Arm Weight & Piano Technique - What About FUNCTION?

Thank you Eric for expressing something clearly that I have been trying to get straight in my own mind... Yes I would also extend this advice to arhidesign.... AFF But given that it's the addition of weight to act against that changes the meaningless action in example 1 to the meaningful one into example 2, and given that it is regulation of the extent to which the weight of the arm is witheld or released that determines how meaningful the finger stand can be- how can it be better to ignore it? If the arm's mass is witheld too much, there is nothing for a finger to act against. It can literally slide off a key, as arhi describes. If it's excessively released, there can be too much force for an inexperienced finger to cope with. So why forget about this factor and simply hope that it sorts itself out? Why not explore how to find that necessary mid-point, so the hand can get on with doing the actions as you describe them, in a productive but unburdened way? I am in full agreement with every other aspect, but I simply cannot see either how or why this should be pushed to one side. It can't be eliminated as a factor (except where the hand acts solely in thin air), it can only be ignored. It's quite literally what determines the productivity of the standing action- not a separable factor.

It's wonderful for me to read this, and it leads me to my next question: if you are doing exactly what I describe, why do I you are doing something else? Two possible answers: 1) I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough (a very real possibility) or 2) the way you describe it leads me to think you are doing something else. This is an important point, because my feeling has been that, for all your good intentions, something about your language has been leading archidesign down the wrong path. Which is why I posted my agreement with Eric above. I would love to get to the bottom of this, it is such a rich discussion and I think it concerns use of language as much as it concerns piano technique. But wouldn't archidesign's increasing the intensity of his "standing up" on key automatically increase the sense of connection? It would indeed, IF he PERCEIVES more the fact that he is standing up IN the field of gravity. HOW would he perceive that more? By SENSING THE WEIGHT OF HIS ARM. When he stands up but doesn't do it in the field of gravity, you get that skating and overly light touch. Andrew, I am laughing my head off as I write this because I think we are getting near to a real solution about all this... AFF

Eric, you have happened upon one of the fundamental questions of the Feldenkrais Method. Practitioners for years have been carrying on discussions about just what Moshe meant when he said "function." The answer to this question is central to our work. The purpose of walking is to transport myself somewhere else. The act of standing upright, moving one of my legs forward so that my center of gravity shifts and my weight is transferred to the forward leg, and then repeating that process as many times as I need to to get where I'm going, is the of walking. Pianistically, we use the function of "pianistic walking" to create a physical legato. The function of running is not only a quicker way of transporting myself from A to B, it is fundamentally different in its nature. When I walk, more than half the time both feet are on the ground, and I always have at least one foot on the ground. When I run, on the other hand, I never have more than one foot on the ground, and much of the time I have no feet on the ground at all. Here's a little chart that shows the fundamental differences between walking and running. Number of feet on the ground:.....2......1......0 Walking.........................................>......> Running.................................................>.....> This would be where we go so far into unstable equilibrium that the legato touch we formerly found so empowering now becomes a hindrance. We replace it for instance with a 'cat-scratch' non-legato that frees us for even greater speed and even richer, more freely-vibrating tone. I've already described this one but it bears repeating here. When I stand up, I straighten my legs to raise my body's center of gravity and come to a fully erect position. Pianistic standing up involves using the effort of the lumbricals (our pianistic 'hip muscles'), superficial flexors (the 'knees') and deep flexors ('ankles') to raise the hand's center of gravity and bring it to an 'upright' position on the keyboard (upright here means with the arch structure potently expressed). This standing takes place in the field of gravity - the sense of the field of gravity being supplied by the perceived weight of the arm. Does this clarify what I mean by function? Thanks Eric for the apposite question! AFF

"But wouldn't archidesign's increasing the intensity of his "standing up" on key automatically increase the sense of connection? It would indeed, IF he PERCEIVES more the fact that he is standing up IN the field of gravity. HOW would he perceive that more? By SENSING THE WEIGHT OF HIS ARM. When he stands up but doesn't do it in the field of gravity, you get that skating and overly light touch. Andrew, I am laughing my head off as I write this because I think we are getting near to a real solution about all this..." Yeah. I think we're very close! I'd just point out that everything is done in the field of gravity. Sometimes I've been a little loose in my own language- talking about more or less gravity. But with gravity a constant, the variable is the force that is exerted by the arm rather than gravity. It's nothing to do with a down movement, but simply the amount of force that is involved. That is dependent on the mass and the level or release (if we ignore pushing for now). I can see how the productivity of the finger can be generated by indirect approaches or kind of working backwards I believe that what troubles you is the tendency people have to think about weight and then end up digging downwards? Would that be fair? I know that I had definitely done this a lot, while thinking of weight in the past and I think this is a common problem. I think that as long as you first make extremely good observations about what the purest release REALLY does (notably in terms of the elbow sliding backwards) and forget the down part, you can get a healthy way to feel it. I can also see ways that involve working backwards (I find the idea of starting by making sure the arm can move easily in response to the finger's pull is very good for this).. The up part of standing is BECAUSE of the down part of what a finger does. So, strangely enough, the up part occurs BECAUSE of a down force still- but thinking of the up produces a more efficient down force. So, I don't say that weight is the only manner of thinking but I believe that it is one of the most useful, if the counterforce is not coming by itself.

"Pianistic standing up involves using the effort of the lumbricals (our pianistic 'hip muscles') to raise the hand's center of gravity and bring it to an 'upright' position on the keyboard (upright here means with the arch structure potently expressed). " I don't dispute this for a literal stand, but what when this is internalised to a stable hand? What stops the knuckle rising if not a counterforce via weight? I believe it is is specifically the free upper arm pulling backwards at the elbow. I believe this is the single most important interaction in piano playing.

We can control the degree of contraction in the lumbrical. To stop the knuckle rising, just reduce the strength of the lumbrical contraction till the knuckle no longer wants to rise. The "counterforce via weight" is the pianistic field of gravity. The weight of the arm is constantly present. The difference between real walking and 'pianistic walking' is that your body is not attached at your head to something larger. All your body weight is always exerting itself downwards. But the 'pianistic body' hangs from the shoulder, and we do have the option of reducing the degree to which the arm's mass expresses itself. When I 'run pianistically' I do not push off each finger so vigorously that it launches my hand through the air to the next note. No, I reduce the weight of my arm by letting my upper arm drop and introducing a new force vector: lightly pulling the forearm back. I think I do this automatically whereas Andrew likes to think about it... Make sense? AFF

"We can control the degree of contraction in the lumbrical. To stop the knuckle rising, just reduce the strength of the lumbrical contraction till the knuckle no longer wants to rise. " But that reduces the input force too. Where does a bigger sound come from if the lumbrical must reduce the power of contraction? When you a stronger action, the only means of keeping still would be more release of weight. I'm absolutely certain that this could be proven. ANY pull from the finger pulls the arm, so unless that is cancelled by a force the arm arm and knuckle will move. Even the lightest lumbrical action can pull the knuckle upwards, if the arm is in a lightened state. The two have to sensitively matched for stillness to be possible. What I'm realising though is that's it's not a downward release. It's more about the way the upper arm pulls the elbow backwards. when released This is how it can still feel surprisingly light at the finger, rather than burdened by mass. You can still lighten the arm as a whole, while capitalising on this useful backward pull- which gives the finger something to counter. "The difference between real walking and 'pianistic walking' is that your body is not attached at your head to something larger. All your body weight is always exerting itself downwards. But the 'pianistic body' hangs from the shoulder, and we do have the option of reducing the degree to which the arm's mass expresses itself. When I 'run pianistically' I do not push off each finger so vigorously that it launches my hand through the air to the next note. No, I reduce the weight of my arm by letting my upper arm drop and introducing a new force vector: lightly pulling the forearm back. I think I do this automatically whereas Andrew likes to think about it... Make sense?" Basically agreed. Although when the forearm is pulled backward by the release it is ADDING rather than reducing then amount of weight that plays a role in the finger's productivity. The lighter you play, the less the arm is pulled forwards so the less release of weight is need to balance. The stronger you pull, the more the arm is pulled forwards by the finger, so the more the upper arm needs to release to create a backward pull at the elbow. With this forwards/backwards awareness I think it's easy to eliminate the potential negatives of gravity thinking. I see many elements in your exercises that would be likely to aid the means of doing this subconsciously, but I think there is tremendous benefit to a few simple exercises that are aimed at integrating the understanding. I'm preparing 3 or 4 arm exercises based on acquiring awareness of the elements that interact- as a preparation to be done before placing the hand on the keyboard. After these few preliminary elements, I think that your hand exercises and approach to movement is much easier to put into practice, when done exactly as you describe.

"We can control the degree of contraction in the lumbrical. To stop the knuckle rising, just reduce the strength of the lumbrical contraction till the knuckle no longer wants to rise. " But that reduces the input force too. Where does a bigger sound come from if the lumbrical must reduce the power of contraction? I am sorry to be simplistic, but it is really appropriate here: if you want a big sound, don't reduce the lumbrical contraction too much! AFF

"We can control the degree of contraction in the lumbrical. To stop the knuckle rising, just reduce the strength of the lumbrical contraction till the knuckle no longer wants to rise. " But that reduces the input force too. Where does a bigger sound come from if the lumbrical must reduce the power of contraction? I am sorry to be simplistic, but it is really appropriate here: if you want a big sound, don't reduce the lumbrical contraction too much! AFF I think you really misunderstood my point there- you can't reduce it at all! The big sound comes from the interaction of lumbrical activity plus coutnerforce. You can't afford to reduce either or you lose input power. They are intertwined as one entity. The point I'm making is that whatever degree of pull is involved must be balanced elsewhere, or excess movement is absolutely guaranteed. Even if you tone it down (and hence lose power), you only stay still if forces are balanced. ANY pull from the lumbrical needs to be matched up against gravity's backward action upon the elbow (via release at the shoulder). Only when backward and forward forces are in balance, are you left with the pure force that moves the key and nothing else. I think this comes across more easily in diagrams than words. I'll be putting some stuff up fairly soon, I hope.

Thank's Alan for the detailed explanation. I'm very tempted to visit a Feldenkrais group especially now beeing 50+, the gym is not so fantastic any more. "What stops the knuckle rising if not a counterforce via weight? I believe it is is specifically the free upper arm pulling backwards at the elbow. I believe this is the single most important interaction in piano playing." Part of the problem is maybe that the standing up occurs on different dynamic levels and as you describe in your blog the counterweight "travels" like with the gym-device. What I mean is that when you "stand up" slowly maybe the weight of the hand is a sufficient "counterforce" but doing it very fast I suggest it's more an effort from the muscles in your upper arm that is counterbalancing. At least I clearly feel'em. Or the movement of the elbow slightly out to "add morecounter- weight" to the hand. If you put eg your left hand on your right hand and press hard while doing a very sudden strong "standup" with your right and then do the same thing without the left hand I beleive you feel how much weight you would really need. Muscular effort does maybe compensate for the LACK of weight? It's just that I've seen too many tiny girls banging the shit out of the piano...