Arm weight debate on my website

just another note on the 'armweight' subject: Some time ago in a masterclass the teacher asked the student to play . Encouraged by it, I now do this every now-and-then. I found that several positive things happen: Obviously, the perceived 'resistance' of the keys is much reduced, because the whole arm-structure is more directly aligned with the hand/finger during downward movement (not necessarly because of it's mass..). Also, when the wrist and arm get used to it and , my reach is not reduced, I sometimes even feel the opposite. Big chords, for example, seem easier somehow. Is this (playing while standing) a well-known method ? Do some of you do it conciuosly too, what is your opinion ? For me, this also raises the question of the height for sitting. One can often see pianists, especially in 'big-sound' piano concerts, sit considerably high.. so why is it not so much recommended ?

I don't like that idea.You might hurt your tendons while standing and playing. As for pianists that sit high while playing, maybe it's because of better grip. But i personally think you get better grip when you sit lower.

I don't like that idea.You might hurt your tendons while standing and playing. As for pianists that sit high while playing, maybe it's because of better grip. But i personally think you get better grip when you sit lower. If there was a way to raise the piano very high and the person playing standing straight -(and not on chair)- assumes the same way of aligning the hands as of that same person when he sits would that be ok?In that example the tendons would be aligned correctly and would not break at the wrist area as it would assume the general accepted method of the forearm being parralel to the floor or even a little below keyboard area. About lower i think there is some truth that is hidden.I do not think it is ok to sit lower and slouch.I think it would be better it we could be lower to the piano but always sitting right on the chair without lossing the correct spine lordosis or have our knees in the air!. I have the problem that in most upright pianos it is terrible difficult for me to play if i aim to sit lower on the bench.My knees are in the air the spine lordosis is lost i slouch and feel terrible tension.However if i sit higher and my body (knees,arms,feet and back) aligned properly then my hands are in the air and i cant play correctly.In order for me to sit correctly and to be a little lower i have to raise the piano that seems to be the only solution.I plan to do something next time my tuner comes.I will tell hime to place something on the four piano edges so the piano is put upper in the air.That way i can raise my bench and still sit lower to the piano but without slouching or having the metioned problems. Best regards

I don't like that idea.You might hurt your tendons while standing and playing. As for pianists that sit high while playing, maybe it's because of better grip. But i personally think you get better grip when you sit lower. There was a misunderstanding, I think. I was NOT talking about playing for any long time or even practising in that position. (and BTW, if you assume the 'monkey-position', that is knees/hips slightly bent, torso forward, this is not too awkward for tendons at all, keeping a free wrist!) What I was referring to, is a you can gain from this. Especially the arm-hand relationship.

i know that you wasn't talking about constant practicing in that position. But even a short period of time spent playing like that could couse a problems with tendons.Which is not something to play with. Again, i am saying this from my own experience. Have you ever hurt your tendons,or felt any pain or something unusual recently?

I have often had a student stand and play, and have done it myself many times as well. It is very educational, and sparetime player has described very well exactly what one can learn from it. It relates to the Feldenkrais approach in that standing "refreshes" the kinesthetic perception of how we relate to the piano by providing a , a different physical 'picture' of touching the keyboard. Very useful! As for bench height, I am reminded of the experience of a dear and highly esteemed colleague of mine, Natasha Dukan, who left Novi Sad years ago to to a Master's degree at Peabody under Julian Martin. She told me that everybody there sat very high, and nobody had a big sound. She arrived, sat low, and had this gloriously huge sound - everybody was agape. Nobody could figure it out. Natasha is petite, so she doesn't have the problem of a low bench creating the 'high knees' problem. I carry small pieces of plywood wth me on tour to raise any piano I happen to be playing, and John Browning did this as well. I would be fascinated to know how the well over 6-feet tall Rachmaninoff dealt with this, but have never found anything about it in the literature...

, a different physical 'picture' of touching the keyboard. Very useful! As for bench height, I am reminded of the experience of a dear and highly esteemed colleague of mine, Natasha Dukan, who left Novi Sad years ago to to a Master's degree at Peabody under Julian Martin. She told me that everybody there sat very high, and nobody had a big sound. She arrived, sat low, and had this gloriously huge sound - everybody was agape. Nobody could figure it out. Natasha is petite, so she doesn't have the problem of a low bench creating the 'high knees' problem. I carry small pieces of plywood wth me on tour to raise any piano I happen to be playing, and John Browning did this as well. I would be fascinated to know how the well over 6-feet tall Rachmaninoff dealt with this, but have never found anything about it in the literature... I would like to apologize to Prof Alan for continueing the subject of raising the piano up. I want to raise my piano in order to be able to play and sit relative lower to the instrument but without having to slouch as i seem to be tall and i want to eliminate the "high" knees problem that i currently have. So i'll raise the bench up and the piano too.The problem is that if i raise the piano then the pedals -(that are already very high due to the fact that my upright piano has rollers on the 4 edges)- will go way up too high and it will be uncomfortable for my feet to depress them.Does anyone know wether there is any solution for this too?i have not asked my tuner but is it possible for the pedals to be lowered on a upright?Because i think that problem is not present on the grand pianos but only on the uprights. Best regards

That was an interesting discussion. As someone who has had problems with tension, due to what I now realise to be hopeless lack of finger strength and activity, I certainly agree wiht Alan's points. I dispute one thing though. Try the following article: The notion that there is no such thing as 'tone' (merely louder or quieter notes) is absolute nonsense when you consider the true working. I don't understand how these crazy claims were ever put out by 'scientists'. The 'science' behind the idea that you only have a final speed of hammer on string is absurdly simplified. It you consider that the hammer is accelerated over a period of time and that the shaft is NOT perfectly stiff, it is very obvious that you will achieve different results from a steady attack and one which begins slower but then accelerates. Equivalent energy can be applied from a constant speed or from a slow start followed by acceleration. However, will the motion and strike of the hammer be same? Certainly not. I suspect that the more steady the attack, the more active contact before the hammer is knocked away. You could compare it to the difference between hitting a supermarket trolley and pushing it (even if for a very short time). I believe that when the hammer begins slower, it will bend more. When you then accelerate smoothly, the hammer will lag behind and then spring back into shape (allowing an acceleration to occur even after contact with the hammer has ended). I'm speculating by this point, but what matters is that when you consider that a hammer bends and that the hammer can be accelerated in very different ways, there clearly is no truth to the idea that you merely have a final velocity of strike. That is not science of any kind. Any thoughts on this? It seems like a very credible explanation for what he all know is the different between good and bad tone and the fact that some very loud pianists don't actually depress with fast movements. I also believe that the impact of the key hitting the keybed is an issue. A tense arm fails to absord the thud, where a cushioned arm absorbs the impact. I believe this thud is quite audible with a depressed pedal. Andrew

"I suspect that the more steady the attack" Sorry, make that the more 'steady the INITIAL attack'. I believe that good tone is produced by a gentle start followed by a real 'push' just before the hammer is released from contact. Conversely, I believe that a more constant speed (such as that which results from a massive descent into the key, rather than initial contact) results in a more ugly sound at loud dynamics. Andrew

Dear Andrew, Somehow the machine that notifies me of new posts is not working, and I just found this wonderful question of yours. Sorry for the late answer! The editor of Clavier Magazine does not even accept articles that deal with 'piano tone' because he thinks along the line of those 'scientists!' Imagine! But a good scientist is pragmatic, and derives his science from experience. I cannot believe that this editor, or the authors of the article you quote, cannot hear the difference between good and bad tone. The passage I quote in my book from Arnold Schultz, In The Craft of Piano Playing, I quoted Arnold Schultz’s thoughts on physical legato. Let’s review those two paragraphs now, with an important added paragraph that for space reasons didn’t make it into Craft. This third paragraph relates listening in a crucial way to our physical mastery. "The absence of a true legato is by far the most important factor in what is popularly designated as bad piano tone. The objection will be raised, no doubt, that such a statement exaggerates the significance of close tonal connection. I think, however, that the matter stands the other way around, that the greatest single point of neglect and inattention in modern teaching and playing relates to the manner in which tonal units follow upon one another. ‘Too often legato is taught as an academic duty owed to a phrase mark rather than as one of the chief joys which a tonal succession, regardless of the instrument producing it, can give to the human ear. The moment of union between two tones of different pitch constitutes a high aesthetic pleasure, an instinctive craving being satisfied when a given vibrational rate is merged with, or – to put it metaphorically – is born out of, another vibrational rate. The singer who failed to connect his tones would rob his audience of much of the pleasure they might otherwise have in the beauty of his tone. He is taught, as a matter of fact, to take consonants, the necessary interruptions of tone, as swiftly and as unobtrusively as possible. The violinist, too, produces some of his most compelling effects as he causes one tone to melt into another. Similarly, at the piano, legato must be employed not merely to conform to a set of musical rules, but rather to produce a vital and highly attractive sensuous beauty. ‘It is the absence of this beauty which is so often misconstrued as ugly piano tone. The want of satisfaction which the listener experiences between any two tones of a series he assigns to the tones themselves, the error being easily made for two reasons. In the first place, an unsatisfactory legato is almost always encountered in successions so rapid that anything like analytical hearing is impossible. That is to say, no performer has any slight difficulty in binding the tones when the succession is slow – even a child can merge the tones of his first exercises quite successfully . It is in moderate to rapid successions that the technical incompetence resulting in unsatisfactory legato always occurs. In the second place, an unsatisfactory legato is usually a non-legato, not a staccato… The very nature of a non-legato… keeps it from being readily distinguished. Standing in a shadowy neutrality between legato and staccato, it approximates both without being either. When it is used with moderately rapid succession, the ear cannot recognize it for what it is, and, in attempting to define its dissatisfaction with the absence of a real legato, follows the line of least resistance and regards the tone-quality of the entire succession as unpleasant…” When you really do think you are playing legato, try testing your ears and your physical sense in the light of Schultz’s words. There is no end to the improvement possible in our legato, and no end to the deep satisfaction you will feel when you do it well. Notice that really playing legato requires a radically different mental process from the approximate legato most of us employ. When the release of the standing finger’s key is not separated in time from the attack of the following note, one has very little control over that release; it becomes for all intents and purposes what Feldenkrais called ‘parasitic contraction.’ Only by really separating the two actions clearly in time does the brain gain equal control over both of them. This requires a deep change in one’s neurological and physical organization. Try it, you’ll see!" One of the things I love about piano playing in general is this totally mystical fact: it SEEMS that those 'scientists' are right, but ACTUALLY, piano tone CAN be altered by touch, mood, pedal and a hundred other variants. Exploring this world is a never-ending, intriguing process of fascination and constant discovery of new possibilities...