5th finger droop and skeletality/knuckle collapse

Not to derail the topic under discussion, but it's not only that, . I may be mistaken but IMHO, guys like Rubinstein, Richter etc. worked like maniacs on their arches (especially the "weak" side), the number one requirement for the arm weight school of playing to be effective. They DON'T collapse in the knuckle bridge EVER, because any kind of collapse would immediately put strain on the wrist. They don't even brace, fix, or prepare anything anymore while playing to prevent collapse because that would hamper virtuosity. Their arches are there to stay regardless of the circumstances, even when they walk down the street. Just have a look, for example, at what relatively "young" Richter (at the height of his career) does while (at 1:18): he stands on his arched fingers (watch that pinkie!) and moves his body up to move the stool back, away from the piano. No collapse there. That is not simply perfect alignment or direction of movement into the key to prevent collapse; it's well-trained and "always-present" resistance against ANY kind of work load upon the arches. It is litterally what Neuhaus says in his book on piano playing: Ideally, the concert pianist should be able to do a handstand on his fingers without having the hand structure collapse on him. It's Alan's "standing" and "Tai'Chi walking" taken to the extreme. Paul

Thank you both, Paul and Eric, AND please remember, what generates the ideal shape or the ideal arch strength? MOVEMENT! It all comes from a robust internal energy. The finger has to have extremely well-established in its neurology the instinct to to create that tone! AFF

to create that tone! AFF I agree entirely with this, but what I discovered here is something additional to that. If the finger starts from the wrong setup, desire to move in itself is not enough. Some of that very movement energy can go into sending the knuckle following down. This is truly ruinous, if it occurs. It both spoils the individual note and destabilises the arm- causing compensatory tensions. The setup pressure is very subtle- so much so that it doesn't move the key even a mm. But when I miss it, my intent to move is all to no avail- because part of that movement actively contributes to collapse. You can see a lot of the difference in the chords of the rhapsody. Sometimes the 5th works okay, but at other times its trying to point up with a knuckle droop. When that happens, no amount of desire to move compensates for the flawed starter position- because it's simply too late. Also, I don't think rubinstein's hand size is an issue. My hand works best when my 5th truly stands up. Even to go flatter, I need to practise going near vertical, in order to avoid slipping into that habitual knuckle inversion for the 5th. The amount of difference that Beauchamp's tapping makes (I only started this long after making that video) has been phenomenal. I don't wish to dismiss Gould's version, but I only learn freedom and relaxation from that and can get it away from the keys. Beauchamp's version is educating in the difference between a finger that is set with no hope in hell of performing a good movement and a finger that is set just right (with tiny, subtle action against the resistance of the key) to transmit the maximum possible percentage of energy input into a productive output to the key. Getting the starter actions just right is the key to what Paul describes, for me. With the 5th, it's educating the difference between the starter point where moving the finger necessarily WILL cause collapse (unless there is significant fixation) and the point where moving the finger simply CANNOT cause collapse. The effort level involved in the latter is virtually nil- it's just a very small but specifically applied action that serves an essential purpose. Also, I slightly disagree with Paul's idea about the arch. I think Richter had great strength but I think it was about response to circumstances. The action behind an arch in midair is very different to an arch that rests even lightly on a key without moving it, which again is different to an arch against the keybed that Richter pushes the stool back from. There's no single one size fits all arch. Every one adapts the level of activity involved. This ability to adapt is what I'm using Beauchamp's exercise to test- to see whether my 5th is in the interaction that makes it impossible to collapse. This interaction really doesn't take any large muscular force. It's just fitted very specifically to the necessity of the situation. You could have the strength of an acrobat yet fail the test as to whether the knuckle falls down, when tapping the finger- because the real test is in the coordination of how you contact it.

I think we may be talking past each other. I am talking about Alan's didactical exercises that are taken to the extreme by the (Russian) arm weight school with lots of active pushing and pressing down from the arm onto the structure, much like commandos running X miles with very heavy backpacks. The result is that the "dead" arch (knuckle bridge) just doesn't collapse anymore, whatever the workload. As Alan told us in his arm weight lecture, Solomon also had such arches. Even when he walked down the street, his hands would be in the arched position by default. Another point, and that's what Alan was aiming at in his post, is the FINGER ACTIVITY needed to bring the arch to life in order to create sound. P.S.: It would be very useful in the context of this thread to see a video of you doing the Beauchamp version of finger tapping. Paul

I think we may be talking past each other. I am talking about Alan's didactical exercises that are taken to the extreme by the (Russian) arm weight school with lots of active pushing and pressing down from the arm onto the structure, much like commandos running X miles with very heavy backpacks. The result is that the "dead" arch (knuckle bridge) just doesn't collapse anymore, whatever the workload. As Alan told us in his arm weight lecture, Solomon also had such arches. Even when he walked down the street, his hands would be in the arched position by default. Another point, and that's what Alan was aiming at in his post, is the FINGER ACTIVITY needed to bring the arch to life in order to create sound. P.S.: It would be very useful in the context of this thread to see a video of you doing the Beauchamp version of finger tapping. Paul Quite honestly, this is what I was referring to but what I cannot agree with. My own hand forms what looks like a natural strong arch when I walk. That doesn't mean I can't lose it when I play. The reason the arch cannot collapse in masters is not strength or muscle tonus, but active response to what would collapse it. This does not take a big force. I won't claim that Richter never used "spare" effort, but in reference to newtonian physics I'm certain that he ALWAYS did precisely timed responses. No hand can start a rubinstein style arm drop in a single continuous state that cuts through the keys. When reaching them, it must attempt to move even simply to preserve its shape. The instinct for this timed movement is the single biggest issue and no level of strength or muscle tonus can compensate for missing that. In my blog post on finger motions, I have an exercise at the end that just about 'proves' that even huge strength and effort cannot fully resist the negative movement of a collapse. Only intent to direct movement in the opposite direction can eradicate that. There's no possibility of an immovable structure, but merely of one that responds to oncoming force with intent to move in a useful direction. It's like how a judo master must shift his weight when someone tries to push him. He can't just start in an immovable position and hope to stay there without response to being contacted. There's no one size fits all state of balance that can stay through , but simply a fairly consistent external appearance, that hides radical and precisely timed changes beneath the surface, in order to preserve it. The classic mistake is to think of starting in a form and keeping the same active stiffness through key movement. This is simply impossible, if you consider the introduction of forces. It requires responses, not attempt to create immovability against any size of force either by tonus or active tension. Even if done unconsciously, pianist with arches that cannot collapse are applying changes of force in very precise balance with what the piano sends at their hand. This why I agree entirely with Alan on the movement issue. It's intent to move that balances. However, what I discovered here is that intent to move the 5th can equally be what CAUSES the loss of a strong arch on that side. I've exposed a massive tendency to do so with my right hand 5th. When it's not prepped with the tiny response to the feel of the force that the key presses it with before moving it, moving the fingers sends the side of the hand spiralling down into collapse. It's both about deploying finger movement, but first having alsl got into a setup where doing so simply cannot send the knuckle falling down. Only when primed right does moving my 5th encourage an effortless but stable arch, rather than interfere with its quality. I'll try to upload a film soon, showing both the setup where I can bang the hell of out my 5th finger without a trace of knuckle collapse and that where even the slightest tap has the whole side of the hand falling down along with the knuckle. Incidentally, one trick I've found is that I virtually always get into the right setup if I tap the surface of the key two or three times first. From here, the finger tends to find that prepared state with minimal perception of effort at all. However I'm far less inclined to find such a state when trying to play normally from a 5th that strives to start from a passive position. Here, the instincts for that subtle but essential preparation are not yet in place, unless I put conscious focus into it.

@ I am not denying either what you say, or what Alan says: the intention of movement is the alpha and omega of creating sound at the instrument. I am merely saying (in response to Eric's message) that the arches of some famous people not only LOOK strong; they ARE incredible strong (or should I say resistant to any kind of workload) by excessive didactic exercises ("think the keybed is near the floor" as Oleg Maisenberg told me once in a master class). This gives them a head start because they don't have to spend energy on artificially creating and maintaining their "domes", under which their music resonates. What they do to move the key and create sound is pure instinct from the fingertips (something finger tapping seeks to develop), not mind-controlled, and it NEVER ever "breaks" the arch. Two elements that also work: 1) properly "resting" on the key before sounding it; 2) active finger movement in whatever direction is ALWAYS accompanied by arm support, however slight. A good example of all elements combined (including your points) is how Rubinstein starts Beethoven's 4th concerto, traditionally a VERY tricky opening in which I have seen more than one pianist fail: P.S.: Artur is at his best here, so I would encourage you to watch at least the whole first movement, especially the cadenza, starting at 14:28, which is a tour de force of magnificent beauty. Paul

I've had a strong constitution (due to lots of sports in youth) but no teacher except for one (big shot who said I need enormous strength in fingers) encouraged strength.On the contrary I was not supposed even to carry the scores. So therefore the subject has been ambigous. Lately Paul suggested the contrary so I really tried to overdue physical archtraining and I do beleive Paul was right. It might depend on individual dispositions but for me there is no question it's just to go for it 100%. Especially after having watched Alans brilliant lecture on armweight. The problem is maybe the opposite -it's hard to imagine how far you should go. I did hear the same thing in golf. To be able to be as loose as possible you should exercice exactly the same muscles.Which at the time I was afraid to do.

Hope you won't confuse didactic exercises with actual playing/performing though. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself, and I certainly wouldn't want to go against all the wisdom Alan writes about the subject. I guess you know that already, but you don't need physical power to get a key down. Rather well-timed internal KINETIC energy, the kind of energy a Chinese kung fu master breaks bricks with without hurting himself. Fingertapping is an indispensible part of developing that kind of energy. Any structural "weaknesses" encountered during the finger-tapping process, though, should send you back immediately to square 1: serious work on the arch according to the instructions in Alan's books. That is my credo. Amen. Paul

I am not denying either what you say, or what Alan says: the intention of movement is the alpha and omega of creating sound at the instrument. I am merely saying (in response to Eric's message) that the arches of some famous people not only LOOK strong; they ARE incredible strong (or should I say resistant to any kind of workload) by excessive didactic exercises ("think the keybed is near the floor" as Oleg Maisenberg told me once in a master class). This gives them a head start because they don't have to spend energy on artificially creating and maintaining their "domes", under which their music resonates. What they do to move the key and create sound is pure instinct from the fingertips (something finger tapping seeks to develop), not mind-controlled, and it NEVER ever "breaks" the arch. Two elements that also work: 1) properly "resting" on the key before sounding it; 2) active finger movement in whatever direction is ALWAYS accompanied by arm support, however slight. A good example of all elements combined (including your points) is how Rubinstein starts Beethoven's 4th concerto, traditionally a VERY tricky opening in which I have seen more than one pianist fail: P.S.: Artur is at his best here, so I would encourage you to watch at least the whole first movement, especially the cadenza, starting at 14:28, which is a tour de force of magnificent beauty. not Paul I should stress that I don't disagree that such pianists were strong, but I think there is value in differentiating between two scenarios, which I ought to have clarified before. I don't personally believe strength contributes much. I think it's an incidental companion. for me, it's just that people who have never pressed on an arch before never felt the actions that form it. that doesn't mean they also need to be powerful enough to bear massive forces. anyway, at the keybed or against a wall say, you are resting on a static surface that cannot be moved. Here the only real test is of strength to bear whatever force you apply from on top. this is really pretty easy, as you need merely work out at the gym to learn this. However, if I lift my hand above my head and crack it down, there are many issues. start moving my 5th too soon and the knuckle is spiralling down. start moving it too late and it's already doubling back when contacting the key. When people get it right without knowing, it's not strength in the hand so much as timing that they have the instinct for. Yes, these often go together, but you can learn the timing without being hugely strong and you can be very strong yet hopelessly incapable of timing it right. No hand is generically beyond collapse due to strength. if anything, trying to use a lot of strength makes for fixations that actually impede sensitivity to the responses. not only does a strongly braced hand that doesn't respond to the keys cause impact, it will also necessarily suffer a collapse- even if a tiny one. basically, I don't believe in implying that strength is what makes a hand beyond collapse in a pianistic usage- it's only what makes collapse impossible once you're resting against an immovable surface and pressing into it. I agree very much with your two summary points. it's by exploring these subtle interactions that my arch is improving- not by aiming at greater strength. What I've exposed with my 5th is that the problems are not simply about the inherent ability to move it, but whether I prep it in a setup where its existing movement ability will be passed on well. after doing a few taps to judge the setup, the finger has the keys exploding into life in a totally different manner- not because I wasn't trying to move before but because I wasn't setup to transmit energy effectively when doing so. I know alan won't like this description, but I have been missing the preliminary arm weight, due to my wrist bunching up instead of hanging back/resting down low enough. The finger typically doesn't connect with the arm well enough to stand up properly against the resistance of the key, before starting to move it. When it does so, the tap stops throwing the arch into collapse and instead generates nothing but key movement . From there, the faintest preparatory activity has the 5th ready to perform even the most explosive staccato without any further arm pressure or descent.

About strength not really mattering that much: yes and no... We are dealing with the paradox of perception here: you may well perceive yourself as playing virtually effortlessly, and yet if you don't have a really tremendous amount of a certain type of strength, you will not be able to do it. Amen! AFF