A Piano Technique WAY Beyond Arm Weight Or Finger Action

Somewhere else I write about Volodos and arm weight. I thought this next video would help clear up what I am trying to say. It's Gyorgy Cziffra warming up for a TV show. It's an incredible display of natural finger dexterity, even if the musical values at times seem far from highbrow, and it's exactly that freedom in improvisation which I think makes totally clear both the freedom and ability of his fingers. His arms are loose as a goose, but do you see any of the typical movements indicating training in, or thinking about, arm weight? Not a bit of it. He is also not STANDING on his fingers at all. Although he uses his hand structure wonderfully (nobody's thumbs are more outstanding than Czuffra's), it's a floating, free structure that never gets limited by being fixed in a standing position on key. Even when he plays a big, thick, robust chord, the moment of standing is so instantaneous, so immediately 'on to the next thing,' that it's as if it never happened. It's very important not to get stuck in the pressing and standing that you originally used to find your hand's arch structure. Look at this and think of your own playing: what could you do to move yourself to this kind of wonderful hovercrafting on the keyboard? AFF

Cziffra's hands are awesome. But music and depth aside, I suspect his hands can play Liszt's Feux Follets or Schumann's Toccata as efficient as Richter. (who I think leans more to the arm weight school than Cziffra) I always have a hard time imagining those large, skeletal hands trapped and cramped into the double notes. I have problems also imagining Horowitz playing double notes as efficient as Richter. Perhaps I'm just too locked into that thinking from previous experience with watching pianists playing such passages?? Anyway, examples: Criffra, who almost always play fast on Liszt, chose to slow down for Feux Follets. I don't believe it's because of the style or music.... Richter: The closest to Criffra's style playing Feux Follets fast I found (without trying too hard, though....) on youtube is: A lot of wrong notes, but that's not the point anyway.

Then you might find this interesting ..

The "Opus 10/1 section"doesn't show any of the suggested rotational movement you offered in your DVD (the one which may be useful for Liszt's Campanella rh). Any second thoughts on this ?

His arms are loose as a goose, but do you see any of the typical movements indicating training in, or thinking about, arm weight? Not a bit of it. He is also not STANDING on his fingers at all. Although he uses his hand structure wonderfully (nobody's thumbs are more outstanding than Czuffra's), it's a floating, free structure that never gets limited by being fixed in a standing position on key. Even when he plays a big, thick, robust chord, the moment of standing is so instantaneous, so immediately 'on to the next thing,' that it's as if it never happened. AFF To be honest, this is an issue that I'm still not quite clear on. There are many things in the book of which I was initially enormously skeptical, but which I have since come to understand. However, I'm still not entirely clear what your stance is on this. Firstly, could you just clarify precisely what you mean when you refer to "arm-weight"? Does that mean simply the basic notion of using the arm's gravitational weight, or do you refer to the general school that is based around use of weight- hence encompassing various additional issues beyond that of gravity itself? Your point in the book about playing upside down on the bottom of a table made me stop to think! I'd always been pretty much indoctrinated into the not-using-the-fingers-individually attitude and the example certainly got me thinking about the idea that the fingers are perfectly capable of being isolated. However, I didn't quite follow certain passages in the book where you talked about the 'sensation' of using arm-weight, as though it were merely a false mental impression (like the idea of 'slowing down' a key- where, rationally speaking, the arm can only allow the key to be slowed down by the keybed) rather than an actuality. I certainly don't believe that arm-weight is the end of all (although I do believe that it's a vital beginning of many things). However, isn't it the case that arm-weight is a very real thing, rather than a mere impression? Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea about what you actually mean, but I did find some of your wording rather excessive- as though arm-weight cannot genuinely be any source of benefit. I recently mentioned the thing about 'bouncing' keys- where I came to realise that I was frequently failing to rest against the key-bed in the 3rds etude (or rather, not only was I failing to rest but the keys were bouncing up to all kinds of different levels, with complete inconsistency). While it's not likely to be possible to do so at speed, practising with real weight on each key at a slow tempo was very much what made it possible to speed up since then- regardless of whether I want the same feeling of resting my entire arm on each note when playing up to tempo. Sure, trying to deploy the weight of the arm behind every note at speed would be absurd. However, doesn't it remain one of the most fundamental ways of learning the organisation that you speak of at a slow tempo? I would never say that arm-weight accounts for the full process of the tone-production of even a single isolated strike at an ultra-slow speed, but I personally feel that it is vital to learn to 'let go' and rest that weight through the fingers (even if the gravity acts in the resting after the strike, rather than necessarily to sound the note), before starting to look to withold the arm's mass. Isn't it rather like the pianists who are taught to turn the thumb under the hand- but who naturally begin to turn 'over' at speed? I recently realised that I have been turning 'over' far too much. I'm now certain that it's the primary reason for my weak r.h. 4th finger- as I never stopped to rest genuine arm-weight behind that finger, before 'flicking' my thumb across. I'm doing a lot of the overholding from 1-4 when turning at the moment, and it's really starting to help with that! I can feel some stretch between my third and fourth opening out at last, thanks to the natural force that rests upon it (coupled with the grip that I have now started to use between the fingers and thumb, of course). I'm starting to realise that teaching thumb 'over' might be a very bad idea- unless a student has already completely mastered a smooth passing at a slow speed. Isn't it the same situation with arm-weight though? Isn't it best to FIRST use the natural force of gravity (surely an equal fundamental towards aligning the bones into a stable 'skeletal' structure, along with muscular 'grasping'?), as much as possible- before ultimately having to find alternate ways to reach extreme speeds? Wouldn't diminishing the role of gravity of what gravity has to offer (when used in tandem with proper muscular activity, rather than as a replacement for it) rather analagous to the idea of teaching thumb over as a starting point? Your example about the table really made me think, but is it not considerably more difficult to find as stable a skeletal structure on the underside of a table, as when gravity acts in the direction in which those bones are wishing to exert a pressure- helping to bond them together in a stable form, just as gravity helps to reinforce an arch, through it's exertion upon the keystone? This is a major issue for me. Although an stable arch CAN be formed upside down, it really doesn't feel anywhere near as solid as when the weight of an arm acts to reinforce it. Since I began seeking to rest upon EVERY note in slow practise (including use of your overholding exercises- to ensure that arm-weight never stops being allowed to rest upon at least one fingers, for even a split second), I think I have started giving myself the basics that might allow me to go on to later withold more of that weight with control, rather with counterproductive tensions. I only started to make really good progress when I combined both your ideas about the hand with those about resting the arm on every finger. At first, I had been overdoing the grasping, which led to excessive tension in the forearm. The benefits were far greater, once I started properly allowing the weight of the arm to rest upon the fingers. This has since freed up those counterproductive tensions and allowed a more balanced feel. I have a feeling that we are both looking at a similar style of organisation, as the long-term goal. As someone who was limited for years by an arm-weight approach that does not involve any real activity of the fingers, I am extremely grateful to you for breaking through numerous fallacies about what gravity alone can (supposedly) achieve. However, is it possible that (in setting about seeking to break the limitations of traditional arm-weight teaching) you're in danger of going a little too far against the very real effects and benefits of gravitational forces? While I now use a number of your exercises for the hand as standard with all new students, I'm still absolutely convinced about the importance of learning to 'let go' as much as possible, so arm-weight to be felt and exploited. The old-fashioned arm-weight school leaves a huge amount to be desired, but isn't there a huge amount to be said for its most basic principle, when coupled with your own excellent advice about what should go on within the hand itself (rather than when it is presented by traditionalists as a contradictory approach)? Even arm-weight specialists have never said the fingers shouldn't do anything at all (even if they have drastically underplayed the role they must play) and I doubt whether the finger-school regularly encouraged complete absense of arm-weight (although one or two staunch finger fanatics have possibly done so). Isn't it sensible to treat the two things as joint fundamentals rather than as diamterically opposed approaches? Surely that is what led Cziffra to the kind of fluidity that is limited by neither? I personally can't see any just reason to underplay the importance of either. I've only become aware of the sheer importance of what goes on in the hand through your excellent work, but nothing I read made me question the importance of armweight itself- only of some of the nonsense that has unfortunately been attached to it's use. If anything, the more I've have benefitted from better organisation within the hand, the more I have realised just how beneficial it is to feel the true weight of the arm being supported upon the fingers (when stopping to rest on notes, if not always during the procedure of striking them). It's just that my hand had not previously been equipped to transmit it. Andrew PS. I put a link to a film of Vallee D'Obermann in the student film section. If you get a chance, I'd love to hear your thoughts..

Hi Alan, I liked your remarks with G Cziffra as an example.It's easy to get stuck with standing etc especially if one only read parts of your book or watch only parts of the DVD. I assume that the upcoming book (when??;-)) will emphasize this dichotomy between practise/developpment and execution more. However I beleive Cziffra thought about technique much in the same way you do?, he grew up with Donhányi and I know that he was an advocate of VERY strong fingers and hand.The clavier-muet-practise was routine. On the other hand the execution was on the soft (even very soft) side. Another thing, as he didn't touch the piano for very long periods (spent years in forced-labor-camps) he needed all his time for repertoire work so I guess everything he did was unusually effecient - his "methods" are well worth studying. I think he published a book in France long time ago. Eric

It's the second of those two. is published (it should be out in a month or two, all the typesetting is done and we only have to draw all the new hand pictures and design a cover). There are three solid chapters in there that address this really thorny problem. But your question is really interesting. The phrase "a subjective experience of arm weight" means that for YOU it IS real but for ME, the observer, I see it as an impression you experience... If you experience your arm's weight as achieving in terms of creating a piano sound, I don't think that perception will hold up in a kinesthetic court of law... I would agree with you on this... Another auspicious perception, very nicely put! However, I must say that teaching 'thumb over' can still be very useful to a student to whom it is a completely unfamiliar move. The standard thing you see is an over-reliance on thumb under, done awkwardly and with too much horizontal swivelling... I'm afraid that here I must offer a (qualified) disagreement. I think that first using the natural force of gravity can be wonderfully educative, but I have had other Forum members posting that this was exactly what led to their problems. They ended up with an overly malleable technique, a hand that had no backbone, that didn't know how to stand up. I think that here it would be a mistake to judge one way or another - you really have to make a decision based on the specifics of each individual case... Hmmmm. Let me go lie under a table for a minute or two... OK, it is as I suspected: my experience is the OPPOSITE of yours. I like the arch I generate under the table more, because there is LESS CONFUSION in it. Under the table, it is SENSORIALLY CLEAR to me that my lumbrical action generates the arch. This feels great for me. ON the table, however, it's a mix of gravitational forces and lumbrical action - it feels more complicated and finicky to me. That's one reason I give the under the table example - there's such an opportunity for clarification in it. This sounds wonderful. How great it is that you didn't "follow my ideas" blindly but used them speculatively with due respect to your own process. Indeed it is! ... Again, point well-taken. I actually set up the two extremes at the beginning of my film not because it's historically accurate but because it's a convenient conceit from a didactic point of view... . Looks like we are on similar tracks. Andrew, I do apologize for taking so long to answer this - what a great series of really cogent arguments you've presented us with here... AFF

Cziffra's hands are awesome. But music and depth aside, I suspect his hands can play Liszt's Feux Follets or Schumann's Toccata as efficient as Richter. (who I think leans more to the arm weight school than Cziffra) I always have a hard time imagining those large, skeletal hands trapped and cramped into the double notes. I have problems also imagining Horowitz playing double notes as efficient as Richter. Perhaps I'm just too locked into that thinking from previous experience with watching pianists playing such passages?? Anyway, examples: Criffra, who almost always play fast on Liszt, chose to slow down for Feux Follets. I don't believe it's because of the style or music.... Richter: The closest to Criffra's style playing Feux Follets fast I found (without trying too hard, though....) on youtube is: A lot of wrong notes, but that's not the point anyway.Alvin, very nice submissions and an interesting question. The Richter Chopin Etudes from London, recorded late in his life, show the downside of arm weight technique. He labours through the Revolutionary at a really student tempo. It is chunky, solid and boring. However this same technique earlier allowed him to tear the keyboard apart - that Op 10 #4 from the film enigma, or the Feux Follets you submitted here... Whereas, as you point out, Cziffra plays it slower... I must admit that I am still thinking about this and haven't really arrived at any brilliant conclusions - very happy to have the point brought up like this. By the way I LOVE the third performance you submit, by this unknown pianist. I don't care if he whips through it with seeming disregard for the niceties. I don't care that he seems to be showing off. He plays with panache, real freedom and because of this I think in a way he gets to the heart of the music... AFF

The "Opus 10/1 section"doesn't show any of the suggested rotational movement you offered in your DVD (the one which may be useful for Liszt's Campanella rh). Any second thoughts on this ?Are you SURE there are no rotational movements? Look a little more closely... AFF

Hi, Many thanks for the response. It's interesting that you replied just now, because I was thinking about this very recently and I think I've been coming much closer to understanding what you mean. I've actually been starting to feel how witholding a little weight (for the 'floating' feel) is now starting to add a little extra comfort and your point about the arch on the underside of the table has really clarified a lot of things. I think has filled in a major gap and showed how I was previously conceiving much the same shape in a slightly different way, with regard to the muscular activity. I no longer see an implied contradiction between the solid arch and the feeling of floating instead of weighing down. Both make perfect sense in combination now. I know you have a very open mind, so I hope you'll forgive me if I go on to make a couple of more critical points, with regards to aspects of physics and mechnics: I think in the past I was slightly confused by your reference to the arch and particuarly the 'keystone'. Although the shape is very much like an arch, I'd have to point out that the function of the mechanics is , rather than a keystone. The resisting force comes from a very different area. When the bones are aligned optimally the structure is more stable, but there is ALWAYS some muscular effort that keeps the structure. It simply doesn't perform in the same manner as a traditionally formed arch (in which gravity alone provides the stabilisation, without any other external forces). Turn a keystone-based arch upside down and it doesn't function at all. I think this may be one of the sources of my misunderstanding. Apologies for being critical, as I remain enormously grateful for both your having raised all these various issues and your reply here, which has made full sense of what I had slightly misunderstood. I'm certainly not blaming you for my misunderstanding (as I know enough about physics that I should have thought this through more). However, I think it could be very important to distinguish between a traditional arch with a 'keystone' and that which occurs in the hand. Technically, the hand has no equivalent to the role of a keystone and (as I now realise) gravity need not necessarily play any instrinsic role within that shape, as it does in architecture. I now realise that quite the reverse is the case. Such an arch must be actively (but not all) of the forearm's gravity can actually be even more stable (which obviously makes rational sense now, when I think about the knuckle as a hinge that must be stabilised, rather than have a big force acting down on it). When you said here that the arch is equally stable on the underside of the table, this really showed the difference in how I had been thinking about it. Many thanks for raising this point. I think this has given me a much greater conscious understanding of a state that I have occassionally been stumbling upon but not entirely understanding. To be honest, I'm still absolutely convinced by the physics involved here. I now see how the arch itself is not necessarily dependent on any gravitational issues. However, with the greatest respect intended, is it not a rather major strawman argument, to say if you experience it as 'everything' etc? I could scarcely agree more with such a statement. However (assuming you regard the gravity as merely 'something of notable importance' say-rather than 'everything') physics certainly seems to suggest that the gravitational force can play a big role rather than exist as mere 'perception'. Say if you hold your forearm still above a key, (or rest on table top and play). How much sound can be created by fingers alone? Can you get any real fortissimo. Let go of the support and much more sound is possible (whether by notable 'dropping' or by close contact that still feels as if it is initiated by the finger, without notable arm motion). I now see just how much the fingers must come into involvement. But that they are also transmitting a gravitational force strikes me as a physical certainty. I remember you mentioned how legato initially provides a bigger sound, but can ultimately limit the depth. Is it not the case that the explanation for the added depth of slight non-legato can be gravitational force? Remove the supporting finger a split-second before the strike and gravitational weight will therfore be added to the following strike. Surely this is why you can add a little more tone this way? Unless the arm is forcibly held wholly still (at the elbow), this should rationally add something to the sound. Much as a I have come to understand that it makes very good sense of withold of the weight and that it's vital for fingers to be active at all times, I must say that I still struggle to see what you put this down as 'sensation' rather than a rationally explicable force. I actually rather like the Taubman explanation of 'forearm weight' rather than 'arm weight' in which the rotational force that acts about the elbow plays a role. I would never suggest that weight is EVERYTHING, but I am increasingly convinved that Horowitz's big cantabile contained a vital component of gravitational force. When the arm and finger are quite so straight out, I'm certain that a very considerable amount of graviational pressure acts upon that fingertip (from the hinge of the elbow)- adding a good deal to a sufficiently active finger. I think it's almost like the single bone idea, from elbow to fingertip. A notable amount of force is going to occur, provided that the elbow is free. I believe physics would suggest that the flatter the finger, the more such a force can be channelled. I still can't help but feel that you seem to be going a little far in downplaying this very real force. It's definitely only a component of the whole, but I feel more and more certain that this was a sizeable component of the big Horowitz cantabile. I think the pulling of the fingers had a very notable aspect of gravitational weight behind it. Whether you lift your arm over your head like Rubinstein or merely 'fall' from pre-existing contact with a single finger to the keybed (including notable activity of the finger itself), mechanics would suggest that the forces involved through graviational issues are far from a negligible component. On the same note, I particularly like the 'cliff-hanging' exercise, for proving how much pressure the arm applies to a tip. Again, hold the forearm still and finger provides a relatively small pressure (no matter how active), compared to that which occurs when the finger pulls in combination with the arm hanging behind it. I am certain that this force is not only real, but absolutely vital. Although Horowitz is rarely regarded as an 'armweight' player, I think he knew how to transmit such a force better than anyone. I only recently realised how just how much gravity can be applied through tiny motions, but I feel certain that Horowitz exploited it this way, Anyway, many thanks again for your response. I cannot state highly enough how much that clarified certain things for me- so I hope the points in this response do not come across as being damning. I'm actually seeing more and more how some amount of witholding the arms gravity (based on spreading the workload across various muscles, rather than locking up any particular joint) is actually quite desirable in many instances. It's increasingly making more sense. However, I still wonder if by going so far against the flaws of short-sighted insistence on arm-weight as everything, you may be putting some people off your method? I remember how just how skeptical I was when reading about grasping etc for the first time. Although I was gradually convinced by the good sense of your approach (after what had been a period of doubt- at least, for the first few months after reading the book), I wonder if it might be easier to draw people in if you didn't go quite so far towards downplaying the weight of the arm, but focused more specifically on the negatives that are associated with misconceptions about it. I think it's easier to open your mind to new ideas when they seem to complement at least some aspects of what you already believe, rather than when they seem diametrically opposed. Anyway, very much looking forward to the new book! Andrew