Different Ways Of Organizing Force

I've been doing some experimenting on my own. Perhaps my question here is covered or addressed by the Craft of Piano book as a whole (I've only read the first few chapters). What I notice is that their are a lot of ways of organizing a push on a key, and it seems like our goal is to integrate them so that the push comes from multiple mechanisms simultaneously (or perhaps alternatively, the most appropriate mechanism for the situation). - Flexing a finger while keeping the forearm still provides a push - So does connecting the weight of the forearm through a stable finger (i.e. allowing the forearm to drop) - So does connecting the weight of the hand through a stable finger (or allowing the hand to drop) - *extending* a finger with a subtle push forward of the forearm provides a push, too - Movement can be coordinated as - finger, hand, and forearm all drop simultaneously - finger drops while hand and forearm lifts - there can be a forward push of the forearm as the fingertip drops, and a sense that the force is curved in direction through the curved finger (like one of those tools that can curve around a screwdriver bit and change the direction of the force) Sometimes it feels to me like what I'm learning to do is somehow synthesize all these together. So in this idea, no one of them is *the* right way of coordinating. But I can practice each one separately and then play faster and more spontaneously and notice how it has integrated itself into my general technique. Mike

Oh another two variations are - include some ballistic action-- i.e. let things accelerate with gravity to generate motion - no ballistic action -- finger starts lightly resting on the key (so no slapping), all movement is controlled all the way through In this case, I suspect that in ordinary playing, perhaps it's NOT about integrating these, but rather "no ballistic action" is preferred. Otherwise it implies a kind of slapping of the key which is probably desired only in less usual situations-- and non-ballistic implies control throughout -- but I'd be interested what Alan and other experienced teachers say Although maybe there CAN be an integration, because any downward movement involves both muscular and gravitation forces. So playing purely ballistically would not be the goal (??) but practicing ballistic playing could lead to a better sense of how to coordinate gravity with muscles. Mike

Another aspect of organizing movement is that the forearms can rotate (a la Taubman). As with everything, this doesn't mean we have to make rotation primary or say that a clear rotation is part of all movement, but it certainly can change our conception of a movement to integrate rotation into it.

- So does connecting the weight of the forearm through a stable finger (i.e. allowing the forearm to drop) - So does connecting the weight of the hand through a stable finger (or allowing the hand to drop) While these are possible, I think that what the greatest players do is almost always very different from these and closer to the ones that involve movement in the hand- 99% of the time. In some cases, it might be scarcely enough to stop the hand deforming upon landing. However, I think there's almost always some level of active acceleration from with the hand itself rather than mere stability. I tried the following explanation with a young student the other day, who was bracing his hand and pushing very hard with his arm- yet struggling to get much sound out (due to all the energy getting lost into the collapse of his hand). It proved to be extremely effective very quickly. Think of it this way- imagine if you were standing still and someone had their hand out against you. At some point, you know they are going to push you. Imagine trying to remain "stable" and still when they push. While you could probably avoid falling over, but you'd probably have to work a lot of muscles pretty seriously hard in anticipation. And you'd still be very likely to get pushed back to at least some degree- even if not necessarily knocked over. Nothing is flawlessly rigid. Even skyscrapers sway in the wind. Now imagine if you try to start completely relaxed. You wait until you feel them pushing you and then try to respond only after. This would be almost impossible to judge. If they're already pushing you, it would be very hard to respond in time not to be unbalanced- unless you were tensing up in anticipation like in the first instance. Now, imagine that you know exactly when they are going to push. Instead of trying to remain stable and still, you push towards them in the instant before they will start to push you. It's scarcely different to the previous one, other than a fraction of a second- but you are moving first, not merely responding after they are already pushing you. This would involve the fewest anticipatory efforts and the least effort when they start pushing, but they'd have a very hard time moving you back. If you're moving enough, they could not move you back even a trace- unlike when you simply brace yourself. Ironically, if the goal is static stability you are more easily knocked back than when the goal is simply to move. I think this last one is the way to think of piano playing- even when dropping the hand from a great height. If the hand is already moving positively (in a motion that starts in the split seconds before you contact the key) the piano cannot push back at you in a way that collapses your hand. There's no fixation and you can start with a relatively relaxed state. Rather than try to brace against a force that will inevitably move you to at least some degree anyway, you make sure you're actively moving into the piano in the first place. At the very least, you can provide enough movement to cancel out how the piano pushes back at your hand. And if you do more still, you get all the more acceleration. I think it's really odd that the prevalent belief is that it's more relaxed to try to keep a firm hand for things like octaves. How could bracing something in a bid to keep still ever be less effort than simply moving in the opposite direction of an oncoming force? I feel quite certain that trying to remain stable against an opposing force will virtually always require more physical effort than simply moving into it. I'm convinced that virtually everyone who preaches the braced hand and flourishes actually times the instant of positive hand action into the key. They focus on the result, but fail to convey the actual means of doing it. For the most part, I'd actually put movement that appear that way in exactly the same category as the ones where hand and arm move- as it still comes from intention to move the hand.

I think I get what you are saying. I think what I said still applies, in this sense-- It's about how to practice so you arrive at efficient "dynamic stabilization" (to coin a term for what you described). First you have to understand how to do slow, mindful practice in a productive way, a way that leads to less effort and a more natural involvement of the unconscious nervous system. And also leads to an integration of options in a spontaneous way. Feldenkrais ATM points to one way of doing this. Then, you do slow, mindful practice in which you play with different ways of organizing the push. You describe pushing back-- I think there is always going to be some stabilization by working of agonists and antagonists simultaneously. The idea from Feldenkrais is that the unconscious nervous system is pretty good at figuring out precisely what needs to be done for stabilization---all by itself, if you get out of the way. If you work mindfully in a good way, I think there is a pretty good chance that you will spontaneously and unconsciously synthesize these movement options into an efficient overall movement.

"You describe pushing back-- I think there is always going to be some stabilization by working of agonists and antagonists simultaneously. The idea from Feldenkrais is that the unconscious nervous system is pretty good at figuring out precisely what needs to be done for stabilization---all by itself, if you get out of the way." If you work mindfully in a good way, I think there is a pretty good chance that you will spontaneously and unconsciously synthesize these movement options into an efficient overall movement." I 'm sure it's possible to improve stabilisation and find more efficient ways of doing it. However, what I think is important is that if something's not moving in the productive direction, there is always a degree of lossage. This is why you see some people bracing so hard and working the upper arm so hard- yet still achieving little sound. Simply by moving in the productive direction, you can effectively reduce the possibility for give to zero- with considerably less effort. I feel quite sure that to attempt to keep something still in the face of an oncoming force is about the least efficient movement possible. However, if you think of it as trying to move in the opposite direction to where the wasteful give could arise, you can end up with stabilisation almost like a kind of incidental by-product. When it come from two movements cancelling each other, I think it's guaranteed to be more efficient than when it comes from intent to brace against resistance. Not only that, but if you add more action in the hand still, rather than merely be trying to reduce the amount of wasted energy, you are directly introducing acceleration. Why limit yourself to merely reducing losses, when you can use natural movement to get something that contributes? Recently, I've been amazed at how much easier it is to get big sounds without driving the upper arm hard. It greatly reduces the amount of energy that gets thrown against the keybed. If I try to push through a pencil into a key, it's hard to get a really big sound without a crash landing- not matter how I press with my arm. The pencil is stiff and gives virtually no lossage. However, because it doesn't provide any acceleration of it's own, there's real sense of being limited, compared to how a finger can manipulate it. A lot of energy flies around, but a high percentage of that just hits the keybed. What that pencil can't do it start slightly bent and lengthen itself. A finger that does that not only eliminate gives, but introduces another way to accelerate right through the resistance.

"Recently, I've been amazed at how much easier it is to get big sounds without driving the upper arm hard. It greatly reduces the amount of energy that gets thrown against the keybed." Me too.Been working on Liszt a lot lately and I think that many of his "difficult" passages are solved by thinking hand/finger-only.Even thinking first-(finger)joint only The use of biceps/triceps is almost a guarantee of quick failure you just don't get through la Campanella. First bars of the Tarantella (Venezia&Napoli) is a good example. It's amazing what a huge crescendo you can get with "fingers-only". everything else I've tried on that passage flying arms etc has given an insecure hazardous result. Still I agree with mike it's too complex to grasp what's happening fully you have to try out different approches all the time.and I think that if you look at good pianists they use whatever means.Horowitz is flat fingers but it's also everything else imaginable.

Still I agree with mike it's too complex to grasp what's happening fully you have to try out different approches all the time.and I think that if you look at good pianists they use whatever means.Horowitz is flat fingers but it's also everything else imaginable. While I'm far from claiming to have come up with an explanation for everything, I've recently discovered that many of the principles that explain these things really aren't as complex as they had seemed. For a long time I never had the first clue about why some things worked and why some things didn't- or what was the different when I was trying to do something that normally worked well but it stopped working. Obviously, I'd never argue against experimentation, but applying the very simple concept of weighing up positive and negative movements (positive contributing to the hammer motion, whereas negative movements cause wastage of input energy) has given a fantastically simple way of organising the experiments and giving me something to look out for and monitor when practising with the mirror. It's given me an easy way of organising what I've learned from Alan, and keeping things on track. Quite simply, if I spot any of the things that count as negative movement (what Alan calls "collapse") I work on replacing it with a positive action in the opposite direction. The root of it really is that simple- to replace any give with an opposite movement to the unwanted one, rather than by intent to brace. I think this simple concept can be applied extremely widely, to improve a whole variety of different movements. Horowitz's flat fingers effectively minimise the possibility of negative movement in the finger- meaning that he can use a lever action without any fear of lossage and with no need for fixation. If the action comes from the knuckle, a finger that is extended can scarcely double back on itself. This means that the finger need not "brace" at all. It can get on with pulling without loss in the two finger joints (which may also act to pull slightly inward themselves- potentially eliminating lossage almost entirely). However, with more curved fingers it's harder to act from the knuckle. The last two joints either need to be braced firmly against the possibility of negative movement- or (more easily) they can simply extend. I'm finding this so much easier than the "firm fingers" mindset. There's a tremendous stability of structure when the key lands at the keybed- but it's not achieved by thinking about the finger being solid. It's simply that if the joint is going one way, there's no way for it to get doubled back in the opposite direction. Obviously it takes practise, but this basic change in the mindset eradicates wasted efforts extremely quickly. I had been very skeptical of finger straightening actions for a long time, although some recent work with Alan was enormously helpful on this type of movement. Arm pressure makes them very tiring, so it's of key importance not to pile the arm on strongly. There's a very useful style of action where the knuckle still "pulls" but the other two finger joints extend (or "push") ever so slightly to prevent collapse. This has been an extremely versatile action to add to the purer lever action.

"I had been very skeptical of finger straightening actions.." I admit that your general "principle" is helpful, working with opposites is an old reliable universal principle. From there you can find out what suites your individual anatomy-solutions will differe. I guess there are at least some sine qua non's and the most important is maybe strong lumbricals.Which Alan stated lately in a thread about "aquiring the goods".Nobody myself included thought about that in that thread-that's pretty discouraging as if one hasn't understood a damn thing.Which might be the case.. Your clip with the Bumblebee does give credit to your research and lessons with Alan congratulations it looked good before but this is a new level! (Tried Cziffra*s version yet?) Do you mean with the above the technique used by Gekic which Alan describes in Honing? That one I think was the revelation of the year for me. Feels like "cheating" but it solved my problem with my second finger my lumbricals are strong but somehow I don't feel to comfortable with the second and that little trick (going forward with your first joint) gives a nice clear sound and above all stability.It's like the hand can "rest" for a nanosecond.I've noticed also since that many fine pianists doesn't use their second finger properly it's even irritating when you start to listen.The thumb is also very neglected. I can see on your clip a much more efficient use of the thumb? I guess a very good example of positive movement.

"I admit that your general "principle" is helpful, working with opposites is an old reliable universal principle. From there you can find out what suites your individual anatomy-solutions will differe." Yeah, obviously there's plenty of other stuff to learn, but I'm finding this excellent as the generic guiding principle that runs behind just about every aspect of my current work. Throwing out the idea of ever trying to brace something against a force has made more difference than I can describe. It's as simple as observing the negative direction of movement caused by excess relaxation, and seeking to cause a small movement the other way- rather than to be still. Stillness is only ever the result of suceeding in balancing out two things with sensitivity. Making it the direct goal leads to all kinds of extraneous efforts. I'd rather miss the balance and allow too much movement one way and then find the solution- rather than clench something in order to make unwanted movement impossible. "Your clip with the Bumblebee does give credit to your research and lessons with Alan congratulations it looked good before but this is a new level! (Tried Cziffra*s version yet?)" That is the Cziffra version- but it's actually a really old film! I got away with it thanks to an extremely springy action and a cheap mobile phone recording that hides all the detail! I must try it again sometime- as I've made a lot of progress with the tendency for the right wrist to go very high. I'm using way more hand action since then. It was still the bracing approach at the time- although smaller Yamaha grands really do allow you to get away with a lot! I'm hoping to put up something new before too long. I want to attempt filming the Horowitz version of the Mephisto- which is verging on becoming comfortable but still requires a lot of tweaking to get it really sorted. "Do you mean with the above the technique used by Gekic which Alan describes in Honing? That one I think was the revelation of the year for me. Feels like "cheating" but it solved my problem with my second finger my lumbricals are strong but somehow I don't feel to comfortable with the second and that little trick (going forward with your first joint) gives a nice clear sound and above all stability.It's like the hand can "rest" for a nanosecond." I'll have to check the book again, but yeah, quite possibly. The level of straightening is sometimes miniscule, but it makes a notable difference. It's basically just the difference between bracing a "firm" finger for stability and introducing slight positive movement to replace that- rather than an extremely noticeable straightening. The result doesn't look extraordinary in any sense. It's not any radical kind of prodding or flicking out. The knuckle itself still pulls and provides the power. On the surface it seemed at odds with the hanging "chain" idea- where the finger is regarded as drawing the arm forwards to balance. Ijn the past I'd imagine that the reaction to the fingers action would pretty much always need to be forward. However, I think it's actually very much in line with the principle still. The shoulder supports a bit more- bu everything can still "hang" taut. I feel the reaction to the push coming back into my hand and try to make sure everything is loose enough to let the reaction go through It's essential that the arm does not fight the reaction. If the wrist is stuck in in a upward position say, feeling the response pushing the arm back actually seems to serve to loosen it up and let it carry on hanging better. It actively encourages my arm to hang back- which only encourages the chain to go into being taut without fixation. It's almost like a reminder to hang back- rather than to press everything forward and over the top. This has almost solved the bunching up my right wrist- which had always been a severe problem! I can now play octaves with a very low wrist, finally- rather than what you see in the old bumblebee. I can't overstate how much more range of movement I have now and how much more naturally the wrist finds alignment.