a fairly short post, but I just wanted to add an explanation of the second way of directing energy well away from potential impact at the keybed. Think of this as a kind of "half-way" post. As well as clarifying the basic theory of how this approach stops impact, these are extremely important concepts with regard to learning how to put this quality of movement into practice. From here, my next post will get right into the specifics of moving the keys with the fingers- with full relation to the arm's role (apologies for stalling, but I've wanted to be sure to get this part just right. A post with fully practical explanation and illustrative videos will follow very shortly now). Along the way, I'm also going to shed some light on the psychology of what really causes the worst tensions. I'm not necessarily denying that there is some relaxation value in positive thinking, lighting a couple of joss-sticks or taking in the sound of whale-song accompanied by pan-pipes. However, I want to show how achieving a suitable conception of movement itself has a vastly greater role to play.

Anyway, I've already covered the circular path that accounts for pure pulls from the knuckle- but there's a second type of finger action that is based on a more direct line of motion. Although this shares the same powerful "pulling" action from the knuckle itself, the finger as a whole is felt to "extend". Arguably you can even look at it as being something of a "push". However, thinking of a push can easily cause the truly harmful type of keybedding that Matthay spoke of! I'd like to use the analogy of a "press-up" against the wall to illustrate some significant issues that are hidden beneath the surface (see this post regarding issues of actions and reactions for some relevant information, and some background about the exercise). I'm going to use it to show what kind of background mindset leads to the equivalent of healthy pushing, compared to the type of mindset that results in an equivalent to Matthay's keybedding. Please note that this is not a vague or poetic metaphor! The basic practical issues are extremely similar- providing a better level of self-perception and awareness that can then be directly transferred to guiding finger actions!

Anyway, compare doing a light press-up against the wall with how you might act if you began from the same starting position, but intended to actually push the wall over (just to be clear, the motion of the arms here represents the action of the finger on a key- not the action of the arms on a key!). Although you can try out the latter- go easy if you do! There's probably little danger of toppling a building, assuming that it was constructed by a qualified team of certified builders (rather than a team of mobile-home dwellers, who some guy in the pub called Dave got you in touch with). However, you don't want to risk straining yourself. If in doubt do a rather light version of only pretending to act as if you want to bring the wall down. Alternatively, just imagine how your body might behave, were you to attempt this. Once you've done that stop and think for moment. What is the actual difference between the two acts, in terms of how the body behaves? Try it again and see if you can perceive what exactly is really going on.

If we looked at every individual detail it would likely be pretty complex. However, if we look at the bigger picture, the key difference is very simple. It's just that in one case you think of pushing your body AWAY from the wall, whereas in the other you think of piling your whole body in TOWARDS the wall. Yes, it's that simple. This basic concept is something that can play an enormous role in playing- if we can understand how to apply it to moving a key. I'll come back to this shortly. However, while keeping it relatively simple, I'd just like to go slightly beneath the surface for a deeper insight.

The weird thing here is that in both cases physics illustrates that you actually act TOWARDS the wall. Try doing the same motion of the arms in open space, with no wall to contact. Your elbows start bent and your hands extend away from your body (which stays in the same place). Most likely you won't even think about what your elbow does. You just feel where you hands begin and aim to move them directly away from you. The fine details of what makes that happen are left to the unconscious. However, when contacting the wall your hands stay in the same place and it's now your body that moves away. Basically, the wall gets in the way of the arm extension and sends the movement back in the opposite direction. To put it in a subjective (rather than scientific) manner, it's almost as if the wall serves as a mirror that reflects the movement back in the opposite direction.

Anyway, while the press-up and the demolition press are spectacularly different acts, each is a type of "push". Even when you think of going away from the wall, your hands will necessarily act towards it to make that happen. However, one of these is directly comparable to a healthy finger "push" on a piano whereas the other corresponds to the specific type of "push" that would be deemed keybedding. But if both involve pushing towards the wall, what makes them different?

The simple answer lies within the action/reaction concept. When you do a press-up, if you think of moving away, you will instinctively allow the REACTION from the wall to move you in the opposite direction. The brain figures out which muscles need to be moveable enough for the reaction to be allowed to push you away. When we think too much about aiming towards the wall, we are inclined to fight against the reactions and press through them with extra efforts or try to lock joints into rigid immobility. Here we have the underlying cause of most heavy tensions and of ongoing excesses of pressure into the keybed. Basically, the brain devotes too much attention to piling everything into the direction in which the key moves. There's not enough freedom for the reaction to act in the opposite direction.

Incidentally, when you get to the top of the press-up, there may be room for fine tuning. You should be careful not to lock the elbows or to push so hard that they double back. But there's obviously no question that the arms can release their effort altogether. If they did you would fall back in again! In fact, if you've done the movement optimally, it should be truly seamless. At the top, there should be nothing that you could possibly let go of without losing balance and there should be nothing that you would feel even slightly uncomfortable with. If you're balanced just right, the smallest fraction of release would slowly start you on the way back in again. Negative tensions do not come from keeping yourself away from the wall with sensitivity. They come from excessive efforts that are intended to act towards the wall. This tiny difference in the conscious mind triggers a wealth of different responses- that can gradually become ingrained into habit.

To take it half-way to what happens on a piano, imagine now if that wall could move an inch or two (offering moderate resistance) before stopping dead. If you think towards the wall, the mass of your whole body will likely be thrown towards the stopping point. That means more momentum and energy is heading into impact- and it doesn't necessarily go into aiding movement of the wall (as I'll demonstrate in a future post on efficiency). Imagine now if you think away from the wall. Your mass still acts to support and balance the movement of the arms into the the wall. But as it's mostly going away from the wall, there's less impact on landing. Only a small amount of momentum from the arms goes into the moment of collision- with any other momentum being sent in the opposite direction. With just the right coordination, it may even be that the body doesn't end up moving in either direction, but simply hovers in balance (note that this balance is totally different to if you willfully fix it it into being immovable)

Interestingly, a "fall" into the wall would cause less impact than a full body press. HOWEVER, it will actually land vastly more momentum than when the muscles activate to press the body away. Falling through the wall certainly does not make for the least impact upon collision. Because the whole body is travelling, there is necessarily more momentum going into the stop. An inert collapse is superior to thrusting the whole body into a collision. However, a suitably controlled activation (that stops the body crashing in) is notably lower in impact still. This makes a lot of sense when related to "relaxation" technique. A flaccid arm that collapses makes for less impact than an arm that is pressed in hard against the keys. But compared to a hand that activates to push away from the piano in a suitable fashion, it's actually the dead arm drop that makes for the most impact. Later on things can start to get rather interesting when you learn how to "catch" an arm drop with hand activation (which does not mean a braced hand!)- like Artur Rubinstein:

Anyway, all of these issues translate into extremely direct equivalents, when moving a piano key. I suspect that this will have already given some major clues in itself, but I will show specifically how these concepts relate to putting finger actions into practice in my next post. In case you want to start experimenting now, I should stress that when you push away, it's very important not to let the arm be in a heavy corpse-like state! If you release too much weight, even an attitude of pushing away can be hard work. It needs to be very low effort when you start out. Don't even think of crashing your arms down like Rubinstein, but start by lightly extending the finger to ease your knuckles up away, starting from direct contact. There should never be discomfort or a heavy sense of pressure!

Anyway, as you've probably guessed, the big issue here is that thinking away in piano playing requires you to think not down of pressing the key down but of causing yourself to go UP in the hand (and perhaps even in the wrist, in some instances)! This is something that Alan Fraser suggested to me, the first time I played to him. Although this provided plenty of use from the start, there are many issues that I've only recently been able to put into that context and fully make sense of in that light. I honestly don't believe it's any exaggeration to suggest that almost any action should be felt to move everything either away from the key or in a circular path around it (as explained in the last post). Surprisingly, dropping onto the keys from a great height involves this too- I'd even say it's especially important in that scenario. Rubinstein doesn't get that big resonant sound from crashing into the keybed with an inert or braced hand. Redirection remains essential- and it's timed movement in the hand that best achieves that. Anyway, this post is effectively a fleshing out of the upward concept and an illustration of just some of the reasons why it is quite so significant. A future post on efficiency will go deeper into the reasons why this can also improve energy transfer and allow big sounds to come when expending relatively little energy.

Briefly, I should just add that the idea of thinking "up instead of down" may appear to be in contradiction to my post about two-sided thinking. To be clear, the difference here is that I am talking about acquiring a starting point in which you have first learned to allow the arm to respond freely to reactions. This is a missing link in the psychology of just about any technique that involves stiffness and fixation. Even some highly evolved techniques are held back slightly in this respect. Some of the exercises in my next post will give a clear illustration of how we'll still be building up towards a balanced understanding of both action and reaction as a single entity.

Keybedding- to follow through or to hold back? How does a pianist really avoid impact, strain and injury? (part i)

2011-07-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

(In this post I'm going to introduce various background issues that relate to what makes for healthy movement in general- before going on to give large numbers of related exercises- which I will illustrate with the aid of various videos. Although the specific practical exercises and applications will follow in a second post, I do urge having a good think about the more general issues presented here- in order to grasp the concepts that run behind that which will follow.)

"Keybedding" is a term that was coined by Tobias Matthay. In short, it refers to directing unnecessary pressure into the keybed. Personally, I'd actually go as far as to say that way a pianist deals with the moment where the key reaches the keybed is the single biggest issue, with regard to whether a style of movement is likely to be healthy or injurious (which is why I want to devote plenty of explanation to this). However- the term has caused overwhelming confusion and misunderstanding. In this post, I want to clarify what types of contact with the keybed can be harmful and why. I will also explain how the pianist can contact the keybed extremely confidently (and indeed reap the benefits of maintaining quality contact with it) in a way that does not involve any physical risk.

All too often we hear people claim that the fingers must finish their activity 100% in the very instant the note has sounded- or they are supposedly guilty of "keybedding" (implying that the key is supposed to be kept from rising by some form of arcane sorcery). Some people even go so far as to claim that you can (or even must!) prevent the key from landing against the bed outright, even in loud passages. I'm not going to beat around the bush here. This is simply IMPOSSIBLE- beyond any reasonable doubt!!! Please note that I fully acknowledge that some methods that involve this claim have worked for some people. Rather than be entirely dismissive of such approaches, I'd like to explore how they can sometimes help. However, I want to demonstrate a simple means of perceiving what really happens at the keybed in a healthy action. Once a person has grasped this simple, rationally feasible means of eradicating impact, I believe they have a far greater chance than when working with a premise of pure fiction (portrayed as if it were fact).

On every piano key, there's something called an escapement level. This is where the hammer leaves contact with the key. Press a key very slowly without making a sound and you will feel a point where the resistance changes (nb. this point is not felt on many digital pianos). From that moment on, you can no longer affect what happens to the motion of the hammer. Now, there are two schools of thought here. Some people insist that as nothing else affects the hammer, you should stop acting after escapement rather than direct unnecessary energy towards the keybed. Others insist you should play straight though that point of release. Contradictory as it may seem, at first glance, I want to illustrate how you can reap the fullest benefits from both schools of thought- without any compromise whatsoever!

Firstly, let's imagine a golfer making a drive. Try telling that golfer that he might as well stop the club a few centimetres after striking the ball- after all, the ball has left contact and he's no longer affecting it. That golfer will tell you where you can stick it, and he will be absolutely right to do so. Stopping after might seem to be "doing nothing", whereas continuing with a follow through might seem to be "doing something" unnecessarily. However, the reality is that a follow-though is far closer to "doing nothing", whereas stopping is "doing something" unnecessarily. That is because the club is carrying momentum.

A car that is in motion doesn't instantly stop if you cut the engine off. Even if you apply the brakes it takes time to stop. Stopping a golf club abruptly also takes some time- and a lot of extra muscular effort. Also, for reasons of psychology, even having to think of willfully slowing down the club long after contact could introduce problems. The anticipation of that action could affect the rest of the swing. The golfer stops adding extra efforts after that last burst of acceleration through the ball- but he will NEVER repress what follows when playing a standard drive. The club's momentum dissipates gradually of its own accord. Of course, a golf club doesn't have to contact anything else after the ball though- whereas the piano key reaches the keybed and stops quickly. That's the big problem with use of this (otherwise very sound) analogy, in isolation.

I'll come to the other element which needs to be used to complement this analogy shortly. But first, back to the idea that the pianist is supposed to "repress" the naturally ongoing motion before contact with the keybed- it's simply not feasible. Those who succeed by thinking this way actually end up doing something else. We're talking mere millimetres between escapement and keybed. Imagine that you're driving about in your classic car and you see your husband/wife standing by a wall at the end of an alley. Plough into him/her at a fast enough speed and you could collect on that life insurance policy. However, with your spouse just a couple of metres away from the wall, would there be any real chance to slam on the brakes in time to save your car from the scrap heap? Also, brake a little too soon and perhaps your speed will be the only thing that you succeed in killing? Maybe instead of collecting a fat cheque, you'd get to spend the rest of your life paying off hospital bills? Okay, that's a slightly bizarre analogy (and certainly not the most scientific one), but you get the idea. While I by no means wish to imply that arriving at the keybed would be akin to a four-wheeled murder weapon hitting a wall at full pelt, what I am saying is that there is generally no chance whatsoever of preventing that contact from occurring. The only real issue is how you can make that contact comfortable and safe.

Due to lower key speeds, in quiet playing it might sometimes be possible to stop before the keybed (although I believe it's more vastly more likely that the key reaches the keybed but then bounces back). However, even with a slow key descent this motion would be closely equivalent to a golfer who takes putts by prodding at the ball and then deliberately stops the club a centimetre after. No professional golfer putts this way- because it's inherently too erratic. If professionals did putt that way, they just wouldn't get to earn a living. You see many amateurs try this- typically overshooting a short putt by ten times the distance they intended. At other times the ball often moves just a few inches or sometimes they hold back so badly they don't arrive to contact the ball at all! For even the shortest of putts serious golfers will unfailingly play through the ball. Quiet playing too is vastly easier to control when viewed solely as one positive action- without adding a negative action. Although that could virtually be a sentence from a positive thinking manual, there's also a verifiable scientific reason why a single positive act is easier without an additional subtraction to make. Or to put it another way (that certainly wouldn't be found in positive thinking approaches):

Why attempt to juggle two variables that you could totally screw up when it's already difficult enough to control just one?

That is why I am very wary of anything that preaches the possibility of willfully trying to slow down after escapement. What really happens (for those who succeed with this belief system) is that the momentum is comfortably absorbed or redirected into an alternative path- DURING contact with the keybed. This feels so effortless, it's possible for them believe that they must have actually slowed down already, for so little impact to be perceived. However, there's no actual ducking out of the keybed. In truth, contact is not avoided but is simply done better. When the wrong person is given a physically impossible task to attempt, taking the instructions literally can sometimes be disastrous. Dwelling on such a description could easily cause many pianists to fall into the trap of actually trying to add muscular repression (likely causing stiffness that will only serve to increase the impact!). This is why I think factually creative explanations should always be designated as a metaphor that is worthy of consideration- but never portrayed as fact.

Imagine if a train in a very thin tunnel hit a brick wall head-on. All the carriages would come crashing into it from behind and the momentum would jam everything together in a concertina effect (note that a whole arm push will give you a very big and heavy "train" that carries some serious momentum!). Conversely, imagine a lorry doing a hand-break turn, in which the trailer skids around until it comes to a stop. In the latter, nothing is forced together into compression. Movement continues to occur in a circle around a point- it does not pile straight into any point.

Consider also the "tension and release" approach. If you bang your fist head on into a wall, will it help to release a split second after? Well, I suppose so, compared to if you continue to pile right through it- but it would be damage limitation, not prevention. How much use is trying to time "release" (to hundredths of a second) when a head-on impact will still occur- considering that momentum continues to travel anyway? "Keybedding" is when momentum comes crashing behind the finger and compresses everything against. It might seem to logical to follow up with the assumption that the only answer is to somehow "turn off" the momentum and pressure within a split second- but there's a far easier solution. Learning a path of movement that automatically results in redirection of any remaining energy can make an instant of compression impossible- without any need to attempt mastery of intricate split-second timing. Think back to the efficient path of levering with the pencil:

When movement is allowed to go unimpeded around a central point of contact on the key, no amount of continuation along this highly effective path can cause either strain or impact. It's not remotely like a train crash, but more like the trailer that gradually spins around the truck cab until it halts. The worst thing that can happen here is that you simply carry on travelling a little further than you intended- as continuation goes away from impact and compression not into causing it. Also, all the while gravity is providing a natural braking force- so it's extremely easy to for a small continuation to be absorbed. Seeing as overdoing results in nothing that you need be scared of, it's a very easy movement to do positively and confidently.

While I certainly don't want to dismiss tension/release actions outright 100% of the time, this alternative causes far less initial impact and does not require any special timing in order to avoid keybedding. That alone makes for a far better baseline of movement (before I even go into the efficiency with which it sets the hammer in motion).

In my next post I'm going to show how to put these principles directly into practice when using actions of the hand. While it's important to build up gradually, I do not believe that there's anything inherently dangerous about activation of the hand itself- IF you know how to deal with the keybed. Take a look at the style of movement in this film:

There's not the slightest hint of the on/off approach. The arm is never pressing hard through the fingers against the keybeds but neither is there even the slightest sense that he is trying to avoid or hold back from contacting them. Continuation of movement CANNOT ever cause compression, because the movement is never directed in path that might cause it- hence the look of lightness and effortlessness in each and every movement. Continuation of the action takes him up and away- it doesn't force anything down into keybedding. There's never a large pressure against the keybed- but neither are there coarse on/off jerks or prods from the fingers to prevent it. There's NO NEED to turn the action off at the keybed. Rather, there is a very smooth and continuous transition that ends in a low effort, yet stable and sustainable balance- that the whole arm is involved with.

Compare to this film:

Now, I'm not typically in the habit of being scathing about amateur pianists who are less than professionally accomplished. However, this is from someone who frequents internet forums under the bizarre delusion of being an expert on piano technique- yet who visibly struggles even with this straightforward ABRSM Grade 3 work. As a performance, the most significant deficiency lies in the treatment of the left hand as a mere background accompaninent- rather than as one half of a two voice duet. However, that is a major failing in the musical intentions rather than an issue that relates to his technique. What I'd like to focus on specifically is the style of movement- and how it compromises both his physical comfort and his control over the sounds that he creates. Notably, this is a pianist who advises the instantaneous stop at the keybed- and who suffers the consequences of that mindset, for all to see.

Notice the totally locked up arm and wrist. This would typically be called "finger isolation", but the real problem is the stiff arm- not that he is dependent on finger actions (note that Prats' finger actions are actually vastly more extreme). He is just not dealing well with the keybeds, hence the strain and effort. We see a series of half-hearted on/off pokes, with no flow or continuity to the movement. The stiff arm does nothing to absorb the landings- and cannot be hung freely as a suspended chain, because the fingers provide no notable stabilisation that might permit it. Instead of keeping the arm released to absorb reaction forces (like Prats), he has to clench harder upon every depression, to stay balanced. Also, the tonal control is extremely erratic, with a number of l.h. 2nd finger and thumb notes scarcely even sounding at all. Even in the soft dynamics, he plays like he is scared of the keybeds (and frankly he has good reason to be- when moving with such a stiff wrist). It's a classic example of severe repression robbing a pianist of sensitive control- just like the golfer who aims to stop his putter dead, straight after contacting the ball. This is certainly not an example of somebody who succeeds under the pretence that he can slow down before landing at the keybed. It's a pianist who is crippled by the problems of trying (in vain) to actually do it- resulting in gaping holes in the the line. When the fingers repress too much too soon, the level of tone is completely compromised. As I said- it's easier to control a lone positive action than when you add a negative action to the mix. Here we see what happens when you add unnecessary repression to what should simply have been a direct and uncomplicated motion.

Note how clearly the pianist who plays with confident actions is the one who can land the keys healthily and with control in any dynamic. Not the armchair guru who plays with repressed little prods- as if he's terrified of having to encounter the keybeds at all (even in a middle of the road dynamic). What he would need to do in order to progress would be to release the stiffness of the arm and stop trying to hold the fingers back from the landing.. If you continue freely into a small amount of positive movement upon contact with the keybed (involving proper response from a loose arm), there's no moment of impact or compression to be feared. When there is a small natural continuation (rather than a willful stop) the arm rapidly ceases to clench in anticipation and instead becomes capable of offering effortless shock absorption to the hand's actions.

Hunched shoulders- why do they really occur and how can they be fixed (with an extended digression on issues of stool height)?- Alignment and the role of the arms, part ii

2011-04-17T07:35:00.000-07:00

In the last post I illustrated the extent to which a completely released arm can align itself into a playing position, as well as how suprisingly small the force required to balance the weight of the arm is- provided that balance is generated at the finger end. In this post I want to explain the key element of how the arm would more typically behave in practice, at the other end- ie. the shoulder. Note that weight regulation is vital for ALL pianists. Weight never goes away as if by magic. Unless the arm is in the process of falling, its weight has to be supported in some kind of distribution. Some teachers shout from the rooftops about extreme release of the arm (implying that the hand takes the bulk of the support) whereas others are intent on promoting extreme withholding of arm weight (implying that the shoulder works far harder). However, what both need is consistent control at the shoulder end- over how much of the weight is withheld and how much is released. In that sense, arguably it makes very little difference which perspective you favour. Both schools require a means to control the weight distribution in a predictable way- regardless of whether the focus would be placed more on withholding or releasing. Later on in this post, I will illustrate a singular means of regulating use of the arm's weight- that I believe can be used equally well to assist either approach (or preferably for a far more sophisticated approach in which the level of support/release at the shoulder fluctuates greatly, according to what is required at the time).

Although it is vital to be familiar with the fullest state of release, an arm will rarely (if ever) be hung from the shoulder as passively as that of a corpse while playing (conversely, to make it behave as if it were entirely weightless is quite literally impossible). However, when introducing activity at the shoulder, you have to be very careful. In particular, I'd like to bring in the frequently encountered problem of hunched shoulders. Along with stiffening around the wrist, this is one the most common problems in piano technique- that people have tried to explain with a number of bizarre and esoteric theories. Lifting up the shoulders is rarely a conscious part of the intentions in itself. It's often the case that pianists who are aware of this habit still find themselves absolutely incapable of stopping it- no matter how much they focus on the issue. However, if you look a layer beneath the immediate surface, I don't think the source of this habit is actually terribly mysterious at all. I'd like to offer a couple of very simple and (in my opinion) very likely theories for why this would occur:

Firstly (as detailed in previous posts) it's common for pianists to dwell too exclusively on the upward/downward axis of movement in piano playing rather than embrace the necessary horizontal elements. If your image of moving the key is based on having to push it in a directly downward path, it doesn't exactly take the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to see how that might cause the instincts to keep bringing the shoulders up and over the top. Indeed, it's also common to see the pianist leaning in and pushing the elbows forward- as if they want to align their whole arm and shoulder more directly over the top of the keys, ready to push them almost perfectly downwards. Sometimes, the pianist will even start bouncing up from the stool- leaving you wondering if they're even about to get up and carry out the rest of the performance standing up.

Okay, this is a very extreme version of such a habit. However, just a trace of that style of thinking can cause the shoulders to start creeping up. Even a tiny bit of raising can cause problems. It may also accumulate- until it turns out that the shoulder has been raised up entirely, completely unnoticed. If a pianist wants to use arm pressures to produce sound, a far more efficient way would be a forward press from the upper arm- in which the fingers stay in the same spot on the key while the wrist rolls over the top. A forward action is directed into a downward movement through the key, often finishing in an upward movement. This action is possible without the shoulder having to go up at all. That's a somewhat superficially brief explanation for now, but I will come back to this action in much more detail in a later post. Anyway, there's a clear example of this action at the very start of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmPwz6NpljY

(Although this is a great example of this particular movement, I should state that Daniel Barenboim is far from a favourite player and definitely not somebody I would use for a model of chord-playing technique in general. He often resorts to a totally different style of movement- where extremely forceful yet inefficient arm actions produces a hideously clangorous and percussive tone).

However, there's also a second likely explanation for why pianists would lift the shoulders- to support the weight of the arm more. This is extremely common among those who sit on low stools (where the forearm slopes notably downwards from the hand to the elbow). This is because the angle causes the weight of the arm to express itself more, compared to when sat on a relatively high stool (where the forearm slopes notably upwards from the hand to the elbow). For those who sit very high, hunched shoulders are generally much more likely to stem from excessive desire to get straight over the top of the keys ready to push (a mindset that may also explain why they have chosen to sit high in the first place). This can also be an issue when sitting low. However, a low stool also introduces a significant need to reduce the far greater weight that would bear upon the hand, were the arm totally released.

I should acknowledge here that this seems to run contrary to what many respected pianists have claimed about arm weight, regarding stool height. However, I can assure you that the lower you sit, the greater the force required to balance out gravity's action upon the arm. This is absolutely beyond question. Dig out that corpse once again and try experimenting with different heights in the exercise from my previous post, to see if you can perceive the difference in the balancing force.While I'd personally advise something pretty close to the standard horizontally aligned forearm, it's perfectly possible to play well when departing a little from there. In fact, Arcadi Volodos seems pretty much ambivalent about sitting a bit higher or lower. He actually favours whatever chair the hall has provided for the orchestra over a piano stool- seemingly caring relatively little about the exact height.

However, it's important to be aware of the potential problems from adopting great extremes. While Glenn Gould was a marvellous pianist, he sat so spectacularly low that he frequently resorted to hunching his shoulders up very heavily- presumably because it was the only way to lighten the sound, as well as to stop his fingers having to bear so much of the arm's weight. At other times, we also see him to trying to lift his arms into a position from which to push down into the piano for volume, as in the first example. Sure, he played supremely well despite these issues, but it is said that he often suffered severe pain in his upper body and it is widely known that he was addicted to various painkillers. His diaries also document an extended period when his technique fell apart and he struggled to play so much as a Bach Chorale evenly. I believe Peter Feuchtwanger once speculated that his low stool may even have been the cause of his early death. That's certainly a rather extreme theory! However, had he not sat quite so low, he would easily have been able to support a more relaxed arm via the hand- which would drastically have reduced the stress on his shoulders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbJc6IPooDE

It's interesting that's he is in so much constant movement with his whole body. I suspect that rather than being exclusively about "feeling the music" he would have been so burdened with effort had he wanted to keep still, that it would have been far too strenuous. I don't think he had any choice but to keep shifting the balance- in a way that few other pianists could have done while retaining control of the sound. Compare the stillness of Horowitz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPTe1xMB9Uk

Horowitz had a much more natural and healthy looking balance- where he was low enough to exploit plenty of the weight of his arms, without that weight becoming a burden to either his hands or his upper body. His hand does not generally support the full dead weight of his whole arm. His shoulders are certainly not slumped like those of a corpse- but neither is the arm being held up by major efforts. There's a much more natural interaction than with Gould- where both hand and shoulder achieve tremendous stability. Between them, they can support the weight of the arm without either side working very hard.

So, how do you succeed in lightening up the arm, without compromising the stable connection between the hand and the keys- and without hunching the shoulders up? Well, it's actually quite simple. Once more, we need to add an additional dimension to the thinking. I've previously mentioned how finger actions need to be conceived in the axis that extends forwards/backwards from your body, as well in terms of the more obvious up/down axis. In order to lighten up at the shoulder without hunching, you simply need to think more in terms of the sideways left/right axis. When you think of lightening the arm as a pure upward action, even a fraction of movement in the shoulder can instantly compromise the sense of the suspended chain. Just a couple of millimetres of movement can leave the whole arm feeling entirely "held"- totally removing any sense that the arm "hangs" between shoulder and finger. When conceived this way it's virtually a sense of the shoulder being simply "on" or "off" (ie. held or released)- rather than the smoothly sliding scale of infinite possibility that it should be. If you redirect the attention to include sideways motions, a wider range of possibility should become available pretty much instantly.

EXERCISE

(nb, while not absolutely essential, this post contains exercises and explanations that relate strongly to the general principles behind in the exercise)

Stand up straight (ideally facing a mirror) and start by shaking your arms around- until they feel released and free to hang down from the shoulder. Now feel the elbows drifting out and away from the body. Basically, I'm asking you to do an impression of a chicken clucking- but VERY SLOWLY. This movement comes from the shoulder, but judge it in the elbow for now. Although the elbows will naturally come up a little as part of this, don't pay attention to that for now. Just notice the feeling of going out to the side. If you concentrate on that, the elbow will also go up slightly of its own accord. Neither resist that nor make it part of the active intention. When you go away from the body, try to notice how gravity is trying to pull you back inwards. The slower you go and the more you perceive this, the better. You should feel as if the effort of the muscles is so small that, while it's enough to balance gravity and stop your arm being pulled back into your torso, it's only just enough to cause movement at all. The muscular effort should seem absolutely miniscule. If you get tired, have a rest and come back to it later.

When your elbows are a few inches away from your torso then stop. But don't think of stopping! Let gravity stop you. You don't have to slam any brakes on- because gravity is already providing a braking force! If you keep feeling how gravity is trying to pull you back in, you should get to the point where the feeling of the muscles trying to take you outwards is matched exactly by the inward pull via gravity. Your arm stops but the muscles didn't stop acting. They can't have done- or you'd have fallen back in! They are doing exactly what is required and no more. Try feeling as if the muscles are almost still moving your elbow out at this point, rather than fixing you in place. Literally speaking you "stop" in a position in space, but you should not feel any stop in the activity. Try thinking of deliberately stopping the movement sometimes and compare the difference. See if you can perceive the extra efforts and the greater sense of "holding" that results. Then try to notice where you can release these unnecessary efforts and look to return to the perfect equilibrium between the outward action of the muscles and the force that tries to pull you back in. The more you feel the force that have to balance out in order to remain still, the more likely you are to match it efficiently, with the lowest possible effort- rather than by generically stiffening.

Now come back in again, reversing the process. This time, you are only just letting go of the muscles enough for gravity to draw you back in a fraction at a time. Concentrate on the outward action of the muscles still, as you drift back in. Remember- the muscular effort should already be exceptionally low to start with- but try to feel that you are letting go of this slight effort ever so slowly. Little by little you allow gravity to bring the elbow back in towards the torso. Your muscles are still having to act against gravity- otherwise you would collapse straight back in. It's a very slow process of releasing the activity a fraction at a time.

If you've done this slowly and sensitively enough, there should already be a tremendously improved feeling of lightness in your shoulders. However, one thing to watch out for is whether the shoulders are still being raised up as you do this. Look at yourself in the mirror and try to notice whether you see any signs of the shoulders being lifted. A few times, slowly raise your shoulders straight up and allow them to descend, using a similar process to before (ie. as they go up, feel the muscles only just do enough to overcome gravity. As they come down, slowly release this very light effort enough for gravity to lower them). Now go back to the slow clucking movement, but continue to notice the shoulder. Take the attention away from the elbow now and this time perceive it as a sense of opening out the space in the armpit. Keep feeling how gravity is pulling the shoulder down for you and be very careful not to accidentally activate the muscles that lift it straight up. Sometimes even imagine that somebody is pressing down on your shoulders, for a time (or get someone to actually do this for you). You can also try this while holding a small weight (say a kilogramme in each hand) to increase the force that pulls the shoulder down towards a neutral position.

As you get used to this, you're going to start refining the movement to a level where it becomes so small that it's basically invisible. Try practising it to the point where the elbow moves just a few millimetres. Can you still feel the vivid sensations in the shoulder? Try resting your hand on a chord and experimenting with these tiny outward sensations. Can you feel just how much control you have over the regulation of pressure through the hand? Try all different levels- from a fully released arm to one where the fingers barely contact the keys enough for them to stay depressed. Note that this has nothing to do with the highly pronounced "elbow out" that some pianists do to the point of absurdity. In the end, the actual movement may literally be so small as to be entirely invisible to an observer. However, the pianist ought to perceive a very smooth transition through a massive range of sensations involving the whole arm- from fingertip to shoulder. You should feel as if you can make your arm as heavy or as light as you wish.

Virtually all playing needs at least some slight feel of this outward lightening action. This learning exercise is especially valuable if you sit low. I find it rather odd that this vital element of the arm's role does not seem to have been addressed in any specific way (at least not by any conventional teaching I am aware of). Logically, it is obvious that you cannot just collapse the elbow of a sagging arm into the torso. The means of balance is clearly vital. This action can take you from a corpse like arm through whole spectrum of functional states- without the risk of turning into a "held" or stiff arm. Not only does this action serve as an extremely sensitive way of regulating how much of the arm's weight is released/withheld at a particular moment, it is also a fundamental action of basic alignment- particularly when reaching towards extremes of the keyboard.

Alignment and the role of the arms, part i

2011-03-06T09:05:00.000-08:00

In this post I'm going to cover the nature of one-ended support systems compared to two-ended support systems- illustrating what is possible from each with some awareness exercises for the arms. Both states are required for piano playing (sometimes in rapid alternation). However, I'd like to show how much less effort is required when maintaining two-ended support- if you take the opportunity to make the arm hang in a "suspended chain" state. I'll be showing how you can enter a state where the wrist and elbow can be aligned within a suitable playing position despite literally no muscular efforts or tension being required around these joints- and giving a practical exercise to prove that this is indeed possible. I'm also going to try to break through the mysteries of what "alignment" really is- and show how easily it is actually found, when you know what to look for.

Firstly, hold both arms outstretched in front of you. Relax as much as possible and stay like that for a minute or so. So how "relaxed" do you feel now? Even the most efficient use of the body cannot change the fact that you are having to generate a number of large forces to resist the pull of gravity. If you want to keep everything straight, you can only relax the muscles up to a point- a point where they still have a substantial amount to do. The intention of staying there prevents full relaxation of countless muscles- because this intention is stronger than any conflicting intentions to relax. If you are not willing to have your arms fall down, obviously you cannot release the specific muscles that are stopping them from doing so- without achieving the impossible.

Now shake your hands and arms into release and let them flop to your sides. Although still in a one-ended support system (via the attachment in the shoulder) they have now been brought into a natural balance with gravity, so when you "relax" you can relax into the truest and most literal release of effort. You can hang your arms as freely as you like. Once they are in balance with gravity, relaxation cannot cause any unwanted movement. We all tend to retain at least some muscular activity even in this state. For a healthy person they should be pretty miniscule efforts compared to those that are required to maintain an outstretched arm- although there is much value in learning to perceive and remove these habitual traces of tension too.

When in a one-ended support system, any outstretched position can only be stabilised against gravity by constant muscular contraction around EVERY successive joint (note that this is not a case of "spreading out" the work- ie. in one-sided support no amount of effort in any particular joint can contribute a thing towards stabilising any other joint). When extended, the arms could be held with the least effort physically possible, but every successive joint must still be balanced by successive efforts in localised muscles- so it is tiring. It's like trying to hold a long sword out horizontally, without any help at the other end. Note that this is not a poetic metaphor but a very close comparison. It takes vastly more of an effort to support a horizontally extended structure from just one end (even without the internal joints to balance). Now imagine resting the sword upon something at the other end. The force required from you to keep it balanced will be drastically reduced. This is the key difference between a one-ended support system and a two ended support system.

Now let's think of the playing position and how to achieve a state of two sided balance. We already established that a released arm can slip off the keys. But how much force do the fingers need to provide to create a point of support and at which angle? Well, head down to your cellar and grab the freshest and most intact corpse that is lying about. Tie it to a chair, seated upright. Grab a couple of the fingers and pull them towards you. Can you align the corpse's arm into what would be a suitable playing position ? It really ought to be very easy to do so.

The above diagram shows an approximate angle that you might have to pull, in order to stabilise everything into balance (simplified to 2 dimensions here, although I shall also talk about the role of the 3rd dimension later). I have also marked the paths in which motion would occur around the shoulder and elbow (although this is prevented by your pull on the fingers). Note that the upper segment of the arm forms a slight angle. If it hangs straight down, the force that tugs backwards is necessarily reduced and the wrist might even slump down slightly rather than become suspended in the long line of the whole arm. This is where it is different from the sword. A sword is a single structure that contains no hinges. However, the arm has one in the wrist. If you tried to simply rest directly "on top" of the keys (like when resting one end of a sword on something), the wrist would collapse downwards, unless fixed into position. Imagine what would happen if the sword contained a hinge! You could no longer rest one end without something to stabilise that hinge. This is why excessively up/down based thinking automatically leads to uncontrolled muscular efforts, no matter how much you might hope to release them. Unlike the (regular) sword, the area that extends from elbow to the fingertip must be kept together with HORIZONTAL forces- or there is no hope whatsoever of balancing a released wrist!

You need to consider this when lining up your own stool- to be sure there is enough angle to ensure that release of the upper arm is providing a big enough component of force that will pull backwards at the elbow. Seeing as your subject is lifeless in the experiment, in this case it is abundantly clear that there is no requirement of any internal muscular activity in sustaining this balanced alignment. The only actively generated force is being provided by your pull. With a living subject, the equivalent balancing force will be provided by a small ongoing grip that occurs internally, within the finger. Also, remember that, unlike the corpse, a living person has the option to employ some more active muscular support at the shoulder- meaning that the size of this balancing force can be made even smaller still!

For those of you who are fresh out of cadavers, simply get hold of a bottle of chloroform. An unconscious subject will do just as well. However, if you're fearful of acquiring a criminal record, just get a friend to shake their arms as loose as possible and then pull their hand towards you (starting from a position where the whole arm hangs straight down). The problem is that most people will be inclined to use their muscles to start lifting. However, if you shake their arm around, to encourage release (whenever you feel them helping) hopefully you will be able to get a good feel for just how small the balancing force really is- compared to what the traditional arm-weight school might have you believe about how "heavy" the released arm is supposed to be.

From this experiment, it should become evident that the downward forces that stem from universal release are not large.While an arm may be a good few kilogrammes in mass, the idea that even a wholly released arm automatically creates some gigantic force against a piano is a pure myth- as this should illustrate to you. The force that results from full release is fairly small (except when momentum is accumulated by dropping from a great height) and largely acts horizontally upon the hand. Even if you were pulling on the end of a big heavy steel chain (tied to a fixed point at the other end) so as to keep it taut, the force applied would still be primarily horizontal. When supporting your friend's arm, you should easily feel that your action is almost entirely towards yourself- and is not based on holding the arm up. A released arm will primarily be pulling away from you, not downwards.

Try getting your friend to pull your own hand out in the same way, and see if you can get a feel for releasing absolutely everything. The average arm should not feel particularly "heavy" at all, but simply enormously free and released. However don't go out of your way to force it to be "light" either! Remember it's very important to avoid any preconceptions about what is supposed to result- as they translate into active yet unnoticed muscular efforts all too easily. Bacon's old truism about how experiments tend to "prove" what they are supposed to is all too true here- so remember simply to strive for release and OBSERVE. Keep shaking the arm loose and then let it truly "hang" between the shoulder and the point of support at the finger. If you can get the whole arm to go as limp as that of a corpse (even in your hand for now), you are getting a feel for the most truly neutral yet balanced starting point- the purest "suspended chain" state that the arm is capable of. Alignment can be difficult to attain when viewed from the exterior, but finding alignment really is spectacularly simple when you view it this way. When the arm hangs between shoulder and hand the alignment can literally create itself. In this experiment you cannot do a thing to make this state occur You simply have to let it occur in response to an external force. When I get onto the finger side I'll show how, in regular legato playing, alignment can still be made to create itself to a very large extent- even when the hand and shoulder are becoming active rather than behaving this passively.

Note that when you pull a loose rope or chain from both ends, it straightens itself- without any remotely precise activity. However, if you push on a loose rope or chain, it can go all over the place with very little predictability. This same principle applies here- remember that the arm is literally a chain of joints. This is no vague metaphor. Actions that are based on pulling a chain of joints create order and lead to predictable and easily repeated results, whereas actions that are based on pushing create greater complexity and make the results vastly less predictable (unless links in the chain are fixed into position). Of course, sometimes great pianists will break with standard alignment and use variants for good reason. However, the baseline for regular alignment is spectacularly simple when based upon allowing a released arm to hang itself into place between shoulder and finger. This is what I mean when I say that great pianists don't just make it look easy. A pianist who tries to create alignment from the outside alone is simply attempting something that is far harder and far more complex than what an experienced virtuoso really does (especially if they are trying to push with the arm, throughout passages of regular finger work!). A true virtuoso feels a few very simple balancing actions on the inside and the majority of alignment can ensue as if by magic- because that is the state in which gravity balances the middle of the chain. I should stress that I am not ruling out some fine tuning with the muscles beyond this- but it's far easier to release into the starting point of a neutrally suspended arm than to try to start by trying to manually crank every individual area into a very specific place.

In part two I will go into some exercises that are based around starting to employ some slight balancing forces at the shoulder, without resort to stiffening. In practice, the shoulder needs to be able to release/support as much or as little of the arm's weight as you desire, in order for the fingers to perform a variety of different actions, while maintaining balance. However, if you go about supporting the weight in the wrong way, the fingers end up with nothing to pull against and the whole arm starts having to stiffen to stabilise their actions (and likely having to push through them to compensate). This is also where the third axis of sideways motions comes into it. It is certainly not desirable to let the shoulders slump inwards against the body, so it's also important to learn how to take support at the shoulder- provided that you are still releasing enough to keep the chain of the arm hanging taut, rather than being notably held up around the elbow and wrist! Anyway, more exercises (to start on the active efforts that need to be added to this initial state of total release) will come shortly.

Clearing up a number of issues- including gravity as a power source, finger "isolation", the passive role of the arm, fixation compared to balanced stillness and why fingers should seek to maintain the support mechanism at the keybed without undue effort- not simply "relax"!

2011-01-08T11:23:00.000-08:00

I had intended to get straight onto some exercises for the arms within this post, although I'd like to just take the time to clarify a number of issues first, based on aspects of feedback. After this post, I intend to concentrate almost exclusively on the "how", rather than spend much more time on the the "why", until I have fully covered the basic role of both arms and fingers.

At this point, I'd particularly to be clear that the style of movement and balance that I will be explaining first is a kind of base level- a foundation upon which all kinds of seemingly diverse techniques (which may well look rather different on the surface) can be built. I believe that the ability to create stability by making the arm into a taut chain that is supported against collapse via only two points (rather than create a structure that can only resist collapse with internal muscular efforts around every joint) is a necessary requirement for anyone hoping to reach the highest level. See the end of my previous post for diagrams that illustrate how much less effort it is to support a chain from both ends, than to attempt to hold it steady in a one ended support system. I also believes that this approach makes things far less complex, even for those who might not necessarily have the loftiest of ambitions. Of course there will be variants and this approach may not necessarily even be used in its extreme form most of the time. But without having full access to this state, a pianist simply does not know what true relaxation is- no matter how much they like to think they are "relaxed". If you have the ability to go into this state at will, it's absolutely fine to diverge from it whenever you wish, safe in the knowledge that you are able to return at any time- not just between notes but even while spinning out 16 constant notes per second. If you do not understand how to create this state (and cannot even perceive the verifiable fact that you are playing with constant unnecessary muscular tensions as a result) then you are limited in what you can do. In extreme cases, some pianists develop severely locked wrists and elbows- because they never create a state in which it is mechanically possible to relax them for more than a brief instant. In less extreme cases, the limits may not be so obvious. However, the inability to create a state where you can feasibly eliminate the need for those last traces of tension can make all the difference at the highest level.

I believe that having acquired the ability to employ this quality of balance whenever desired largely distinguishes between the 'talented' and those who merely scrape by. However, I don't want to give any impression that all other movements are specifically "banned" or that there are no alternative possible routes to acquire this state other than the particular one I'll be illustrating (although I do believe that this is the most direct route to both understanding specifically what is needed for efficient movement and actually achieving it). This approach is designed to convey how to achieve low effort balance (when using even the greatest extremes of dynamics). It is not a restrictive method that preaches "x is correct and all other movements are banned", so please do not misunderstand it as such. This is a more case a of "make sure you have a proper foundation in x" and use the benefits from that in whatever way you want.

Anyway, for any technique to be satisfactory, it must satisfy a number of requirements.The foundation level of technique must be versatile and applicable to all kinds of different instruments- be they unusually heavy or light in action. It must both permit accuracy at high speeds and consistent tonal control. A good technique must make it possible to execute passages where there is no time to go up and down with the arm on every note and when there is no time to always be willfully rotating the arm from note to note etc. I want to start with the ACTUAL quality of movement that can be utilised in such situations without resort to strain or pushing- not a roundabout system that may or may not gradually translate into stillness later on (with no explanation as to how). Obviously the starting point needs to be relatively low intensity and low speed- but I do not believe what goes into the movement should be notably different from what occurs within the final product.

It's interesting to look at the pianists Art Tatum and Arcadi Volodos- both of whom possess unbelievable ability and achieve results with stupendous lack of visible effort. Here are a couple of examples (within the longer Volodos film, look at what is happening from around 4:30 onwards, in particular):

Proponents of the traditional 'arm weight' school would likely refer to the frequent relaxation movements with slow chords- including large drops and a tendency to let the hand collapse very loosely after landing. HOWEVER- what happens when they play faster? Both pianists are notable for just how little movement they use and for just how stable the fingers and wrist are able to remain. Look at Tatum at 30 seconds in! They only use large arm movements or collapse their hands at times when they CAN without ill effects and because they CHOOSE to- not because they are INCAPABLE of staying supported without discomfort! If they were told that they had to do a fast passage slower but with the same balance, do we really think that these geniuses would be left with buckling fingers? Or would they find their tendons becoming sore from the effort of having to balance each finger in a position of stability, without 'relaxing' it? Of course not! Sadly, amateurs often go so far as to deliberately relax the finger at the keybeds in ALL off their practise- without being capable of finding stability for even a few notes in a row. Typically they have never even attempted the means of low effort stability, never mind mastered it. Unlike Volodos and Tatum, this leaves them with virtually no hope in hell of getting beyond a snail's pace without arms that bob around all over the place or collossal tensions to stop that.

To go beyond the speed wall all you need to do is to teach each finger to play a maintainable role in keeping the chain taut from one end, while gravity keeps it taut from the other end. The principle is really that simple (although mastering it to quite the degree of Tatum and Volodos is of course another matter altogether!).. The finger pulls itself into stable balance (moving the key as it does so) and the tautness of the chain keeps joints stable without other muscles having to do very much at all. The reaction forces are absorbed in this state by mass, whereas a "held" arm will tend to be pushed away- causing either bobbling or stiffening to resist that. When you maintain the chain there are very few variables and hence there's very little complexity. Volodos and Tatum don't just make it look easy when they run their fingers. What they do really IS inherently easier to do than what most find themselves attempting. It is less complex, it is easier to do with consistency, it is more efficient and it offers a much greater margin of error. In fact, it even makes it far easier to deal with nerves. A taut chain that has a point of real security between finger and key and is far more inclined to absorb a slight trembling- just the same as the reaction forces. Trying to "hold" the elbow and wrist still against shaking (rather than secure the chain at the finger end) can lead to absolute disaster. When a pianist has problems with nervousness, it makes as much sense to look at the inherent stability and potential for dampening within their mechanism as it does to explore psychology.

Tension/release methods do not work at high speeds because there is no time for controlled release into a stable position from which the next note can be controlled. Even at slow tempos, the approach ought to be looked at in a more objective light. The tendency to look at the release side is little more than spin doctoring. Piano technique is determined by possibility and demands objectivity. There is no place for stressing only good points of an approach but pushing inherent negatives under the carpet. It's all very well to be selective when smearing/promoting a political party, but failure to look at the rounded whole contributes nothing to the understanding of piano technique. But "Why wouldn't you relax your fingers after the note has sounded?" some people say. Because the effort is actually very low (that is, once you know how to do it efficiently) and because relaxing it requires EVERY joint in the arm to be held in place with vastly more notable efforts! There is no "free" relaxation but merely an act of sending substantial requirements for efforts elsewhere- and all for the sake of relieving yourself of a tiny one (in a finger that can still relax freely at all times other than when it staying on the note). Remember the finger does not have to bear anything remotely like the whole arm's weight to maintain the chain! We are not talking about huge efforts.

"Then relax your finger" could equally be described as "and then introduce a need for muscular efforts to stabilise both your elbow and wrist against collapsing under gravity- rather than allow them to balance effortlessly as part of a fully supported chain that is suspended from two ends". This is not an opinion, remember, but a scientific fact based on irrefutable mechanical laws. Anyone who sincerely feels that they can relax both finger and arm at this point (without sliding off the keyboard) is simply not living in the real world. Okay, perhaps they are talking about comfort, when they talk of being relaxed. But will it still be comfortable if they attempt a Chopin study at lightning speed? Any fool can play a single piano key and then slip into a state of feeling comfortable. It takes a lot more sophistication than that, if you want to start rattling off a Chopin Etude, however. It's not enough to think, "okay I'm pretty comfortable now" after each note and assume that means you are using good technique. If you don't understand the state that permits speed and work on that accordingly in your slow work, you can be as comfortable as you like. But that doesn't mean you'll stay comfortable when you try to go faster. I'm not arguing that you should be uncomfortable, of course! But there is a specific state of maintained comfort which is productive, whereas others may not be.

If the finger relaxes to the point where it cannot continue to maintain a chain in which the wrist and elbow are supported automatically, the only way to stop your whole arm sliding off the piano is to resist gravity with efforts around these points- efforts that will hinder the ability to absorb the reaction force with your next note, unless you let go of them again. At speed, the idea of this constant "on/off" necessity with the arm's muscles (supposedly to "protect" the fingers from the miniscule effort of maintaining the chain) is simply absurd. Some pianists may instinctively slip into the state of KEEPING the arm released in balance with the fingers when they go faster. But they are far more likely to do so if they have actually practised this sustained release in their slow work- compared to if they are relying on something as altogether different as the tension and release approach. More likely is that those of the tension/release school will end keeping the state of effort in the arm and not the release- after all they never practice maintaining a fully free arm. It's hard for them to learn a thing about how the arm and finger are associated within the balance that permits a free arm- because they are constantly seeking to depart from this state, rather than teaching themselves to make it sustainable. They spend all their slow practice training themselves how to be forced to hold the elbow and wrist in place- not how to use ongoing (but low effort) finger activities to enable true release. Okay, in some cases exaggerated arm movements may be used when the finger relaxes, to avoid the necessity of holding stiffly in the arm. But this provides equally little experience of keeping the arm still yet free- so it's still extremely likely that the arm will have to lock up when attempting high speeds. If you are intent on running away from the very interaction that permits release in the elbow and wrist, hoping to keep them loose at speeds where there is no time for exaggerated movements is little more than wishful thinking.

Also, it has often been stated that it's far better to source all energy from the arm's gravity. Typically, it's claimed that the fingers only "transmit" energy from further up. This is possible, if the arm descends, yes. However, I'd like to illustrate that it is verifiably impossible for gravity to be the energy source for rapid finger work. Alan Fraser has stated that the arm cannot provide energy without going up and down, but I'd like to go a little further to illustrate the scientific reasons why this is indeed accurate (but also why you must not forget the force that gravity DOES provide) .

Gravity is not a source of free energy. You cannot get anything out of it if you have not put something in. It's like an elastic band. You can stretch it back to put energy into it and let go to release the energy into movement. But you can't just hope to magically fire it a second time without putting more energy in. First you have to do the work of stretching it again. When something goes up, it acquires gravitational potential energy- via the work you do against gravity. When it goes down that energy is transferred. If it doesn't go down, however, it has provided no energy- (unless energy has somehow been created, as in the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine) . The idea of gravity providing the main energy for rapid passagework is pure metaphor- unless the arm goes down on EVERY note (which, of course, it doesn't). I'll clarify later what a vital role it does play in a balance of forces (and why I personally feel that Alan Fraser goes too far in seeking to underplay this very real and important role), but it simply cannot input the main energy that moves the keys. This is why I'll be starting from the finger's actions- just NOT taking it out of the context of the rest of the arm, as in 'finger isolation'!

Finger isolation is a generally used term for a manner of playing that is widely associated with injury. When Tatum glides over the keyboard at 30 seconds into that clip, nothing but his fingers seem to be moving at all. So is that 'finger isolation'? Is that bad? I think the term really needs to be explored further, as it is tremendously open to confusion. This confusion has sadly led some people to believe that the some of most indispensible actions of a healthy technique are supposedly too "dangerous"- sadly causing very real dangers in doing so.

If Tatum's manner of moving his fingers from such a relaxed but still arm is somehow too "dangerous" then playing the piano would have to be deemed too dangerous in itself. The real danger is when people try to copy such finger based approaches without understanding what generates the stillness. As mentioned before, the problem for most players is the reaction force that the keyboard returns to every finger motion. Tatum knew how to keep his arms still by ABSORBING the force. He was a true of master of maintaining the relation between fingers and arm in a balanced chain- leaving his fingers free to do such amazing things without his balanced arm being repelled. He uses his weight perfectly- not to "fall" into the keys or generate the energy that moves them but simply to absorb the reaction forces and hence maintain easy stillness.

When you try to only the move the finger into the key, separately from the arm, you cannot do so. The reaction force pulls at the whole arm as much as the key. So if you are intent on keeping the arm still you are likely to stiffen it (as if it were held in space by a vice) and force it still. That is most certainly NOT something that ought to be described as "finger isolation"! That is a case of dealing with the consequences of the finger's action in a stiff, unhealthy way by adding efforts all over the place. It's the stiff arm that makes it unhealthy- not "finger isolation". However, the sheer vagueness in virtually all talk of the finger and arm acting together has caused as many problems. People start pushing or dropping onto every note with the whole arm instead of using the finger. This requires a complex chain of forces with countless variables that are very hard to control. Free joints become a hindrance to energy transmission- so (without exceedingly sensitive control) they tend to have to be stiffened into place. And as already mentioned, this quality of up/down movement of the arm creates a speed wall- unless the fingers start actually getting involved properly.

What Tatum and Volodos really do for their finger work neither requires a stiff arm nor does it require complex application of arm pressure. They simply pull the keys with their fingers in a setup where a free arm can absorb the consequences, thanks to the existence of its weight. In a way this indeed is a sort of "finger isolation"- just not as usually understood. The arm's role is extremely passive and there is very little complexity in what it does to absorb reaction forces. That is why they make it look so easy. The arm's role (for rapid passage work, at least) is little more than to exist without fixation- not to do anything remotely elaborate via the muscles. It has nothing to do with the "finger isolation" that is typically spoken of- where fingers bang heavily against keybeds in a way that impacts back into a stiff arm. But neither is it a case of the arm having to find an elaborate means of trying to succeed in transmitting energy from high up (via a complex chain of joints).

Despite all the warnings we tend to hear today of how injurious finger isolation is and how much more important the arm is, the fact remains that there is no credible way of doing what Volodos and Tatum can do, without the fingers being the primary energy source. This is why I'm going to start by looking directly at the REAL relationship between finger and arm- not the scientifically implausible metaphor of either gravity or the upper arm as the power source for all. Later, I'll also talk about more complex variants, including active arm pressures- which are of course valuable in the right situation. But firstly, you need to understand how to both move and support comfortably from the fingers- without any tension in either the wrist or the elbow. The whole arm plays a role in this style of movement, but its role is that of keeping the large chain taut with minimum effort- not that of trying to force energy through either a limp, inactive hand or a stiffened one!

The single plane theory part two- plus levers

2010-12-01T17:16:00.000-08:00

(note that this had originally been the "two planes" theory- had you read part i, before I added slight corrections. Thanks to those who pointed out the careless error in distinguishing between the two dimensional nature of a "plane" and the one dimensional nature of an "axis". This has now been fully corrected, although I can assure you that this careless error in terminology does not affect any of the practical issues)

In this post, I will be looking at the results of the pencil experiment and exploring the nature of levers- all the way from the finger to the shoulder. In particular, at the end I'll be introducing an idea about how to balance the whole arm and finger as one unified mechanism- with low effort and very little inherent complexity. The specific aspect that I'll be describing this is not something that I have ever encountered in a book on piano technique or heard spoken of by any other teacher. However, I am absolutely convinced that I am looking at one of the single most important things that just about all great pianists have had in common- no matter how diverse their techniques might appear to be on the surface. In short, it's a way of relating the finger to the arm- within a sustainable quality of balance. In this balance it is possible to absorb the forces that the keys respond with despite scarcely any change in state- yet the finger does not have to support excessive levels of weight at the keybed.

Anyway, first it's back to the pencil experiment, for the results and analysis. Hopefully you will have found that the most efficient means of moving was to get the pencil to exert a kind of "pull" upon the key, in which the direction of the force was constantly changing- rather than a push that involved driving the pencil in a single straight path. If you didn't, that's nothing to worry about, however. I'll try to illustrate how this action can be acquired, right now. Note that, although we're sticking with the pencil for now, this gives a prior illustration of many of the concepts which we'll be applying directly to the finger, within future posts.

One thing that we can write off at once is the worth of adding a third axis of forces and movement. Mechanically, anything sideways contributes nothing of any benefit to the context of playing an individual note. This illustrates the value in generally striving to line up properly behind each finger, in order to keep the activity almost solely within a single plane (that consists of both the backwards/forwards axis and the up/down axis). Basically, it serves no purpose to direct any movement or forces sideways, and neither is there any reason to align the pencil anything other than parallel to the line of the key.

More about how the arm must be involved in the considerations later in this post, but the finger itself can make direct transfer of energy, when aligned to act within this plane. In fact, the closer it is to this alignment, the easier it is to integrate its action with the arm. This provides a very strong argument for judging the hand's alignment as a whole from the weaker fifth finger. It's a common fault to find pianists who put their strongest and most agile fingers in a perfect line to play- yet leave their weaker fourth and fifth fingers in a far less suitable position. Why would you want disadvantage your weakest fingers of all, by putting them in a position where their natural path of action is not even close to the plane of the key? Nowhere is it more important to fit the finger's path to the key's path than when it comes to the fifth finger. Slanting can easily lead to a vicious circle of inactivity that perpetuates the belief that perfectly capable muscles are weak- by preventing them from carrying out their natural purpose. Without adequate alignment in this plane, comfortable finger staccato from the fifth can become little short of an impossibility. Of course, you may not have the option of aligning right behind the fifth, at all times, however- especially if you have smaller hands. Keep the single plane action in mind as an ideal to strive towards whenever possible. However, in future I will talk in detail about the best way to set about activating the fingers effectively along less direct paths- which sometimes becomes nothing short of a necessity.

Here are two views of a rather lazy fifth, at an angle where it is collapsing flaccidly onto its side:

and here are two of a supportive fifth finger, the activity of which acts almost perfectly within a single plane:

I think it's pretty clear which one looks like a real pianist's hand and which one looks like that of an amateur! However, if you tend towards a lazier fifth finger- please don't suddenly go pulling the hell out of the key just yet! It's important to be gradual and patient about making such adjustments- especially if the muscles have scarcely done anything before. Bear this principle in mind, certainly, but I'd advise you to wait until I've covered the nature of what makes for healthy finger action, before you go for any drastic adjustments.

Anyway, within the plane of activity, the pencil basically rotates around the point of contact against the key. Although I don't want to get too carried away with analogies, notice the very obvious relation to a see-saw. The more you feel the end that you are holding onto is going upwards and forwards, the more the other end is felt to pull down and backwards at the point where it meets the key. This introduces a danger of slipping, of course- so you have to be careful to feel that the point at which the pencil meets the key remains stable. Initially, it's not a bad idea to rest the pencil lightly against one spot and simply rotate it around that single point, without moving the key at all. Feel the circular path around the point of contact:

If you do find it hard to avoid skids, this is a very good way of sensing how to keep the contact stable, as you begin to apply bigger forces. When the end stays in one spot, you should find that the pull on the key is extremely productive and that there is very little thud, no matter how strongly you pull. If you feel a thud, are you sure you didn't start aiming the force right down and only switch to levering AFTER the key landed? Note how there is no feel of changing the movement either during the moment at which the key lands or immediately after. The follow through is not felt differently to the act of pulling the key down to the bed. You just want to keep smoothly drifting through and beyond the time when the key has landed, before you even think of stopping. If the circular motion around the end of pencil has to progress as smoothly as possible, you cannot 'dig in' with any impact. Sometime, just concentrate on the smooth path of the pencil above all and see if you can deliberately take all focus away from the idea of the moving the key down. Strange as it may sound, this may improve the action. Forget the idea of "down" altogether and just let that part happen. Notice the circle that is initiated as a forward and up movement. As described in the last post, however, practise changing your perspective back and forth. Sometimes return to thinking about the down and back action at the other end of the pencil. See if you can gradually combine both perspectives into a single, consistent motion.

Notice how this is NOT perceived as a "tension and then release" style of movement! Basically, if you feel you have endured enough of an effort that you need to willfully release something afterwards, the movement really wasn't anywhere near good enough. It should have felt effortless all the way. So, relax by all means. BUT THEN GO BACK AND IMPROVE IT!!!! You have to be patient but, in the long run, no other intent will do- assuming that you hope to progress. Virtually all healthy base movements are felt to be continuous and all good pianists are certainly capable of doing them whenever required- even if they don't use them for every single thing. If you can't get something continuous, go more slowly until you feel that it is slow enough to be executed entirely without any bumps. This literally applies to even a single note, whether it be sounded with a finger or a pencil. Comfort must be maintained at all times- not habitually lost and then reinstated! If you think that's fine as your fundamental basis for moving a key, you might as well say its fine to routinely walk headfirst into a wall when you meant to pass through a door- as long as you wipe up all the blood from your nose and take an aspirin straight after. It's not fine at all to repeat errors. If you want to learn anything from mistakes, you have to understand that you have indeed made them. "And then relax" is far too forgiving of excess effort- even if it seems to promote relaxation on the surface. It can lead to a perpetual cycle of error- correction -error etc. rather than error- correction- correct movement.

So, did you find a comfortable movement that produces a sizable sound without impact yet? If not, I wouldn't be too put off, but hopefully that should have led to at least an improved understanding and feel for the gradual nature of high quality movements? We don't want any stops, starts or prods in the foundation level of movement. Incidentally, the exact angle may not be the same for everybody- although it should most certainly involve levering the pencil in the general manner described. If not, keep working at it! The point was not to find a single absolute angle- so you might tell all your friends that the "correct" angle at which to aim the finger into a piano key is precisely 10.2453 degrees off the vertical, or whatever else. Far from it. In fact, the exact angle of force should slowly and smoothly be changing, as you move around the circle and depress the key. Even with the pencil, it may well be dependent on such issues as the mass of your arm, the height of your stool and many other variables. This is why advanced mechanics is futile- it's just too precise to translate. Looking at things from more basic principles can actually be a lot more revealing.

If you were expecting geeky calculations or simplistic, hard and fast answers, you've misunderstood the purpose of what I'm doing here. The idea was firstly to challenge the tendency towards downward assumptions about the movement- but above all to help you to FEEL your way to a more productive path. As, I've said, this is not about cold exploration of theory but rather the practical applications that derive from it. Theory does not provide absolute answers, but a basis upon which to have a clearer idea of what you are trying to SENSE within your own feedback loop! I really do advise being thorough with these exercises and taking care to follow the detail in my descriptions. There is really very little to learned from the theoretical description if you do not use it as basis from which to improve your perceptions, so please don't waste your time reading this without doing the exercises!

One reader told me that he felt the exercise was "worthless" because I didn't state the conclusions straight after and because I didn't explain why you should avoid what is "obviously (...) the easiest way". Well- if you don't even follow the description of the exercise thoroughly enough to realise the fact that aiming the pencil straight down is NOT the easiest way of moving the key, it certainly is "worthless"!!! Try it for yourself now. Just how stiffly do you have to hold the end of the pencil when aiming it straight down, without the end that contacts the key being greatly repelled? It is far more valuable to discover things through experience, than be told them. I cannot provide anything useful to anyone who doesn't put a great deal of effort into bringing their own perceptions to the practical elements.

Anyway, let's look more at the nature of levers, with reference to the arm as a whole. Imagine a series of hinges that connect a series of levers. Let's say that one free hinge is fixed to an immovable point on a wall but that the others are all entirely free. Of course, everything collapses downwards:

Let's say we need them all outstretched. what if we fix the first hinge in place? The rest still collapses:

Very little benefit came. We can now add an extra internal force to stop the next hinge next from collapsing:

But the rest still collapses etc. Eventually if EVERY joint is fixed into place it all balances- as a single fixed structure, with very limited movability:

Now let's say that we start from the far end now. You pick the end up and walks away from the wall. It can momentarily 'hang' between the fixed point and the supported point. Walk far enough and you get to a point where it is fully supported in every joint without any internal forces having to be generated to stabilise the hinges. The hinges are tightened solely by the pull from the far end, coupled with the stable point of attachment at the wall. Alternately, you could leave just a slight trace of slack and EVERY joint would still be freely moveable, rather than tightened stiff. In this state, everything is "hanging" freely between two points- not being stiffly held together with internal restrictions.

(From another perspective, you could also imagine taking a long heavy sword and holding it horizontally, without any support beyond your grip. It is far easier if you rest the end even very lightly on something- giving support via two points.)

Let's now translate this idea of spreading support into a two-sided balance into the rather similar situation of an arm at a piano.

It really is quite similar. If we only supported at one end here, the elbow could only be stabilised in space via muscular effort, to prevent the gravity pulling it through the marked circular path. But then if the elbow joint were to release the forearm, the wrist would still plummet. It's a similar case, where if we start only from the shoulder end, EVERY successive joint must become be supported by an additional internally created effort, one after the other. Joint after joint is held up by effort, unless the finger is able to create a point of support. However, the moment the finger starts supporting something, the elbow and wrist can become truly free hinges- with zero internal effort! It's like a chain that hangs between two points of contact. The moment the finger plays- the arm can theoretically become wholly supported without internal efforts to fix the joints. ( although, we're likely going to want to reduce the workload upon the finger by taking some extra support at the shoulder) If the finger sets up a point of stable contact between itself and the key, it can pull in a way that would draw a loose arm forwards. This means that the upper arm can release a little more. If we take the component of force that pulls the elbow backwards and match it to the one from the finger that pulls forwards- the whole mechanism is supported. It's also VERY simple as we only have two inherent variables to balance- how much the finger is acting and how much the shoulder is supporting/releasing to balance that via the elbow.

To put that in the simplest way, basically the finger tries to pull them arm lightly forwards and upwards (via the same kind of path we see from the pencil experiment) and the elbow is released enough to pull lightly backwards in response, via gravity's action. Rather than cause the arm to actually move, this 'tightens' up all the other joints, so they can remain still despite hanging freely (rather than be held immovably via muscular efforts). If this sounds like hard work, let me stress a few things- firstly, it really isn't! The shoulder can still support plenty of the arm's weight. We don't have to rely solely on the fact that the arm will not detach at the shoulder and let it hang completely. It can take on as much or as little support as you like. Also, this is totally different from the manner in which traditional arm weight technique is based on downward thinking. The down forces supported by the finger are actually rather slight. The finger really doesn't have to bear that much weight for this to balance. It just has to match to the feeling for how gravity is pulling lightly backwards upon the elbow. With regard to this backwards and forwards element of the matching forces- it's really not equivalent to the whole cast of "The Expendables" getting together and having a tug-of-war using a steel rope. The amount of pull required from the finger (in order to keep the wrist absolutely free of internal tensions) is very slight. It's not so much tightening the free joints, but ALMOST tightening them- so there's a feeling of "hanging" with a touch of remaining slack. Despite no muscular holding, the wrist cannot sag into a collapse. It is held up by forces elsewhere which are just enough for it to be supported. I'll be giving a practical exercise to show exactly to perceive this free state in my next post.

The notion that the fingers should not contribute to support (but might be better off 'relaxing') after having struck a key is often expressed. But lose that support and you lose the two-sided balance! Even if relax means 'and then be comfortable' why were you ever uncomfortable??? Too much weight to support? Too much willful arm pressure? Whatever it was, none of these things should ever get in the way, if the goals are clear. Once more, what use is a poor quality of motion followed by a vaguely focused attempt at general release supposed to be? The real question is- why did the intention of both starting and finishing with a low effort balance go wrong? To explore that is the simplest and most likely solution. To look at it in terms of generally hoping to relax without even paying attention to the means of low-effort balance seems truly ridiculous, when viewed in this light. Why not focus on creating a comfortable two-sided balance between the a smooth low-effort finger action and a feeling for how gravity pulls the elbow backwards to balance? It's vastly simpler than just thinking "relax" without any specific positive intention. Relax carelessly enough to remove the most useful forces and you simply direct a need for effort into something altogether less constructive. That can actually cause MORE tension than if you start from a natural low effort movement with a clear goal in mind.

Also, note that I have yet to introduce the reaction forces that are generated by movement of the keys.When these are introduced, I'll go on to illustrate why the one-ended model requires rapid and complex changes in state, if it is to avoid heavy impacts. Conversely the two-ended support system is able to absorb reaction forces with minimal changes of state.

Anyway, that is the basis for this model. In my next post, I'll be giving a series of extremely specific practical exercises to prepare key elements of the arm's role- so as to permit the a very low effort means of perceiving and controlling the release/witholding of weight.

Improving movement by understanding duality of forces, plus issues of momentum

2010-11-20T17:43:00.000-08:00

Before I come on to the second part of the post about feeling movements within one plane, in this post I'm going to illustrate how qualities of movement can be informed and better understood with regard to some very basic scientific principles. Firstly, I'd like to talk about the idea of equal and opposite reactions- with regard to acquiring a dual perspective from which to better perceive movement, rather than the one-sided view that typically evolves. I believe that this concept can be a tremendous aid to building efficiency and comfort in movement in general. Although this post will read more as an introduction to a global concept of movement (rather than contain anything immediately specific to piano playing), bear in mind that the principle will recur in a number of especially specific descriptions of the end product.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", is the slightly simplified version of Newton's law that is usually quoted. As an example, by jumping in the air a person displaces not only themself, but also the planet. There's no need to be alarmed, however. Being rather substantial in mass, the planet is affected really rather slightly (its acceleration being equal to the small force divided by the planet's huge mass). So there's no immediate need to fear that the earth might begin spiraling rapidly into the sun, should too many people take up aerobics. In fact, it's also true that when falling back down, a person's gravity draws the earth faintly towards them- basically cancelling out the effect of the jump. Anyway, forces occur in opposite pairs- which is why a gun recoils backwards upon firing, when a bullet is propelled forwards. While, in everyday life, we think of opposites as being incompatible and mutually exclusive, in mechanics opposites are part of a single logical reality. The sheer significance of this (where opposites are actually perfectly compatible, as viewed within a whole) should hopefully become increasingly clear as I continue. But basically:

Opposite explanations are not necessarily contradictory!

In virtually all movements, our natural instinct is to focus on only one side of the picture. In many cases some people might choose one of the possible perspectives and some may choose the other. However, there are countless cases where virtually everybody is guaranteed to look at one particular side of the equation, while completely overlooking the other. I'll talk more in future about how moving a finger into a key really ought to be felt equally in terms of the finger pulling at the arm (otherwise we end up stiffening, in a futile bid to stop the inevitable fact that the arm as a whole receives a force, not just the key). For now I want to show how the attempt to appreciate both "action" and "reaction" can make general movement a lot more efficient and free.

Let's start with something as basic as walking or running. With each push off, you need to ask yourself- am I focussing on trying to use my foot to pull my body forwards across the ground, or am I trying to propel the ground backwards and behind me? Do I focus on the action or the reaction? This image shows the angle of the force, at the end of a stride.

The force can be analysed in two components within different axes, as described in my previous post (strictly speaking a small element of force runs into a third axis- but this should be of very low significance, compared to the very large components within the backward/forward axis and the upwards/downwards axis). The action is backward from the runner's perspective (to the left from ours) and downwards. The reaction is forward from the runner's perspective (to the right from ours) and upwards. When thinking about these, we might usefully concentrate solely on the forwards/backwards aspects or the upwards/downwards aspects for a time. If we look at each axis separately for a while, it can make it easier to develop that particular element. Then we can start thinking more about the action or reaction as a whole, once again.

Let's start with the backwards/forwards forces first. It really does not matter whether you typically perceive it more from the backward action or the forward reaction. The goal is simply to acquire a balanced perception- so now try the one you are not used to. If that feels like it's a bigger effort, that's fine at first. Switch back to your normal one for a time, but then switch again. Keep switching over between the backward and forward perspectives- trying to notice as acutely as possible what feels different between the two. Both versions ought to become progressively informed by something about the quality of the other. It should feel more and more effortless until you get to the point where, upon switching, there is scarcely any difference to be found in the quality of either. After all, they are supposed to be viewpoints of the same thing- not two different things! Action and reaction BOTH occur, regardless of which you focus on! Hopefully you are now left with a product that is based on a more integrated dual understanding of forces rather than single-sided thinking. However, that might perhaps be a little ambitious, after having only just started to think this way! Most likely, there will already have been improvement to the ease, but it can be a gradual process of development.

Now let's try it for the up and down, as you walk. Most people will probably think more of the down here. Obviously, your foot naturally exerts a pressure down into the ground. But what if you walk by looking more at the upward nature of the reaction, rather than the action? If you feel how your whole body is lifted over the top (rather than dwell on the downward action at the foot), the whole thing may feel like less effort at once. But again, switch back and forth between the up and down feels. There's not a right way and a wrong way. We want to integrate both elements for a single understanding. Sometimes feel how your foot has to press down into the ground. This will likely feel like more effort. So simply switch to the upward feel for a while. It likely tends to make you feel less digging in, even though that upward force occurs because of the down force. See if you can capture more of that ease when you return to the active perception of the down element. Again, keep alternating until the two (previously conflicting) mindsets converge to the point of causing almost no differences at all.

Arguably this is at least of much an issue of psychology as one of mechanics- although the relation to the nature of forces means that it has foundations in something that is very much real. Psychological as the process of improvement may be, it is constructed around a clear-cut rational foundation. I believe that this is a lot stronger and a lot more conducive to sustainable improvements than purer psychological strategies such as a mere "remember to relax more" etc. The psychological aspects are focused around a verifiable mechanical factor that can serve to guide the process. It is very different from wishful thinking that exists in a complete vacuum (not that I wish to write off the power of positive thinking outright, by any means).

This kind of dualistic thinking is something that I will come back to in various situations. I believe that one of the big problems in piano teaching has always been polarisation i.e. forcing it to A or B rather than a combination of A and B. Some teachers boldly proclaim the absolute truth of one side whereas others shout as loudly about the other one. However, it's very much down to the student's individual needs as to which side they might draw the most benefit from, with regard to the two-sided reality. What aids one student, might provide an active hindrance to another. In theory, if a lot more movements could be understood from dual perspectives, teachers might be in a position to solve problems with far greater consistency- regardless of which side the student might have strayed on. Although it runs a little deeper than the nature of action and reaction, in a future post I'll be going on to illustrate why the arm-weight approach and the finger based approach are basically polarisations of something that ought to be understood from a similarly dualistic perspective.

Anyway, I also need to introduce the idea of momentum, with regard to to movement. It's well established in the field of resistance training that it tends to be better if you are careful to move relatively slowly. This trains the muscles in a much more rounded way and makes errors in technique far less likely. There can be benefits from more explosive movements, but these are to be done with caution- especially if you are hoping to build sensitivity as well as strength. Anyone who's ever been to a gym will doubtless have seen the type of young, enthusiastic would-be Hercules who likes to illustrate his masculinity by attempting stacks that are far heavier than he is comfortable with. Rather than controlled movements, you see explosive actions that rely on a big initial force- rather than a consistent interaction between the muscles and the resistance. Often, much of the impetus doesn't even come from the muscles that the action is intended to train.

Scientifically speaking, this type of movement relates to the concept of momentum. I'm certainly not seeking to specifically compare piano playing to bench pressing 100kg, say. However, I'd like to illustrate how the difference between such qualities of movement has considerable relevance to both understanding the best ways to achieve control over a piano and to be able to move healthily whilst doing so. According to Newton, an object that is in motion continues to move at constant velocity, unless a resultant force acts upon it. So, if you apply enough force to something, it continues to move for a time, whether you continue pushing it or not. However, if you move something very gradually, you have to exert a more continuous force, in order to keep it moving. When an object does not already have a large momentum, its motion is dependent upon ongoing forces- for such forces as friction would otherwise have caused a rapid stop. Conversely, a briefly large force might allow something to travel a similar overall distance, without further input of any driving force at all, necessarily. Basically think of the difference between moving around a supermarket trolley, while constantly feeling a small push- compared to if you give it a good old kick and then let it continue on its own steam, until it drops into the canal. What the hell did you go and do that for, you bloody vandal? I suppose you're going to dump an old fridge in there while you're at it?

(At this point, pure physicists may want to complain that all hammer motions are dependent on momentum- after the hammer is let free from the key. However, regardless of that, the difference between the qualities of movement is very much an issue regarding the fine detail of what happens when the key hits the key bed- in terms of how impact is absorbed and in terms of the balance that follows. When rolling out as many as 16 notes per second, the quality of balance that goes on before, during and after each note is far from a trivial issue. I believe that there is extremely good cause to understand the difference between an initially rapid impetus followed by coasting, compared with a more consistently applied force. The belief that such qualities of movement are a mere psychological illusion is tremendously open to dispute- although I do wish to acknowledge that such beliefs exists, for the sake of accuracy)

To introduce the difference between momentum based movements and more steadily controlled ones, I'd like to refer to a very useful exercise that can be performed away from the piano. In addition to providing a first hand feel for the sheer difference between such qualities of motion, it also happens to be a very good way of better sensing the upper body. Awareness will automatically be raised of many muscles that contribute greatly to the ability to balance at the shoulder (which, when trained to become more sensitive, are less likely to become heavily fixed).

Anyway, this is a very standard exercise- basically that of the press-up. However, we're going to do a very low effort version against the wall and with a very particular type of focus. It doesn't demand any great strength, but rather attention to balance. Standard press-ups against the floor are frequently done with a lot of initial momentum that serves to quickly 'bounce' the body upwards. The return to the ground often follows on as a near free-fall collapse back down- often without so much as a pause at the top. The problem with this is that it works certain muscles rather heavily and others scarcely at all. There is very little room for discrimination as to what goes into it. Severely lopsided training can easily ensue, where one half of the body operates extremely differently to the other. Even if you have the strength to do a large number of repetitions in the bouncing manner, there is reasonable question as to whether some of the relevant muscles are necessarily getting ANY training or contributing anything to the action whatsoever. If you simply move slower (looking out for any jerks, collapses or jolts), many muscles must get involved with the continuation of motion and contribute to balance. However, this can be surprisingly demanding. A standard press up is very difficult to do both slowly and with perfect form. That's why we're just going use the wall for this.

To do the "press-up", stand a couple of feet away from the wall and lean against it, with the hands spaced out rather widely. Ideally, the elbows should be aligned right behind your hands when you're at the inward point- so there's basically an angle of 90 degrees between your forearms and your upper arm. Feel plenty of space between the upper arm and the armpit as well- so you're very much coming at it from a wide angle. Obviously be careful not to strain yourself and stop if you feel any pain or excess stretching (although, seeing as it's nothing more than an enormously easier version of something so standard as a press-up, this barely seems to call for much of a legal disclaimer). Anyway, lean your body in and then control it back and forth in similar form to a regular press-up- trying to keep a single straight line from the toes right up the whole of the body. Try not to bend your back at all. So, how does that feel? Easy to do it ultra slow, with no holes in the movement?

You may well find that, while it's easy to do it fairly quickly or with the odd stop/start in the movement, it's really rather hard to do it slowly and consistently. If so, this is where the idea of dual perception makes a reappearance. However, if you didn't end up in a position where you were clearly doing it too quickly and with too much momentum, I'd advise you not to try anything in the next paragraph before you've checked the one after.

In this case, I believe that most people will typically have thought of the away movement in terms of the "reaction" force that generates the motion away from the wall, not the inward "action" that continues towards the wall (notice how this is actually the reverse compared to walking- where I believe that most people will tend to dig down too much into the "action", rather than concentrate on lifting themselves up via the "reaction"). So, as you go away from the wall, in order to improve you're going to want to focus on how you are still leaning into it, rather than too much on the away movement. As you go inwards, you're also going to want to feel how the wall is pushing you away still. This reversal of perspective helps to cure the excessive reliance on momentum, and enables far clearer perception of the stabilising muscles that enable a slow movement to be executed smoothly.

Basically, in order to change your perception you're probably going to want to think of the forces in terms of the opposite direction to that in which you are moving in. However, at this point it would be all too easy to slip into careless polarisation! So, I have to emphasise that not everyone will necessarily be the same. Was excessive momentum actually the problem? If not, you might have looking at totally the wrong solution! Remember that we have to look at both sides- not merely one or the other. If you found that you were actually digging in too heavily (which some may have done), we need to reverse the whole thing! Anyone going with a feeling that resembles ancient machinery grinding together needs to lighten the action.As they go away from the wall, they need to stop thinking of leaning inwards and think away from the wall. As they go into the wall, they need to feel gravity is allowed to ease them inwards- rather than be in a position of resisting it quite so much. Remember though, regardless of the initial fault you still need to switch back and forth from time to time though. Otherwise, the individual cure might just leave you doing it wrong on the other side- instead of converging on what you actually want. Both perspectives are valuable. Neither is inherently more correct or incorrect- except with regard to the current nature of the problem (note that 'current' is a key word).

I hope that this helps to establish some issues of movement with some clarity as well as the danger of polarised one-size-fits-all thinking. Although none of this post is specific to the piano whatsoever, I hope that people will have considered taking the time to think about it. I believe that this is a major issue in terms of what we ought to be understanding, when trying to make corrections to movements. By understanding that superficially opposed mindsets can be one-sided descriptions of a single whole, you can converge on (the seeming contradiction of ) being able to view it from BOTH sides at once! One-sided thinking may be important in the short term, in order to progress closer to the correction. However, two-way understanding is always the end goal. Do we want the person who went too quick to start digging in? Do we want the person who was digging in to start bouncing up and then collapsing in? After a certain point, sometimes you basically have to go back to WHAT HAD BEEN THE PROBLEM!!! If I'd started with that, if might well have sounded pretty ridiculous. But I hope that what I've written will have established the sheer danger that lies within sticking to just one view of a two-sided whole. Looking at just half of the picture without ever referencing it back to the other is rarely wise.

The "Single Plane" Theory part i (plus issues of understanding gravity)

2010-11-15T17:28:00.000-08:00

(Sorry, if you were hoping for the latest 9/11 conspiracy theory- I'm afraid you've just landed in rather the wrong place.)

In this first specifically aimed post, I'm going to begin to introduce both the concept and relevance of axes (plural of the singular axis) or planes of movement. An axis is basically a line of motion- similar to the concept of dimensions, of which there are of course three (well, according to wikipedia we seem to have managed to extend that to one extra these days, but I couldn't personally tell you where the fourth one might be. Rest assured that I'll be omitting the mysterious "w" axis and sticking to the more traditional three). Obviously we are all aware of the upward/downward axis in which keys (basically) move- although it's worth remembering that a key is technically the end of a very long lever, so even this is not strictly a perfect description. We also know that gravity acts along this path. However, here I'll be illustrating some of the benefit to movement and efficiency, that comes from adding greater focus to what also occurs within the forward/backward axis (i.e. directly forwards towards the piano or backwards and away from the piano, from a regular seated position). Obviously there is also the third axis of motion- the sideways line that runs from left to right (or vice versa). This too will prove to be of major importance- although it will not be brought so much into the picture until I have fully established the role of the first two.

Anyway, "That's all very boring" I hear you saying. "What's this got to do with playing the piano- Steven bloody Hawking? I suppose you'll be harping on about black holes and parallel universes next?" Well, as I'll show you how to feel for yourself, the widely held intention to move the key in a perfectly downward path of motion can be HUGELY problematic- causing physical tensions, low efficiency of energy transfer, potentially damaging shock waves through sensitive joints and rather lumpy tone (the last two notably due to the thud that comes with landing the key so directly into the path of the key bed). At this point, to be entirely clear, let me stress that I'm NOT advocating slipping across the surface of the key. Quite the opposite. However, if you grab yourself a pencil (ready for a little experiment), later on I'll show you how to discover what level of significance actually lies within the backwards/forwards axis. If you can totally free yourself from the seemingly obvious assumption that you necessarily ought to aim a key straight down, that change to the rationale alone may very well cause you to experience improvements in the comfort of your playing and help to increment the depth of your tone (even though this is very much a preliminary element).

Anyway, before we get to any of the practical experiments, I'd like to establish a little more of the explanation as to why this is so important. Of course, the key itself goes (almost) directly downward. The problem lies in the fact that the body, the arm and rarely so much as the finger will ever be aligned anywhere near to being straight over the top of the keyboard! With optimal alignment, the sideways axis can virtually cease to be much of a practical issue (incidentally in the future I will go more into the precise nature of what actually defines the often mysterious nature of good alignment- for when you fail to find good alignment, forces within the sideways axis DO tend to arise as major cause of compensatory muscular tensions or unpredictable movements). Anyway, conventional seated postures demand that we use forces that exist very significantly in the backwards/forwards axis. However, Mitchell Zeidwig (when not too busy balancing a double bass on his chin whilst playing Liszt) found a rather interesting way to partially resolve this problem, if not necessarily the most practical one:

See the actual performance here on youtube. Pretty remarkable stuff.

Anyway, we cannot afford to simplify to the point of supposing that moving the key is only about up/down forces and actions (be this specifically in the forefront of the conscious, or an underlying assumption that stems merely from casual observation). It just isn't possible to restrict everything to up/down forces alone. If you pretend it is, then the brain's mechanism of trying to simulate such a scenario is liable to turn free joints into fixed points in space- by using muscular efforts to FORCE them to stay still, as if locked in a vice. Without getting to the heart of this flawed mindset, some pianists cannot even tell that they are holding anything still! Rather than fix joints in place, we need to find a more sophisticated way to free them up- i.e. we need to embrace the reality of the backwards/forwards axis and cultivate better understanding of it. This is far more productive than willing yourself to relax, if you persist with a model for movements that mechanically NEEDS fixations to operate. Until you deal with it, the underlying mindset is inherently at odds with the possibility of achieving relaxation- in a contradiction that the subconscious is simply not likely to be up to resolving. Those who are sensitive to movement may (very rarely) be lucky enough to acquire the feel for the backward/forward axis entirely unconsciously- but it's far easier to make improvements when you can consciously steer away from erroneous simplifications in the very foundations of the intent.

Anyway! The first exercise. I mentioned in the introduction that gravity is widely misunderstood. The misunderstanding is based upon these very same principles. Gravity is perfectly downward, yes. But we must understand that THE RESULT OF GRAVITY on a series of levers (e.g. A human arm) frequently is not! As soon as you talk about gravity causing sideways forces, some people will immediately give you a funny look. But think of the basic mechanics that go into in a gym machine such as this:

Just two pulleys translate the vertical force of gravity into an almost perfectly horizontal pull. Once the weights have been lifted, not only is the gravity trying to pull the weights back down, but it is trying to pull the handle on which the lifter has pulled back along the sideways path. So what REALLY happens when you have quite so many free joints as in a human arm? Well, let's see. Place your hand on the keys as if it to play but then collapse your palm flat onto a cluster of keys and relax your whole arm as much as possible, until it slides right off the keyboard.

"Great! Thanks for wasting my time, you frickin' schmuck!" you're probably thinking. Well, yes, this is a very standard exercise that has been used for years. I didn't claim otherwise. BUT!!!- now try again and this time seek to perceive what really goes on here. Feel your elbow this time. Which direction did gravity move it in? Straight down? Certainly not (assuming that you started with your shoulder nicely at ease). It primarily pulls your elbow backwards (yes, this is slightly simplified, before any pure physicists should protest, but the primary issue here is that the resultant PATH of the elbow is vastly more backwards than downward- the slightly more complex details being of no importance to the practical issue). Gravity seemingly acted sideways! Consider now- if you release weight in your arm, this backward pull is always present, not just the downward aspect! That is, unless you find a corresponding force to balance the backward element, by pulling you forwards.

Anyway, that's getting a little far ahead, so let's come back to the issue of the elbow actually going backwards, without yet worrying about bringing in the notion of a force to prevent that. Without this practical observation, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of dwelling too heavily on the fact that gravity is a "downward force". Yes, it technically is, but because the resultant effects of gravity are not that simple, the association is deeply problematic. It means that the subconscious is highly liable to "correct" the movement- by using potentially unnecessary muscular contractions or fixations. If inaccurate surface assumptions are lodged in the mind (no matter how deeply in the unconscious parts) they really need to be corrected via the conscious. Then you can put yourself in a position to start feeling what truly goes on- and start to function without the underlying impediment. In order to have a chance of freeing yourself from the excess tensions that such seemingly minor misunderstandings can cause, to hope to will specific muscles into relaxation just isn't adequate. Long-term treatment begins with the source of the problem, not the immediate symptoms. First you must adjust the global overview that introduces the effort. So, the moral is thus:

Forget all preconceptions based around gravity being a downward force and start a clean slate. Downward motions and gravity are not inherently the same thing! Gravity's action is to be understood from that which you can OBSERVE and FEEL through awareness of what results from muscular release. Only by understanding gravity via acutely sensitive personal observations about its truest resultant effects (rather than via preconceived assumptions) can you even begin to truly understand its role.

It's all too easy to falsely think that the results of gravity are necessarily equatable to exact downward motions (despite the fact that it is channeled through so many joints that will greatly redirect it, unless fixations occur) . Drastically worse still, you might even end up thinking the reverse- that actively exerting a downwards force equals using gravity. This evidently occurs in the demonstration within the Taubmann octave film about supposed "free fall" into octaves. In such cases, what is supposed to result from release of effort results in added effort (frequently while simultaneously wasting some of this effort to offset the ongoing action of opposing muscles that simply needed to let go)! You have to start from releases and observe the movement that results- ideally with at least as much attention on the less obvious backwards/forwards as on the up/down. Only then can you be in any position to integrate gravitational effects with sensitivity, instead of by fighting with generic seizures. In the near future, I'll also be introducing the forces that the key sends back at you with regard to Newton's 2nd law. When you move in a directly downward path, the tensions that you are likely to be involving (simply to achieve such a path) don't make terribly good cushions against the massive force that the single axis of motion will cause you to contact head on!

Anyway, while this is all very important to consider, it's still very much preliminary. If you're thinking "that was just a big psychological dung heap- where's the meat, douchebag?" then I'd urge you to wait until I get onto the more specific applications that will rapidly start to follow on. Right now, it's about time we put this thinking into practice at an actual piano! So, have you got that pencil ready? Yep, that's right- we're still easing in at the shallow end, I'm afraid. You're going to use the pencil to play for now, not your fingers- but this should actually give a clearer illustration. Before looking at bringing in the hands and arms, I want to illustrate (or rather, prod you into figuring out for yourself) what an exceedingly direct application the forward/backward issue really has to even a single note. Anyway, here goes:

Grab yourself a long pencil and hold it horizontally across a key (just touching the key with the end of the pencil) like so:

and depress- looking for efficiency and quality of contact. Can you make a big sound with ease and comfort (after all, even here, there's a lot of "technique" to how you move)? You're looking for maximum tone and maximum feeling of "connecting" throughout the whole path- but also for an effortless sense of absorbing the spare energy, upon reaching the key bed.

So, which direction did you aim it in? What? You aimed it straight down? What the hell do think you are playing at? Did you pay attention at all- or have you been too busy picking your nose and scratching your arse? Anyway, to be serious again- it really doesn't matter too greatly what you did, the first time around. Let's try a whole variety of different ways of moving. Even deliberately include the straight down approach as one of them. You need to feel for yourself how the different paths effect different possibilities.

Did you aim the whole pencil in a single path? Or did you find it more efficient to lower/raise the end of the pencil you are holding? As in:

or:

Did you aim a single, consistently directed force, or did it change direction at all? What happens if the pencil slides along the key? Conversely can you make sure that it contacts the same spot, while applying notable levels of forward pushes, or backwards pulls? Experiment to see how just much of a backward or forward feel you can do without slipping and glancing along the key. Then experiment with reducing it again, to see how much or how little seems to help the most. Remember though above all- no coming down straight over the top like this:

Even Zeidwig comes at the keys with a large horizontal element to his fingers. We have to look at coming from a place that involves at least some kind of horizontal element for this to be relevant to normal playing. As long as you do so, feel free to aim the force in any direction you wish.

So, which direction did you actually have to exert the force in, for the most efficient transfer of energy? Oh, and once you feel that you've found the efficient way, why not try some of the alternatives, purely for observational purposes? Actually, go ahead and start with the vertical pencil now, even, to see what a very pure single axis motion is like. Try all angles. Even introduce some sideways forces, if you wish. You can go into all three axes.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there for now, but hopefully that will already have provided plenty to think about- if you've done some decent experimenting. If you didn't bother with the experiment, then just what the heck did you hope to learn- from plowing through all of those words but then not engaging in any kind of explorations? The idea of this is for you to teach yourself something. That can't come through the rational element alone- if you don't work at channeling the understanding directly into something that relates to the nature of movement.

In my next post, I'll continue a little more about the idea of axes and introduce planes (which are 2 dimensional versions, based on two axes), as well as the idea of levers- particularly with reference to the results of the pencil experiment. I'll also be looking more into some of the mechanical reasons as to why some types of movements will have been felt to be highly efficient, whereas some others are inherently wasteful of energy- all of which will soon start to lead into the specific implications for regular playing.

Introduction

2010-11-13T08:49:00.000-08:00

Although countless books have been written on piano technique, what deeply puzzles me is the seeming absence of any books that derive practical advice from the wide implications of the most fundamental laws of mechanics. Before I put anyone off from reading any further, I should stress a few things at once: Firstly, none of the following articles will be about learning a "mechanical" piano technique- rather the stress is always going to be on PRACTICAL piano technique (by which I mean one that results in physical ease but which also opens the door to greater extremes of sound and orchestration). The reason I am writing this is because I have found the implications of basic mechanics to be spectacularly effective at both translating into better movement and into better sound. This is not an academic exercise but an attempt to improve the understanding of what needs to actually be perceived, in order to find the easiest path towards formulating quality of movement. Frankly, the pure scientific issues themselves don't greatly interest me- UNLESS they specifically lead to a means of making improvements. Of course, sometimes thinking about something that might have seemed totally abstract can suddenly reveal an unexpectedly useful implication about movement. However, on here I do not intend to even mention anything that I have not already drawn a very notable practical consequence from. You'll only find applications supported by theory, not theory for its own sake.

Also, I will go out of my way to keep the actual physics as simple as possible. You won't find me detailing pointless calculations that involve estimated coefficients of friction, or using trigonometry to calculate the specific force in Newtons that a particular muscle might have to apply. I'm looking at broad issues with significant implications, not number-crunching. In fact, I claim no background in especially advanced mechanics myself (although I have previously studied mechanics as part of both maths and physics A levels). What I have found notable when thinking these issues through is just how overwhelmingly simple it is to put BASIC mechanical laws into the context of piano playing.

Above all, what has astonished me is just how practically beneficial the implications are, with regard to attaining ease and efficiency of movement. I've discovered that much of what I had been doing (over many prior years had been wasted on playing the piano really rather poorly indeed) is comparable to having tried to find an 'instinctive' feel for playing poker- without having actually learned all of the rules first. When it comes to movement, the laws of mechanics are (literally) the rules. Of course, you need to develop a 'feel' to play either poker or the piano to a remotely high standard. But surely we ought to START by learning the rules and their most standard consequences? After all, no mechanical rules can be broken.You can only seem to break them. Looking at certain inescapable facts has allowed me to do things which, for many years, I thought really were impossible. But clearly that's because I simply didn't properly understand the rules. It's theoretically possible for a person to push the limits of a set of rules further than anyone else and it's possible to make them work for you. But if this doesn't evolve by instinct, the best thing you can do is stop hoping to 'transcend' anything with wishful thinking and start understanding the sheer possibility that exists within the limits of the rules.

These days there are countless books on technique that are tremendously informed by research into the make-up of the human body. While this is certainly be to applauded, why have authors not put the same level of research into the most basic laws of the universe? What's the point in skipping so far ahead as to start learning the names of individual muscles and bones- if you do not yet understand the overwhelming implications of Newton's 2nd law?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

How can it be that this never even seems to get a mention? It cannot be overstated how much of problem this is, if not dealt with (especially at the moment when the key lands against the key bed in FFF playing). Why do so many people seem to fight against the piano with so much effort? The simple answer is because of irrefutable Newtonian physics. Above all, it is because they do not know how to deal with the forces that the piano sends back at them. Flowery metaphors are often used and relaxation is always stressed (often with little more than short term benefits), but HOW do you move in a way that will absorb this force, mechanically speaking. Many authors have floundered around the issue in overwhelmingly vague terms, but what makes it rationally POSSIBLE to do it, specifically speaking? To be able to relax away from the piano is very different to knowing how to relax in the face of the return force. Here's a film of myself playing a few years ago, before I started making any changes to my technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2vAsriTZE8&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

You'll see that, when it rises from the keys, my wrist often relaxes to the extent that my hand sags down like that of a limp-wristed drama queen. So why couldn't I relax my wrist properly in the big chords, if it was so busy relaxing (to a dysfunctional excess) elsewhere? Not because I didn't know how to relax but because the mechanical basis to my movements made it IMPOSSIBLE to both apply a large force and keep it more relaxed. I didn't want to be stuck unable to play louder than mf for life, so rather than reduce the return force by reducing the input force, I put up with uncomfortable tensions and impact. There was simply no alternative (that I knew at the time), unless I wanted to reduce the range of my intentions- which would hardly have been much better.

Technique does not come from good use of the body. Neither does it come from understanding mechanical laws. It comes from good use of the body in the context of mechanical laws. They cannot be separated or you can be certain that there will be gaps in the understanding and probably even areas where beliefs contain outright factual accuracies. To cure seizures (or preferably find a better way from the first time you ever play), you have to understand the force that makes you resort to them. Okay, a small number of great pianists learned this by 'feel' alone and have no idea how they do it- but they are in a real minority compared to those who succeeded in never getting anywhere by 'feel'. If it doesn't take you there, you need to stop doing and start understanding how to deal with the returned forces. It's time to forget the negative of the idea that you have to attempt to stop seizing up and start working on the positive of what leads you to a position of being ABLE to absorb forces, rather than fight them.

Later on, I hope to show how a number of changes in the understanding can rather easily stop people battling against the forces that the piano returns to you- and how you can even build up to applying huge forces (if desired) in a manner that permits even the largest returned forces to be absorbed with really very little effort whatsoever. You won't hear me coming out with any vague nonsense along the lines of "treat the piano like you're trying to sooth a newborn puppy" or "imagine you're making tender love to a blow-up doll" or whatever such crap is usually resorted to. I'll show you how to stop fighting against a force and how to let it simply dissipate into your whole arm. Once you know HOW to absorb the reaction force in the first place, who knows? Maybe such images will even become surprisingly useful?

Although I will try to make the scientific aspects easy enough to understand, anyone reading can feel free to skip to the practical implications and the various exercises for movements and perceptions that will be included, if they prefer. It's technically quite possible for the how to be useful, even if you don't have the patience to follow the explanation as to why. However, I include the 'workings' for a couple of reasons. Firstly, some of the implications might sound rather counter-intuitive. I'm not going to ask anyone to put their blind faith in some random bloke on the internet- so I want to give a clear proof, say, that movement A might be a definably inefficient means of producing tone and that it leaves certain muscles with no choice but to lock up. Equally, I'm not asking for blind faith in why movement B, say, might both be more efficient at transferring energy and more conducive to comfortable shock absorption. Also- while I've put a lot of thought into all of this and feel very confident of both the purer explanations and the practical implications, I want everything to be accountable. If anyone with a background in physics should disagree with any of what I write, I'd very much like to know. I'm interested above all in trying to advance understanding, so I'd actually be deeply grateful if anyone wants to pick me up, on anything that they might dispute, or let me know if they feel I've overlooked an important factor.

Coming back to the practical side though, a lot of movements can look identical on the outside, but be drastically different in the inner workings. By understanding the underlying mechanical principles that LEAD to the possibility of efficiency, you are much more likely to succeed than if you try to copy what you see on the outside.

As an example, later on I'll illustrate the difference between two types of finger action that look almost identical to the eye. Both have uses (Horowitz certainly used extreme forms of both), but one uses rather weak actions and lands the keys with a pretty sudden impact. The other uses very strong actions and easily absorbs the reaction force. While most great pianists know how to use the latter to the full, I'll explain how a simple flaw in the mindset leaves few pianists able to exploit it. Again, the ability to differentiate between these two different qualities of movement (unless already acquired by lucky instincts) comes from knowing both the rules of mechanics and the implications of them. Rational understanding is only destructive to the instincts when it is based upon inaccurate understanding or incomplete understanding. In such cases, unguided instincts may even be better than the results that stem from a misconstrued rationale. However, the problem is that all humans make observations. There are many generalised observations and commonly held beliefs that are totally inaccurate. As I'll illustrate in my first detailed post, the path in which a finger frequently needs to activate can seem very odd, compared to what you would immediately imagine. When superficial assumptions are corrected by greater understanding of context in mechanical laws, it's far easier to reprogramme your understanding of movement.

At some point I'll explain why many people still grossly misunderstand the interaction between gravity and the body- dwelling too much on the fact that, in isolation, gravity is a perfectly downward force (but forgetting how many levers it interacts with and ignoring how this totally redirects the force). Frequently pianists end up working their muscles too hard- while erroneously believing that gravity is the source of the downward force.

Look at this film from 20 seconds in onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwY-pDnmSiE

Gravity, my arse! That's as clear a muscular thrust as you could imagine! Certainly not 'free fall'- which is TOTAL relaxation, by definition! What the hell is going on with all of these inaccurate explanations and paradoxes? While the Taubmann approach has many positives, it tries to be scientific but then comes out with a wealth of utter contradictions and ludicrously jumbled premises. If it's simply a metaphor to aid the sensation, then declare it as such! If it's supposed to be scientific, then take out this embarrassingly severe contradiction about doing a "free fall" without relaxing- whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe not relaxing refers to the way she visibly presses so hard into the keybed after the supposed "fall" or maybe it refers to the thrust that so clearly occurs instead of an actual fall? Who knows? Either way, the way she digs in for the example looks very unhealthy to me and the explanation is utterly ambiguous. If I'd paid the few hundred pounds they charge for those tapes, I'd have been absolutely horrified by these wildly unscientific confusions. Despite some of the positives about the approach, there's really a lot of room for improvement, in these kinds of explanations (not to mention the demonstration of how to bang your arm so stiffly into an octave).

Anyway, later on I'll give a few exercises that make it easy to perceive for yourself the direction of the force that gravity REALLY transmits to your arm (as a clue, it's rarely anywhere near being exactly downward). Ironically, when misunderstood, aspects of gravity can be one of the biggest hindrances to transmitting a downward force through the key. I'll show how properly understanding the resultant effect of gravity on a body can improve its use, as well as how it's also possible to improve action in the hand, by exploiting gravity as a balancing counter-force (with no visible dropping at all) rather than as a power source.

There is not a single correct way to move. But there is an absolute truth in the laws that determine what is possible. Some ways of moving provide seemingly limitless possibility. Others provide very few possibilities, due to inescapable laws of the universe. While there are many alternatives that function just fine with regard to mechanical law (even if sometimes unusual to look at), some things are simply at odds with it. You have to be careful to differentiate between valid individual solutions (of which there can be many) and things which are inherently flawed. Sometimes saying "this is just my own way of playing" basically amounts to putting yourself in a strait-jacket. It's important to be willing to rethink things- unless you're happy to stick with the level you are already at, of course.

PS. In many ways the approach of this is likely to be rather similar to that of Alan Fraser, author of the "Craft of piano playing". I am extremely grateful to him for forcing me to rethink so many things about piano technique and for revealing a number of specific physical issues. Many aspects of what I shall be writing will have been inspired rather directly as an off-shoot from his principles about function. I will do my best to avoid inadvertently plagiarising anything, although I should certainly acknowledge how much of the foundations are owed to his work. Some of this is likely to involve slightly different descriptions of rather closely related movements. Even when the ideas have nothing directly in common whatsoever (and even in the few areas where I actually disagree rather violently with his explanation!), I should give him all due credit for inspiring the ongoing thought processes and experiments which will have led to them. Although many of the original premises here will stem more greatly from the starting point of mechanics, the process of integrating the implications into actual body movements is greatly inspired by his approach. Although I will be aiming to be even more rigorously scientific about certain issues (and also tend to place a little less trust in the subconscious- vital as it is for many things) this is very much intended to complement and work in tandem with the Craft of Piano playing approach.