I suppose the simplest way to summarise that is to say that one type of finger action has the result of pulling the arm forwards and up, whereas the other has the result to pushing the arm backwards. Having both in your repertoire seems to make a very big difference in the ability of the arm to stay loose. The latter just wasn't present until I acquired it through what Alan showed me a few months back. Also, it means that you never have to worry about the fingers curling up too far. If you ever end up with an over curled finger, simply employ the straightening action- while still using the pulling action from the knuckle. As long as there's still room to pull from the knuckle, it's actually hard to run out of room for productive movement. Before, when my fingers had overcurled I think I used to become too dependent on the action of the mid-joint.
Exactly! I use that approach particulary (all the time) with my second finger/knuckel it's like the other fingers (except the thumb) kind of finds the way themself with this approach. It's done a miracle with the repetitive notes in the Tarantella.
Is it the version Cziffra's son wrote down?
Exactly! I use that approach particulary (all the time) with my second finger/knuckel it's like the other fingers (except the thumb) kind of finds the way themself with this approach. It's done a miracle with the repetitive notes in the Tarantella.
Is it the version Cziffra's son wrote down?
I actually mixed the two versions a bit, but it's primarily the one Cziffra notated himself- published by Editio Musica Budapest.
I think you aren't quite getting the relevance of my point.
You are talking about different ways to describe stabilization and to describe this "opposing movement/force" idea.
Let's say you conceive of the situation as needing an opposite force. I'm saying there are several ways of organizing that force. I'm saying that it appears to me that in my practice my nervous system is working toward an integration of these ways.
I want to point out that most of the intricate movements we make in a complex tasks like piano are organized unconsciously. When you have a what your unconscious nervous system does.
Stabilizing something does not mean you have to have a conscious image of stiffening. My understanding is that stabilizing is done by unconscious reflexes. How you what you are doing is not a simple one-to-one relationship to all that you are doing unconsciously.
"I think you aren't quite getting the relevance of my point.
I want to point out that most of the intricate movements we make in a complex tasks like piano are organized unconsciously. When you have a what your unconscious nervous system does. "
To an extent- as the fine details are obviously never conscious in every single respect. This is true of any movement. What I find is that the conscious analysis and the intent that is has produced has produced results very much as expected. It's not like where someone imagine being on a chilled out holiday in order to ease tensions. It's a psychological trick that has a direct bearing on the mechanical efficiency- rather than simply a "positve thinking" type trick. The whole idea of this way of thinking is that it does not give unnecessarily excessive specifics. It just gives the broad manner of thinking that creates mechanical efficiency. Initially I have to make it very conscious. This is not an instant trick to employ during rapid octaves! It's taking time to integrate it through very slow and very conscious work- but this is very much influencing the unconscious nervous system in the long run.
"Stabilizing something does not mean you have to have a conscious image of stiffening. My understanding is that stabilizing is done by unconscious reflexes. How you what you are doing is not a simple one-to-one relationship to all that you are doing unconsciously."
In details no- but I do believe the overview is quite a simple relationship. Some people can think merely "stabilise" and their instincts will give the efficient means. They've felt been lucky enough to acquire the means. However, almost everyone who has not happened to feel their way to the right sensations will introduce excess effort. If you know the efficient means to move, thinking "keep still" or "stabilise" etc may trigger the feedback loop- which is probably why so many advanced players do indeed give this description. But the point is that such a feedback loop must ALREADY be in place. If you do not have such a loop the same thought process triggers a whole of "spare" efforts- rather than the specific ones that are actually needed. It's possible to learn these things purely in a sensory way. However, what I believe is that this is VASTLY easier to do if the conscious intentions are consistent. When the rational intentions are in conflict with the sensations that your body needs to find is where serious problems can come in. Nobody has it in them to eliminate the conscious altogether- I think there's even a kind of "subconscious conscious". We have a basic conception of how a movement works that may not be fully rationalised, but which is based heavily on a lot of assumptions that the brain naturally makes (eg. some people assume it's all about the fingers alone, without actually rationalising that as a mindset). I believe that the easiest way to develop the right sensory awareness involves ensuring that the conscious intentions are never in conflict with the nature of efficiency. Then you can get on with developing the kinesthetic sense, without a barrier.
cziffra -- I don't think anything you write, in itself, is wrong. You can conceive of what you are doing any way you like.. I still think it's relevant to say that you can consciously practice your alternatives with the goal of integrating them.
My experience in doing 500 hours of the professional Feldenkrais training is that conscious models can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So you have this conscious image and practicing seems to confirm it-- that's not surprising.
This is not to say anything you are doing is wrong or unfruitful. I'm just answering your assertion that my description of alternative ways of organizing movement "misses the mark" so to speak. I don't think it does.
integrating them.
My experience in doing 500 hours of the professional Feldenkrais training is that conscious models can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So you have this conscious image and practicing seems to confirm it-- that's not surprising.
This is not to say anything you are doing is wrong or unfruitful. I'm just answering your assertion that my description of alternative ways of organizing movement "misses the mark" so to speak. I don't think it does.
I'm not saying your general post misses the mark. It's just the idea of "stabilisation" in the hand to transfer arm pressure that I feel is a risky mindset. I think it's a situation where thinking of the final product is actually conducive to RESTRICTING the sensory aspects. I think it specifically conflicts with what the body needs to perceive, in order to reach that product efficiently. I think bad conscious models are the problem- which is exactly why it pays to replace them with more sophisticated ones.
I think the trick is to first ensure that stabilisation has DEFINITELY been learned by opposing unwanted movements with positive movements. From theres, if you think "stabilisation" it may be positive rather than a source of stiffness. However, I think it's one of the riskiest mindsets of all. I've realised that this has been at the root of just about all of my prior problems. I wrote an additional edit in my post, by the way.
I see. Maybe I conceive of stabilization differently than you do, because it doesn't seem risky to me.
How do I conceive of stabilization? Hmmm. I notice when I use my fingers for piano (or typing) that there is a way of holding/positioning/moving them in which they feel more and more secure as I reduce muscular effort. I also notice that this way of using them is something produced unconsciously. I can influence via Feldenkrais-type awareness exercises, and I can influence it via conscious practice of alternatives.
My concept of stabilization has been formed over hundreds of hours of Feldenkrais training, so I suppose it's not the most common one.
I see. Maybe I conceive of stabilization differently than you do, because it doesn't seem risky to me.
How do I conceive of stabilization? Hmmm. I notice when I use my fingers for piano (or typing) that there is a way of holding/positioning/moving them in which they feel more and more secure as I reduce muscular effort. I also notice that this way of using them is something produced unconsciously. I can influence via Feldenkrais-type awareness exercises, and I can influence it via conscious practice of alternatives.
My concept of stabilization has been formed over hundreds of hours of Feldenkrais training, so I suppose it's not the most common one.
I think it depends on the context. I wouldn't doubt that your feldenkrais training gives you a collossal head start. Also, I would not assume that it would injurious for you to think that way- but I'd just wonder if it could be limiting in the long run? I'm thinking of things like rapid fire octaves and successions of FFF chords. Not that piano playing is all about such things- but I think the best means ought to make everything possible.
To give an example I'd imagine that you could take a master of Tai Chi/Feldenkrais/yoga/Buddhist meditation etc. and start them off on piano playing with a huge head start. They would all be much more sensitive to movement and much better at self-learning through largely unconscious means. If their style of movement were uncomfortable, they'd be much less likely to press on through. However, what would happen if you said- now you MUST play piece x twice as fast? No matter how good their self-awareness etc were in their slow and sensitive work, unless they happened to have found the basis for transferable efficiency, you could find a piece or a tempo where they would end up seizing up muscles. I think this is where one of the big differences lies though. Such people would likely have to be in a position where they're told they MUST press on through- or their better senses would have them stop. However, most average people are inclined to enthusiastically press on through- and generally don't even need encouragement to push beyond their limits to such damaging excess!
I think this is where the conscious aspects are so important. Receiving conscious information from a teacher would still help such people develop technique. I think the conscious ought to be guiding and structuring so you can get to the stage where even fast and loud is possible without overworking the muscles. Although Alan's approach is primarily sensory, it's equally based on being consistent with the limits of possibility- whether that was found consciously or by experimentation. Also, to use his exercises is inherently to use a conscious start to further the sensory learning. My personal approach is intended simply to hone in a little further on some of the conscious reasons why what I have learned from him works. This is not to "replace" sensory learning but to help remove potential conscious barriers, so the sensory aspects are free to get on with learning. If there's any conflict between what a person believes consciously and the feedback that the body is giving, it can only cause limitations. It can cause active distrust of the feedback that might even cause the brain to start ignoring it! If a person thinks "keep the hand still" they might even think they're doing something wrong if they feel it responding to arrival at the key! I want to find ways of synthesising the sensory and the conscious. Above all, I think it makes self-diagnosis a good deal easier.
This is where my severe skepticism about the moving arm and stabilised hand comes in:
When the hand contacts the piano, a force comes back at it. This means that when a hand looks static, it actually CHANGES its activity to balance that force- or that it was held so rigidly that it was simply immovable in the first place. I think that to understand this can make the process of "feeling" how to move a hell of a lot easier. This is the reason for my problem with "static" thinking- it sets up the expectation of the hand staying the same, rather than of the hand doing the intricate actions that are required. That actively encourages the instincts to side with being immovable- as if human instincts weren't already geared towards bracing again impact more than enough! So it's not even like the person who tries to respond (likely too late) to being pushed (equivalent to a hand that responds to the feedback of the key pushing back at it). It's conducive to activity like the person who clenches his body rigid in prior fear of being pushed.
To get the hand to stay still without excessive initial bracing is absolutely on a knife-edge. I think it's very hard not to have at least SOME spare effort, if this is the goal. I suspect it's even impossible. This may be fine at slower tempos, but I think the tiniest difference can wreak havoc if you are attempting Horowitzian octaves. Simply replacing the idea of bracing with positive motion (not merely in response to how contacting the key pushes back at the hand, but as a kind of "pre-emptive strike" ) puts the emergency bracing instinct much further back.
I certainly can't say I've overcome these altogether, even with this way of thinking. If I try to play octaves as fast and loud as I can, it still kicks in. I don't think Feldenkrais or any other method could ever prevent there being a level for each person where they are simply pushing too far- it could only make you think "STOP DOING THAT NOW FOR GOD'S SAKE!" and have you return to something slower and more sensitively controlled. The conscious process is making it more and more normal for me to avoid the slight clenches in progressively faster tempos- but I'm not even close to being ready to think "move the arm and keep the hand stable" rather than "move the arm and move the hand to prevent it collapsing".
So- I'm not saying your Feldenkrais training wouldn't give you a big aid. I don't imagine you are doing the severe clenching that some people do- even when playing at slow tempos. I'd just wonder whether what feels comfortable to you at the moment would remain comfortable as you aim to expand your limits more and more over time. Will it help you raise your threshold, or will there be a speed beyond which you either have to start clenching or stop? Just the slightest amount of actual bracing against force (rather than matching it) is hugely amplified in octave playing. I think there very few pianists who have the skills required to think of keeping the hand still, while also utilising the razor sharp co-ordination required not to waste efforts on fixation.
"My experience in doing 500 hours of the professional Feldenkrais training is that conscious models can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So you have this conscious image and practicing seems to confirm it-- that's not surprising."
I just thought I'd come back to this, by the way. I see what you mean, but using the still handed approach (similar to what I'm talking about previously, but this just one example I could have chosen) never fulfilled itself. It works for some people (presumably when their instincts kick in and make the hand RESPOND to landing- rather than when people take the explanation literally). However, I needed to consciously understand that the explanation in the model was simplified. I had to understand that the means of keeping a hand still must involve at least a response to the reaction of the key (or preferably more still), if it is to avoid being overworked. From that rational understanding, the sensations that I had not instictively been able to feel have since been able to follow. It's not a psychological illusion, but rather a case of synthesising my goals with the nature of what is ACTUALLY required, in order to reduce the level of effort.
I don't believe that prophecies ever fulfill themselves to the maximum- unless they either happen to indirectly push a person into feeling the activities that they personally lack, or if they are consistent with the nature of possibility as a whole. I believe very much in short term placebo effects-followed by a sudden stop in progress. I've had no shortage of these in the past! However, I don't regard long-term improvements as being any kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Either something prompts the means of feeling a missing link (even if what led them to do so may involve a scientifically impossible explanation that would actively hinder others!), or a more accurate explanation may have provided the focus for making the intentions more consistent with what is possible. My own belief is that sensory exercises never actually need irrational explanations or metaphor portrayed as fact, if they are to work. I think that the two approaches should be unified- so that rational explanations are complemented by proper sensory training and that sensory learning exercises are not coupled with woefully implausible explanations. Cold hard facts are not enough. However, you don't need to portray fiction as fact to engage the senses. That just causes confusions that are often deeply harmful. The "stabilising" approach is not strictly "wrong" perhaps (except when used to talk about playing fingerwork) but I had to understand the gaping omission in the standard explanation (ie. the important changes in the hand's activity) before I could even begin to fix the limitations I had acquired.
