Basic Finger Movements

I've just completed a new post on finger activities: I don't think any of it will exactly cause any raised-eyebrows (at least not for anyone who's familiar with Alan's writings) but it contains a simple approach to the extension action that I've been finding so essential and illustrates the fallacy of literal "fixation"- with a demonstration of how much more useful specific finger movements are against reaction forces.

While you describe the mechanical advantages of the "threading-a-needle" movement very well, I'd like to point out for other board readers that there is an excellent description of the Paul

While you describe the mechanical advantages of the "threading-a-needle" movement very well, I'd like to point out for other board readers that there is an excellent description of the Paul While I agree with the value of the extension action, obviously, I'd have to say that I'm a little skeptical about the idea that curling forces the co contractions of other fingers. I only notice significant sympathetic movements between 3 and 4. I have a feeling that the keys can cancel them out, as described in the post- although maybe at high speeds it becomes more of an issue? Personally, I think it's the sheer indirectness of movement that is the big problem with active curling. It forces other muscles to fight to maintain stability- when the movement would have the fingers slipping all over the keys. I'm not so sure that other fingers are forced to struggle, but a finger that is retracting as it plays may be forced into co contractions, in order to keep stability. I think the arm, too, is easily forced to work hard against the reactions and cannot easily settle when the finger is sliding back.

It's good that you are skeptical. I'll give you an example exercise that may take that feeling of doubt away... With your extension action, one can execute a trill with ANY adjacent finger combination in thin air without non-participating adjacent fingers also moving, but if you try to do the same with Roy Holmes' scratch movement in thin air, for example, it is virtually impossible to execute such trills without adjacent fingers also moving. That's because of the distal movement (flexion) involved that spoils everything; the so-called curling forces that cause co-contraction in other fingers. This becomes all too obvious in the "difficult" trill between 4-5. Isn't this a possible key to the development of finger indepence pianists strive for? Paul

It's good that you are skeptical. I'll give you an example exercise that may take that feeling of doubt away... With your extension action, one can execute a trill with ANY adjacent finger combination in thin air without non-participating adjacent fingers also moving, but if you try to do the same with Roy Holmes' scratch movement in thin air, for example, it is virtually impossible to execute such trills without adjacent fingers also moving. That's because of the distal movement (flexion) involved that spoils everything; the so-called curling forces that cause co-contraction in other fingers. This becomes all too obvious in the "difficult" trill between 4-5. Isn't this a possible key to the development of finger indepence pianists strive for? Paul To be honest, I don't personally notice a difference- either in the air or at a piano. My other fingers wiggle slightly with both styles of trill in the air and at a piano the resistance of the keys seems to be enough to keep them still for both styles of action. Perhaps it's possible to develop greater independence than I currently have from the extending action, but i'm not altogether convinced that there's necessarily any need to do anything to repress the sympathetic movements in either case. With either style of trill, I don't feel the sympathetic movements of other fingers are big enough to accidentally overcome the resistance of any keys. It could be that I'm repressing them without realising, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the keys absorb them, in both styles of movement.

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough right away, but this experiment was not meant to be about overcoming the resistance of any keys, not even accidentally. It's about moving the fingers individually without encountering undue minor tension/co-contraction that could build up gradually if our workload becomes too great for comfort (concert schedules, competitions etc.). Also, a "trill" may sound fast, but the slower you do it in this experiment, the more you will notice the difference in quality of movement. I'm becoming more and more convinced that conscious grasping should be limited to Alan's "whole-finger" grasping only, leaving the distals out of the equation. P.S.: It is never a good idea to drive away in your car with the handbrakes on, even if the car engine seems to overcome the friction easily. Paul

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough right away, but this experiment was not meant to be about overcoming the resistance of any keys, not even accidentally. It's about moving the fingers individually without encountering undue minor tension/co-contraction that could build up gradually if our workload becomes too great for comfort (concert schedules, competitions etc.). Also, a "trill" may sound fast, but the slower you do it in this experiment, the more you will notice the difference in quality of movement. I'm becoming more and more convinced that conscious grasping should be limited to Alan's "whole-finger" grasping only, leaving the distals out of the equation. P.S.: It is never a good idea to drive away in your car with the handbrakes on, even if the car engine seems to overcome the friction easily. Paul I think i'm with you now. I don't notice a significant difference at speed, but the extending action does seem a little more independent in very slow movement. I think you misunderstand my point regarding at the keys though. His argument seems to be that the finger would move, therefore a co contraction must have stopped it. But if contact with an un depressed key is enough to stop it, the assumed co contraction is not actually required. Unless i'm missing something, it doesn't prove that co contractions will become involved, any more than they are needed for the slight sympathetic movements when I extend.

Hmmm... Strange and at the same time interesting, but I did not infer this argument from the text (maybe because I'm not a native speaker of English). What I read from the article is (in very simple terms): 1) Curling a fingertip makes other non-participating fingers also move because that's how nature works. 2) The learner sees this and wants to prevent this because it doesn't exactly look like "finger indepence". He interferes, trying to stop these involuntary movements from occurring and thus develops more and more tension in the playing apparatus. 3) The best way to prevent all of the above from happening in the first place is not to curl the fingertips anymore, but instead use the "extension" coordination you describe in your articles. Problem solved, no further vain attempts by the learner to interfere, and no further tension. If I missed something essential, please let me know. Paul

Hmmm... Strange and at the same time interesting, but I did not infer this argument from the text (maybe because I'm not a native speaker of English). What I read from the article is (in very simple terms): 1) Curling a fingertip makes other non-participating fingers also move because that's how nature works. 2) The learner sees this and wants to prevent this because it doesn't exactly look like "finger indepence". He interferes, trying to stop these involuntary movements from occurring and thus develops more and more tension in the playing apparatus. 3) The best way to prevent all of the above from happening in the first place is not to curl the fingertips anymore, but instead use the "extension" coordination you describe in your articles. Problem solved, no further vain attempts by the learner to interfere, and no further tension. If I missed something essential, please let me know. Paul I'm not entirely convinced that it's so different between the two movements. Either I'm doing severe co contractions without realising, or the sympathetic movements are relatively slight in the air and minor enough to be completely absorbed by contact with the surface of the keys. With either style of movement I experience some sympathetic movement in the air but I don't believe it's significant enough to actually have any effect, when the surfaces of the keys are there to absorb it. It takes the equivalent force to 50g of mass to start the key moving. I don't think any of the sympathetic movements require cocontractions to be entirely cancelled out. Contact with the piano stabilises it, because it's too gentle to overcome the resistance of a key. Of course, a pianist may still choose to fight against them, but I don't think it's a given that they might have to.

Strictly speaking, they don't have to, but often, they just do; at least most of the ones that come to me to cure them... Paul