A pianist
"I guess it's Newtons third law? in play here. The counterforce equals the initial force. I'm not convinced that a greater mass is so advantageous tiny forearms absorb tiny forces so relatively speaking the more mass you add the more you have to absorb."
Not really true, I don't think. I certainly see where you're coming from. But still think of the force as originating at the finger- from a mostly suspended arm. Remember that even a wrecking ball starts effectively 'weightless'- until you try to push it, when that full mass repels you. We are not talking about the entire arm's mass acting to the full- except in terms of absorption. If the arm fused like a single piece of lead and descended as one unit, it's whole mass would be an issue. This is where you have to stress that utilising the arm's weight is NOT about blindly letting the whole mass descend, however.
Without wishing to accuse Alan of indulging in out and out strawman arguments, I do believe that a lot of his dismay at weight is based on the idea of releasing weight without purpose or goal. I don't believe that should be the goal of truly productive gravity based thinking- or that gravity is to blame if people attribute armweight as being about 100% release 100% of the time. However, those who speak of gravity and the whole arm are usually terribly unclear about the simple practical use of it. "Use the whole arm" is often heard. Eh? For what? In what way? So many people push as a result of wanting to involve the whole arm, or they collapse the whole arm. From what I am talking of, it would used almost solely for keeping the wrist balanced (which in itself affects how much force a finger can apply, compared to if the wrist were repelled like a feather)- by absorbing return forces. If release is not enough, you can start to push as well. That's fine too. But unless you learn functional release first, your pushing is going to be likely to involve needless levels of undue effort. This would also define alignment. Alignment is again a very vague term. Align with regard to WHAT? For ages i scarcely understood a thing. With this understanding, you align with regard to the optimal angles into which return forces can be absored before adding effort (which I strongly supect is actually the same optimal alignment for pushing activity from further back in the arm, so that is not ruled out by this approach either). I think many of these things demand much clearer explanation, as there is overwhelming vagueness in what is actually meant. Alan's exercises are tremendous for the hand- but I must say that I didn't easily understand what he was pointing towards elsewhere in the arm. Frankly, even Sink's heavily gravity-based approach is not faintly clear about it's purposes though- without evening mentioned the failure to acknowledge what a major role her fingers are so clearly playing.
So, I think it's important to remember that functional use of weight is likely to be based on releasing against the force that tries to repel you at the finger. It is simply in proportion with what enables that return force to be absorbed without resort to needless muscular effort or locking. A heavy arm need not mean the whole arm going into the key. Release is propotioned entirely around what is needed. I am not going to claim that my understanding of physics enables me to comprehened a full model of this, of the type that an advanced computer simulation might do. It's more about basic guding principles that can be derived from a general model (which is hopefully not compromised by excessive simplification, but which does not need every individual force to be calculated precisely). However, the situation I speak of would be that in which a heavy arm mostly witholds its mass and only releases downward force to counter those which repel the finger. So the whole arm's mass in not necessarily a problem, when moving from the finger. Think of it hanging from suspension at the shoulder and elbow, but offering a little release of weight that the finger props up, by the time it reaches the keybed. But an arm of more mass will definitely be more adept at absorbing both light return forces and large ones from louder playing. At what point greater mass becomes a hindrance rather an aid, I will not even attempt to speculate. However, there is clear cause for belief that a fairly bulky arm generally makes it easier than a very slender one. The fact that Volodos has control over ppppp that exceeds that of any pianist I have ever heard in a concert hall is not a proof- but it certainly tells me that even a bulky arm need not prevent the most controlled soft playing. Even with a heavy arm, you will still practise witholding your arm's weight all the time, in everyday life. Simply holding your arm out requires it. By only using only tiny release of weight (which does not reduce the absorption of the return force, as in the wrecking ball analogy) you can still move very much from the finger itself, with the arm's mass still available to cushion the return force. I think it may well be true to say that it's notably harder to play softly beyond a certain mass- but who can say at what point? Seemingly not the size of Volodos.
"A well regulated modern grand is in itself a terrible lever. Many stories about huge sound come from the good old days and I beleive that beeing big and strong really matters if you want to fill up a hall with Erards Pleyels and 19 century Bluthners. The action is different and the pressure in the frame is way lower.It matters but you don't need it."
Maybe. But other than Volodos, I have never heard another pianist approach the effortless rounded fortissimo that he can achieve (oh, actually there's one British pianist called Mark Gasser who makes a staggeringly big sound- he's no fatso, but has a rather solid frame and mass to him). Okay, it's no proof, but when you hear a pianist seemingly transcend an instrument to such a level, you realise how inadequate most pros are. I'm not saying that no slender pianist can play that loudly and with such rounded tone, but I do not subcribe to the idea that someone with a meagre build will have an equally easy time making the sounds that Volodos can. I don't believe that Volodos only makes it look easy- I think he had a head start. I think slender pianists have a lot more to overcome- which is why they so often stick to small dynamic ranges or sound forced in upper dynamics. The best slender players can transcend their limitations to a large degree, but I'd like to see somebody with the frame of a child who can produce the thunderous but rounded fortissimo of Volodos.
"As for Lister-Sink I agree that maybe the terminology is not totally scientifique but there is a limit to what extent you should go in beeing scientifique. Of course a free fall is not scientifically speaking a free fall it's more the physics of a pendelum so there are a multitude of forces in play centripetal force beeing one of them."
I wouldn't really say a pendulum either. Energy dissipates gradually in a pendulum swing- it doesn't stop abruptly like her wrist does. I really see a huge effort in that drop and a violent deceleration. Aside from the free fall issue, I don't feel that was claimed in the above post to be the missing link of 'impetus' etc. sounded remotely scientific. Sorry to be blunt, but it sounded like an excuse to cover a transparent hole by restorting to vague jargon- rather than a remotely rational explanation for what is so evidently missing in the mechanics. I don't want to dismiss the method outright, as there are clearly some very positive ideas. But I'm having a really hard time with the mechnaical holes and the level of ambiguity in certain explanations.
"There is no real conflict between methods as a pianist I guess you just have to try out everything and find what works for you.The hand is very different and few teachers are able to admit that their "method" might be disastrous for a specific hand.Alans method was just what I needed right now but I'm sure many pianists could do with a little Lister-Sink as well."
Maybe. But why not start by understanding the foundations from the basic interaction of forces first? I feel as if it's like a bag in which there were meant to be an equal number of green balls and blue balls. However, there are 7 green and 3 blue say. I feel as if Alan is saying there are not enough blue balls and Sink is saying there are too many green balls. It's almost purely what side you approach it from. But how do you know when to stop adding/subtracting- unless you look at what you are intending to match up with? And wouldn't it be even better to understand that you could achieve balance by either subtracting from one OR adding to the other? Then you have truly understood that single balance from both sides, not merely from one. I think that many methods are excessively geared towards one half- leaving you to figure what makes for a balanced product for yourself. I have learned a phenomenal amount from Alan about activities for the hand, but I still feel as if I didn't really know what I was looking for, until I understood what balances against what. Alan mentions the muscle side, whereas Sink mentions the release side. A few weeks ago, my hand was bobbing all over the place in the Waldstein. No amount of work on my hand could change that, until I went back to judging the release of weight- but that only worked because I sought to match it to what my hand was doing, rather than viewing it as an alternative. If you are too much to one side, you may possible stumble across the balance by approaching the other alone. But until you understand how the two INTERACT and start to perceive from a dual perspective, unless your subconsciously figure out how to balance the two components, you are never quite going to get things consistent. Whether Alan has more of what's needed in muscle action, or whether Sink's (frankly rather vaguer ideas) about gravity are closer to what you need, you really need to find the interaction- or you may just end up skipping the goal and ending up doing it wrong on the other side. I think with this as a starting point, it's possible to take views from either side and benefit tremendously from them (especially those as detailed and productive as Alan's). However, without understanding this interaction, taking views from one side will quite likely push you further away and taking those from the other will still not necessarily allow you to achieve that magical balance. I really feel that if this mechnical premise were the very first premise for how to achieve technique, both finger action oriented ideas and gravity oriented ones could go hand in hand much more easily. No contradiction need ever arise- even if you used both approaches simulataneously.
"Looking forward to see your findings a little bit more "for Dummies"."
Yeah, point taken! Bear in mind that I can explain what a kid needs to try to feel, within a few simple sentences coupled by demonstrations of physical actions (although showing them how to achieve these physical actions will obviously take rather longer). The tricky thing howvever is that, if I do so here, you do not necessarily have any cause to believe me, unless I go into more mechanical detail to justify it (which is rather hard to put simply, unless you are familiar with mechanics). Also, if I have made any errors in my understanding of the physics, I'd like them to be out there for anyone to pick me up on. Anyway, sorry if this sounds rather heavy going! I recently bought a website and I'll probably write one or two essays on there at some point in the future, in which I'll seek to give the most user friendly explanations possible (but hopefully without compromising the explanation of the physical principles that lead to the idea).