As the main part of this post, we'll be looking at the nature of the healthy hand motion used by Martha Argerich- to play powerful octaves with extreme freedom and minimal physical impact. In a short video lecture, I'll show why an attitude of trying to reduce the hand movement (that she greatly exaggerates) could actually subject the hand to far more stress, than movement with intent. First though...
"Fingers don't have muscles and cannot be strengthened. Your hands already have all the strength they need."
Like myself, I'm sure that many readers will have seen many slight variations on those words, repeated all over online piano forums. I was reminded of that when I stumbled across a photo of Bruce Lee doing a press up on a single finger and thumb of one hand. It turns out that there is also video footage.
More likely, they'll recognise that they have been fooled by misdirection. They could also lose trust in the value/good faith of their teacher's words, more generally. Does it matter if the teacher feels serving up false information is for some "greater good"? Perhaps they'll find out about Wolff's law, which states that all bones can gradually increase in strength and density due to minute micro-fractures during training? Perhaps they'll realise that the idea that fingers don't "have" muscles doesn't particularly even work on a technicality? Does anyone try to argue that they don't "have" the money that's in their bank account? If it's time for their round at the bar, then maybe- although nobody seems to insist that Bill Gates doesn't "have" billions of dollars, just because it's not all sat in his wallet. We may reasonably talk about the external location of either. However, if one body part does rightfully "own" muscles that exist to control the fingers, it is logically those fingers. So it is reasonable to say fingers "have" muscles- that exist in the forearm, to act upon their joints (via a pull on tendons).
Most importantly, human brains always map movement and perception of strength at the joints, rather than from the strict location of the muscle. This is why it feels as if your arm "squashes" your bicep when curling a dumbbell, when your bicep is actually the root cause of a pull. Our brains sense from where the useful effect is, because that's easier to work with. Bruce Lee developed unusual strength in the forearm muscles that would act upon his finger joints, for sure. We can add background detail, but there is no argument that finger joints won't be stronger merely because the muscles are in the forearm. It would be like insisting that your arms can't develop a stronger ability to pull, because the lats are actually in your back. So what? Your arms still pull more strongly if you develop the external muscles. Muscle and bone alike can be strengthened to make more functional finger strength. Both would certainly need to be, before performing rare feats of extreme finger stabilisation (not that I recommend trying them anyway, of course!). In fact, even tendons and connective tissues are able to grow in strength to some degree, via conditioning. There is literally no point to be found that holds any value- only the very weak illusion that a point has been made, via a catchy (yet meaningless) soundbite.
For piano teachers, shall we now lobby to have the Internet censored, in order to prevent students finding out an inconvenient truth via Bruce Lee? Or shall we recognise that a person of moderate intelligence might see through the sham, regardless? Do we want students who feel weak to secretly turn to extremist schools of finger strength? If someone discovers that the "strength is impossible" claim was just hot air, then don't be surprised if they look for the truth elsewhere. You shouldn't grab any old weak argument, merely because it supports what you think others ought to believe. An argument that is full of holes only puts the conclusion into greater doubt. Maybe we'd look more trustworthy if we built a meaningful case around the truth?
On such lines, while the most old-fashioned ideas of finger strength really can cause significant problems, the role of hand strength is not zero either. It's would be a silly world in which everyone who doesn't value immense muscular exertion is then required to dismiss all strength as wholly irrelevant. It's not true that every last notion of hand strength is always dangerous, nor that it should always be aggressively smeared. Reality is more nuanced. Look at Argerich's hands when she plays octaves (particularly from the angle starting at 1:20).
Is there really an argument that anyone is just born with visibly strong hands that engage so powerfully and deliberately- compared not only to amateurs, but also to most other professionals? Or that any average hand already exists in a form that could attempt the same- without a paced process of physical development? It's almost as dangerous to imply there would be no need to pace strength development in pianism, as with a one finger press up. Pro-strength and anti-strength extremists tend to offer equally flawed and misleading simplifications. To make any sense out of what is plain for anyone to see, we will need to try to define a difference between healthy and safe employment of hand strength, vs generic straining (of the "no pain, no gain" style). I'd suggest:
It is healthy to gradually develop some "strength" of the hand in relation to movements (both explosive and gradual) that buy ease and freedom. Specifically, the grasping motion that helps support the palm up and and out of the keys via a hand arch (as we see in Argerich's octaves). This has little in common with the level of extreme finger strength that would be required to stabilise a large amount of static mass, as in the one finger pull up or press up. Think more of the type of "strength" that might be required for an explosively high jump by a martial artist. Or even low intensity use of muscular strength, to maintain an alert standing posture (as opposed to a lazy slump). It's generally less healthy to use sustained muscle tension to brace against downward forces from the arm. This is especially problematic if the bridge of the hand gives way under the arm pressure. Useful hand strength produces movement that relieves effort. Bad use of strength chiefly braces against unwanted movement.
Let's think about this in practice- starting from a common idea which is meant to prevent any need for hand strength. We are often told that if we use the hand merely to transfer arm energy (with little or no hand movement), you can reduce the effort for the hand. The following video demonstrates why this is a somewhat wishful ideal, that cannot adequately explain success. Rather than write text for the video, there is a detailed spoken commentary. However, I'll just add one thing. When the hand successfully resists collapse under arm energy, I point out that this is strenuous. However, I was perhaps a little too dismissive. I should also recognise that there would be some value in using it as an preliminary exercise (provided that the same approach is not used as a basis to play fast). More on that after the video...
I don't wish to tar all opposition to finger/hand strength ideas with one brush. Other words can be used to encourage the hand to move. I very rarely use the word strength myself, outside of this post. However, I have noticed that people frequently say that arm energy is a way to avoid a need for hand strength. Many say to minimise or literally avoid movement in the hand. Others simply fail to reference any need for it, while greatly emphasising the idea of arm energy. As I show in the video, losing out on the basic hand movement can make for real problems.
Yes, a model in which the hand aims to move the least, in the name of trying to work less, easily causes it to work at its hardest! It's a little like countries with such titles as "The Democratic Republic of...". Just because it's there in the description, it doesn't mean it actually works out that way. Anything that only mentions special hand alignments or positions to join the hand to the arm is incomplete. Real ease needs active clarification of essential internal hand movement. A static position is an initial way to help cut out genuinely irrelevant hand movements, or collapsing joints. However, if you don't then start to add the useful hand movement, you cannot possibly avoid having to lock your hand into unnecessary tension. Go fast and (unless your instincts provide the balancing hand movement) you're left with higher effort bracing. There can also be bad alignments and better ones. But there aren't alignments that are quite so magical, that the value of hand movement suddenly goes away. You can only try to minimise the necessary part of such a movement, after you have first learned to actually use it!
The reason I believe so many people are drawn to (genuinely) extreme ideas about needing to build enormous hand strength, is because opposing camps have so severely downplayed the role of movement in the hand, outright. This leads the hand to collapse and then brace in a disadvantaged position. The less you try to do with your hand, the harder the compensations tend to be. Approaches that encourage a passive hand may easily help to create the conditions in which a hand is most likely to feel weak, overworked and underpowered. It's not surprising that anyone feeling this might be enticed to an opposite idea- of developing enormous hand strength through high effort exercises. What if the only way to solve such a problem is a sensible middle ground? We need to create conditions in which the hand can act both safely and confidently, without fear. Even if we do argue against strength, we should at least concentrate on how to apply confident hand movement.
The reason we pluck upward and out of the keys, is to create conditions in which a clear hand activation could not possibly jam downward. When a hand is overworked by the grasp, it's typically because the arm doesn't make room for the hand to move freely. Once you can respond up and out of the keys, it should soon end the strain that gives a feeling of muscular weakness. It may be true that your hand is already strong enough for most things, or it may be that some strength really would need to be developed gently, over a period of time. However, unless your hand can do the basic movement with ease, the most urgent issue is probably the need to get out of its way. The strength you wouldn't want is the kind where the hand tries to move while being blocked by the pressure of the arm.
The ideal arm is not just generically heavy. Hand and arm should not have to be "connected" by a braced wrist. Both wrist and forearm alike need to be able to be very loose for the arm to respond freely to a good hand action. If you feel like it would currently be risky to apply movement of the hand, it's a fairly sure sign that you need to learn to lighten your arm. Ability to merely pile arm weight/pressure into a rather neutral hand isn't sufficient for technique. The up forces generated by hand motion are what keep a hand comfortably open, rather than always straining to survive a depressed slump. Arm weight should never go beyond what the arch of your hand can comfortably stand back up against. Although Argerich's hand is clearly stronger than average, the chief reason she can use a powerful hand movement is that her arm doesn't constantly weigh down heavily.
Don't think simplistically that all arm energy is always a positive or that internal hand energy is always dangerous and wrong! The goal of the hand is not merely to do the barest minimum to be able to pass on some huge arm energy. It's a trade off- between having the lightness to move your hand with freedom, vs the value of adding a little downward arm pressure. Too much arm and the hand cannot safely play it's part. In spite of becoming more cautious, it actually ends up working even harder. Most of us concentrate significantly on what comes from the arm, while easily overlooking the benefit of leaving enough room to be able to safely move the hand. A lucky few get this purely by instinct. Unfortunately, many others are likely to continue feeling that their hands are extremely weak- unless they learn to make room for some healthy internal hand movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment