A piano technique WAY beyond arm weight or finger action

I try to say as much, but you clarified it and put it in a beautifully clear context, much better than I have been able to until now... Great! Very cool, another great paragraph! Thank you for this apposite question, I think you have just triggered another 'aha' over here. It has to do with my Tai Chi teacher Sam's explanation of 'sinking your center.' He says NOT to actually sink your body any lower, it would only undermine the structural security. No, sinking your center is merely becoming more AWARE of the gravitational force acting on your body. And Feldenkrais envisions the gravitational field as something that encourages your body to soar higher within it. Making peace with gravity is neither succumbing to it nor struggling against it. It is rising to full verticality harmoniously, within the field of gravity. I was back in Montreal recently for some lessons with Phil Cohen, who started me on this search 25 years ago. An amazing refresher from someone who is still my guru. And there was not one word about arm weight in there. It was all about use of the hand. Yes you can produce a will be as good as the arm weight version. And yet, YES, the gravitational field is still an important force that is constantly acting on us as we play... It may well be, but some people suffer from being told it's so - they misinterpret it and overdo it and miss the boat... I'm going to have to investigate some more and also talk it over with Kemal. I hear what you're saying, it makes a lot of sense, but for me the jury is still out... goes much further in that direction. Andrew, thanks so much for your exceptionally clear and relevant thinking, I think we are really getting somewhere in clarifying this extremely thorny question and I really appreciate your input. AFF

Hi, Lots of interesting stuff there. I've been continuing to reduce the amount of weight I'm releasing onto the hand and it's definitely a big cause of improvement now. In the past, I had a habit of locking and holding from the shoulders, that used to cause a lot of fatigue in my left shoulder in particular. Although this was definitely caused by an inactive hand, for a long time, I was thinking in terms of seeking a balance of forces (where the shoulder releases to the maximum extent possible, while the hand and fingers take on virtually the entire role of balancing out the gravitational forces at the keys). Recently I've rarely had any real tiredness in my shoulders at all. I'm certainly starting to see now that I can put SOME work back on the shoulders, as long as the arm is balanced by spreading small workloads across various muscles. I see now that the fingers need not support ALL the weight of an entirely loosened arm. I'm definitely starting to feel how I can get the same feeling of solidity in the structure of the hand, without supporting such a big component of the weight. However, this raises loads of different questions for me- particularly as I'm a teacher myself and want to figure out the best way to pass things on to students. I don't want to fall into the trap of just teaching whatever sensations are working for me at the moment- forgetting the processes I've already been through. Equally, it's hard to know which processes might have been vital in permitting me to get the stage I'm at now (even if no longer need to adhere to them myself), and which ones I might never have needed to waste my time going through. When I was looking to achieve balance with a lot of weight involved, it certainly got my fingers working harder than they had ever done before, in order to balance everythng out. I said before that I'd realised that use of weight would weaken the structure of the arch, but I now realise that's not necessarily true. While weight alone would lead to collapse, use of added weight (eg. in the Neuhaus idea of pushing on top) would be likely to increase finger activity. If this activity occurs, the weight does actually strengthen the overall integrity of the arch- in combination with the opposing force that stems from the keys pushing back in response to the fingers, provided that the fingers are gripping. I noticed the other day while practising on my keyboard, that the light action makes it HARDER to form a stable position. Because the return force is small, I feel that my fingers need to work MORE (not less, as I'd have thought) when the key is at the keybed, if I am to avoid unwanted slack. This surprised me at first, but I can see now how it adds up, when you consider the balance of forces. With a key that pushes back less, you need to instigate a greater return force from it by pressing into it more. I'm understanding now why the Neuhaus idea works, in this sense. I'd been puzzled before about why adding weight should help- when the weight is obviously going to be removed. Many people explain this as being an exercise that encourages the release armweight while playing. This clearly makes no rational sense whatsoever. If that were the case, as soon as you stop pressing, the weight is gone so it ought to be harder, not easier. Obviously, it must really be about the fact that it encourages the proper finger activity- hence the benefits can be retained when nobody presses. The more active these muscles become, the more they can act sufficiently into the keys, for the return force to stabilise everything. However, what if that level of weight had never been there in the first place? Could the same quality of finger activation have been aquired? I'm currently doing a lot of slow practise of scales, while resting a little added weight on top from my other hand. The more I practise with this added workload, the more lightness I seem to be able to find when I take it away. If I did this with direct muscular activity (by increasing the workload on the fingers from the upper arm), surely it could never be as healthy as getting them to stand up against a little added gravity is? Currently, while I'm becoming more and more open to the idea that weight can and should be witheld to some extent, I'm still thinking that the more weight a student generally begins with, the more they will develop the fingers in opposition to that force (provided they also work on the hand itself, of course) and permit the muscles to strengthen to the point where they can think of witholding it. I still find that I see far more students who look they hold back too much from the keyboard, than those who look to relax their upper arms to an excess. Even those with excessively lazy drooping wrists almost always do so with held shoulders, rather than with a sense of real armweight behind a finger.Other than probably having done so myself for a time, I don't think I've yet seen a student where it seemed that they were at risk of overburdening the workload in the hand, by releasing too much of an arm's weight behind it. Surely feeling the activity gravity is a vital aspect in enabling the development of those muscles that will later permit you to think about witholding it? I'm never going to teach in terms of just flopping, but surely it must be easier to activate the hand when you feel the force of gravity, to give the muscles something to act against? Utilisation of arm-weight can provide that with no danger of poorly controlled pressing. I understand what you mean about awareness (I think I'd been starting to come across a similar kind of thing with regard to a 'floating' wrist, in terms of how it that neither collapses under gravity nor locks up) but I think this goes beyond awareness, where at least some proportion of the gravitational force plays a very active role. I'm still thinking very much about an interaction between muscular activity and gravitational forces, with various possible combinations. Surely those who feel that gravity doesn't play some active role in how they produce sound are working under sensation rather than reality, every bit as much as anyone who feels that gravity does all the work, without muscular activity? Have you tried pushing a fingertip against a tabletop while physically holding the arm still (using the other arm) so as to ensure that the role of gravity is almost literally zero? I can get a reasonable amount of pressure that way now, but it's vastly short of what happens as soon as I let go and add a component from the force of gravity (which I stress is in addition to the fingergrip's grip- not instead of it). I have no doubt that some people could get more pressure in the fingertip than I can. However, even they will certainly add further pressure and even more sense of contact. No matter how strong the muscular activation, gravity will always add substantially more pressure to that flat tip. Surely this must be a major component in that big Horowitz cantabile? I don't see how anyone could achieve the best results without gravity playing a role. I think the thing that I'd stress most of all is that, from the point of view of physics, the gravitational force that acts upon the arm must either be cancelled out in it's entirety by a constant muscular activity, or it must play at least role. If it's not being restricted by muscular opposition, it's involved in producing the resultant force that reaches the keys. I'm coming around to the idea of witholding a large proportion of this force more and more. I certainly agree that muscular activity is very important and indeed the most important to focus on. However, I'm absolutely convinced that the best flat-fingered cantabile sound comes when you feel both an active finger and a good deal of real arm-weight adding pressure. I'm still certain that arm-weight often provides an entirely genuine and explicable physical component of a force- especially in this particular case. PS. Sorry, this is already very long, but something also occured to me about forming the arch under the table. Surely the triceps work substantially harder in this, even if the hand itself feels the same? Take away the role of gravity and is going to have to compensate in that balance of forces. The force of gravity is effectively doubled in impact, as not only does can it no longer add anything, but it now actively sends a force in the opposite direction. There is definitely a very real muscular activation in both cases- but surely it must be the case that the muscles have more to do when it happens upside down? I can't see how the forces could otherwise balance, according to the physics involved. Put it back the right way, and unless the force of gravity is entirely cancelled out by locking certain muscles solid, it is definitely going to provide a notable component of the resultant whole. Maybe the balancing differences occur primarily in the upper arm, rather than the hand itself, but there have to be major differences.

Nice development! As a teacher you should be able to recognize at what point your student is, go through your whole repertoire of possible interventions - strategies that you have gone through yourself either recently or long ago - and select the one appropriate to the moment. That's why I teach arm weight to one student and go completely the opposite way with another. This can indeed be true and often is - but don't assume it will happen automatically. Consciously verify that the other, weakening affect isn't in there somewhere. An ideal piano action (to my mind) has a minimum down weight and touch weight but a maximum upweight. This means that although it is easy to press the key down, it still possesses a strong desire to 'bounce back up' again. My Landowska Steinway has this in spades and so does the Horowitz Steinway. The more traditional European action setting offers more resistance (that Rubinstein liked) but to me it is sluggish and unresponsive. I'm sorry but I still feel my 'playing the underside of the table' image is the reference point here. To my mind the influence of gravity is incidental... Could be... Could be but again each case is individual. The primary action in piano playing is . Gravity is there, absolutely. And if you see someone 'holding back', by all means get them to feel it more. But these same people would 'hold back' in the same way if they were playing the underside of the table. How would you get them to 'hold back' less then? You would get them to activate more, to move the key more vigorously. I just tried doing a trill on the table top alternately holding my arm in suspension with my free hand and letting it go. There was no change in the quality of my trill... Here we come to the crux of the matter. Moshe Feldenkrais described his method as "Making peace with gravity." It may be useful to clarify just what that means. The human skeleton is designed to stand tall in the field of gravity. Well-organized skeletal verticality does not strain upwards against gravity, it simply uses the gravitational field as a force against which to sense and activate its own innate design. If I allow gravity to make me slump down I've not made peace with it. ; the anti-gravity function maintains itself outside my awareness. This must be so for my system to work optimally. YES! The triceps works way more, and this is a good thing! You're actually showing the triceps how it could/should be working at the keyboard - this stimulation and activation is going to get things working better even when you're not fighting against 'double gravity.' Thanks yet again for another very thought-provoking post! And a very happy, pianistically potent new year to you and all our forum members! AFF

This is a very interesting and informative discussion. Let me chime in on the touch and bounce back of the keys (downweight & upweight). What you say Alan is very true. The piano's action is set to a certain "touch." When a key is played it controls the throw of the hammer, not the return of the key to its rest position. That is set when the piano is made or built to a certain specification. When working with the feel of a keyboard, we learn how hard it is to set the key into motion (it's touchweight--the force necessary to get the key to overcome its inertia of being still) which is different from how much weight it takes to make the key go down; and its upweight. If there is too much mass in the key to balance the mass of the hammer, the piano will be sluggish. Almost all pianos come from the factory without being set properly, unless special ordered. It just is not economical for them to take the time to do the extra work to "touchweight" the instrument. Although some companies are much better at this than others, e.g. the Hamburg Steinway. For a proper touchweight, we want the piano to have sufficient resistance to build finger strength at the keyboard, but reduce its perceived resistance to depressing it to be as light as possible, but still with some friction so you can feel what's happening. As I work to rebuild my heavy at speed European piano (Estonia), I'm shooting for just what you describe. The up "bounce" is set to get the key back into position as quickly as possible, without throwing the fingers off the key. --Steinway likes anything at 25g or more (with no upward ceiling), as long as it is even. I think an action with a "light touch" is more difficult to control (it really takes knowing what the piano is doing to make a ppp & ff), but it is a far more responsive and an easier instrument to play and make music upon. Just as Horowitz' piano. bob t