Elbow Out And The Meaning Of 'skeletal'

Just been thinking a lot about this recently and I wonder what Alan would think about a kind of 'internalized' elbow out that goes on pretty much constantly- but which never notably pushes out as you play through a chord, but which rather sets you up in the first place? The wrist weights forced a number of changes- including the necessity of ever so slightly raising the shoulder up and outwards. With added mass to bear, if I strive to relax my shoulder entirely, my elbows naturally slump to my side and I feel the upper joints being strained (only slightly) against their limit. My shoulder naturally started to employ a little more activity. Also, the press-up experiment for chords in particular made me vastly more inclined to start with my elbow to the outside. When pushing my whole torso up, it feels vastly more natural to start with a wide elbow. I feel that the centre of gravity is much more naturally aligned for the path of motion, with the elbow to the outside. It allows many muscles to engage better, as well as aligning the path of the forces more naturally. For anyone with a locked shoulder, striving to be able to let go would obviously be the bigger goal, first, but I'm becoming convinced that a very faintly stated elbow out is an absolutely integral feeling- as long as it is not pronounced enough to disturb the balance of the hand. The exercise of very slowly (and I mean unbelievably slowly) 'clucking like a chicken' with the wrist weights on has given me an excellent feeling for these supporting muscles. It's basically a practice for the elbow out in purest form. I'm convinced now that I had gone way too far in removing it. I think it was almost certainly valuable to have gone away from it (and learned to release my shoulders quite so much, compared to how I would raise and hold them), but I'm now thinking that it's worth putting it back in. I think the clucking exercise improves the ability to do this tiny feeling of letting the elbow fractionally drift away from the body- so as to ensure that the shoulder and elbow are supported and not collapsing their full weight down (as well as to ensure that you can truly align behind the fifth, rather than having it running across the key at an angle). Adding a slight weight makes it even easier to feel how it's neither holding nor 100% releasing but a combination of ever so slightly using muscular activity, but without preventing some of the arm's weight from being free to respond to return forces from the keyboard. I'm thinking that if seeking to withold the weight, it's very important to be finely attuned to what goes on in this tiny motion. If the elbow is felt to be in a continual drift outwards and upwards (but so small it really is virtually invisible to anyone else), it's far easier to withold weight without fixing. If the elbow feels it can't go out, I'm much more inclined to feel stuck at both the elbow and the shoulder. Just the faintest activity automatically sends me into the dual feeling of witholding enough weight for control over the sound, but having plenty of slack and freedom- rather than an arm that is stuck in place. Although this refers to the elbow, it's possibly the shoulder more than anything that is freed by this (although most people would probably need to become accustomed to certain underused muscles via the slow clucking motions- before this becomes less tiring, rather than more tiring, compared to slumping the shoulders down) Dangerous as overuse of it can be, is it possible that the elbow out is actually a fundamentally vital motion, but one that has been widely done to excess? I read a little about the pulsing of the torso on the technique reviews page and I'm thinking of the same kind of miniscule motion. Also, regarding "skeletal". I'm a little confused by the definition. Am I right in thinking it has every bit as much to do with context as the skeleton itself? On the DVD, you mentioned not taking the elbow out for the thumb alignment against a wall? But what if you were to push something very heavy? In that case, there would be no choice but to take the elbow out and utilise strong muscles. But would that mean that anyone doing so would no longer be using a "skeletal" approach? So is it arguably more to do with efficiency in a specific context before the issue of the natural alignment? Obviously alignment is a huge factor what leads to efficiency, but wouldn't that suggest that efficiency is actually the most important issue- with the specifics of how the skeleton aligns to generate that coming as the next big priority? I ask this because I can't help but feel that while the elbow in may be more natural in the terms of the skeleton's structure, I'm thinking that having the elbow out more can often lead to greater mechanical efficiency and alignment (as long as the elbow is not exaggerating to the point of compromising the hand's structure). So where exactly do you distinguish between skeletal and non-skeletal? Obviously the purest natural skeletal motion is to collapse everything and fall of the stool. But what exactly defines which muscular adapations remain within the limits of 'skeletal' activity, and which ones would fall outside of it?

Ι am actually starting to think of an internalized elbow out movement too,lately when i play i try to observe and feel internally the relationship of ulna and radius,i noticed that too much elbow out really is nasty and dangerous,it destabilizes the hand.i try to move my forearm and uparm more in front of me (arm and elbow is not on the right or left side of the body,but in front of the body kind of slightly extended),while trying to take it more to the inside and not to the out.To someone observing it some of the elbow out is eliminated but enough remains.Actually the elbow out is needed since in extreme pronation if arm remains close to body pain comes in the extensor muscles because of the extreme pronation. The wrist weights forced a number of changes- including the necessity of ever so slightly raising the shoulder up and outwards. With added mass to bear, if I strive to relax my shoulder entirely, my elbows naturally slump to my side and I feel the upper joints being strained (only slightly) against their limit. My shoulder naturally started to employ a little more activity. Also, the press-up experiment for chords in particular made me vastly more inclined to start with my elbow to the outside. When pushing my whole torso up, it feels vastly more natural to start with a wide elbow. I feel that the centre of gravity is much more naturally aligned for the path of motion, with the elbow to the outside. It allows many muscles to engage better, as well as aligning the path of the forces more naturally. For anyone with a locked shoulder, striving to be able to let go would obviously be the bigger goal, first, but I'm becoming convinced that a very faintly stated elbow out is an absolutely integral feeling- as long as it is not pronounced enough to disturb the balance of the hand. The exercise of very slowly (and I mean unbelievably slowly) 'clucking like a chicken' with the wrist weights on has given me an excellent feeling for these supporting muscles. It's basically a practice for the elbow out in purest form. I'm convinced now that I had gone way too far in removing it. I think it was almost certainly valuable to have gone away from it (and learned to release my shoulders quite so much, compared to how I would raise and hold them), but I'm now thinking that it's worth putting it back in. I think the clucking exercise improves the ability to do this tiny feeling of letting the elbow fractionally drift away from the body- so as to ensure that the shoulder and elbow are supported and not collapsing their full weight down (as well as to ensure that you can truly align behind the fifth, rather than having it running across the key at an angle). Adding a slight weight makes it even easier to feel how it's neither holding nor 100% releasing but a combination of ever so slightly using muscular activity, but without preventing some of the arm's weight from being free to respond to return forces from the keyboard. I'm thinking that if seeking to withold the weight, it's very important to be finely attuned to what goes on in this tiny motion. If the elbow is felt to be in a continual drift outwards and upwards (but so small it really is virtually invisible to anyone else), it's far easier to withold weight without fixing. If the elbow feels it can't go out, I'm much more inclined to feel stuck at both the elbow and the shoulder. Just the faintest activity automatically sends me into the dual feeling of witholding enough weight for control over the sound, but having plenty of slack and freedom- rather than an arm that is stuck in place. Although this refers to the elbow, it's possibly the shoulder more than anything that is freed by this (although most people would probably need to become accustomed to certain underused muscles via the slow clucking motions- before this becomes less tiring, rather than more tiring, compared to slumping the shoulders down) I would really like your opinion regarding those wrist weighs,are they really needed?Do you do them correctly?Maybe there is some danger?Personally i think wrist weight and arm weight is enough for the production of sound,why create more stress? Dangerous as overuse of it can be, is it possible that the elbow out is actually a fundamentally vital motion, but one that has been widely done to excess? I read a little about the pulsing of the torso on the technique reviews page and I'm thinking of the same kind of miniscule motion. I agree it is a fundemental movement,but like you said many times it is overdone especially at classical concert taught pianists. Also, regarding "skeletal". I'm a little confused by the definition. Am I right in thinking it has every bit as much to do with context as the skeleton itself? On the DVD, you mentioned not taking the elbow out for the thumb alignment against a wall? But what if you were to push something very heavy? In that case, there would be no choice but to take the elbow out and utilise strong muscles. But would that mean that anyone doing so would no longer be using a "skeletal" approach? So is it arguably more to do with efficiency in a specific context before the issue of the natural alignment? Obviously alignment is a huge factor what leads to efficiency, but wouldn't that suggest that efficiency is actually the most important issue- with the specifics of how the skeleton aligns to generate that coming as the next big priority? I ask this because I can't help but feel that while the elbow in may be more natural in the terms of the skeleton's structure, I'm thinking that having the elbow out more can often lead to greater mechanical efficiency and alignment (as long as the elbow is not exaggerating to the point of compromising the hand's structure). So where exactly do you distinguish between skeletal and non-skeletal? Obviously the purest natural skeletal motion is to collapse everything and fall of the stool. But what exactly defines which muscular adapations remain within the limits of 'skeletal' activity, and which ones would fall outside of it? Collapsing everything is not natural skeleton motion,actually the art of collapsing everything leads to tension.Even relaxement is not collapsing,when you relax you dont collapse,but when you collapse part of the mechanism is shut down while other parts take a considerably larger part of action in order to compensate for the lack of action elsewhere. To me skeletal playing is more playing with natural hand shape,and when one deviates from the natural shape to return to it through frequent and infrequent use of the antagonistic set of muscles,(eg one group lifts fingers other group lowers fingers).

"Ι am actually starting to think of an internalized elbow out movement too,lately when i play i try to observe and feel internally the relationship of ulna and radius,i noticed that too much elbow out really is nasty and dangerous,it destabilizes the hand.i try to move my forearm and arm more in front of me (arm and elbow is not on the right or left side of the body,but in front of the body kind of slightly extended),while trying to take it more to the inside and not to the out.To someone observing it some of the elbow out is eliminated but enough remains.Actually the elbow out is needed since in extreme pronation if arm remains close to body pain comes in the extensor muscles because of the extreme pronation." Yeah, I'm realising that, strictly speaking almost EVERYTHING is an elbow out of a kind. Otherwise the elbow slumps against the torso. I think the bad use of elbow out often tends to combine a forward push through the hand. However a productive act of motion lines it up where it needs to be, to operate without excessive weightedness or stiffening. I think that elbow out is precisely what is needed to lighten up the arm. Obviously the elbow literally moves across as the left hand moves down or the right hand up. However, even when going in an inward motion, try imagining that outwards force ever so slightly at the elbow. I found this extremely useful for keeping everything free. I think that extreme elbow out is a messed up version that is definitely to be avoided, but I think it comes from something that is actually vital. When you stop thinking out and start thinking of an elbow that is still, it's very easy for it to start locking without you realising. At the moment I'm picturing that slight outward force almost constantly while I play. "I would really like your opinion regarding those wrist weighs,are they really needed?Do you do them correctly?Maybe there is some danger?Personally i think wrist weight and arm weight is enough for the production of sound,why create more stress?" It's seeking to AVOID stress that makes them useful. Why would you assume that I'm advocating high stress? I'm talking about a mere added kilogram (or less!), not 20. This means that poor balance and collapses in the structure are shown up at once. Anyone who has no patience would be advised to stay well away. It's about identifying minor discomfort at once and finding how to remove- not fighting through pain and strain.If you use it for the slowest of slow practise, with clear understanding of what to look for, it's exceedingly useful. If you want a hand that can play FFFF without effort, how is that ever going to be possible if you can't find even find a stable and functional hand while supporting a mere extra kg (or 0.5, or less if you prefer) at a mere mf or so, for a few minutes at a time? That ought to be nothing, compared to playing Liszt with a big sound. So it's a very useful test of whether everything really works properly. It's all about what you do with it. Blasting through loud pieces without a care in the world would simply be deranged. But doing the same without even wearing wrist weights is a hell of a lot worse than spending a couple of minutes noticing the sensations that come from added mass. One of the most useful things is that the added weight means that the hand is more easily destabilised. With any unwanted sideways forces- eg if the fifth finger slants at an angle where it's line of transmission is not confined solely to two planes of motion (with no sideways component) you will have a big problem staying balanced. This is where what you do is important. If you strain against those forces, you will do more harm than good. However, if you patiently perceive the far clearer lines of motion via the added mass, you find a purer line of motion which can be retained when you play normally. If you eliminate the sideways components through better alignment instead of through stiffening, you will have a vastly better sense of the line of motion that leads to a balanced centre of gravity. The added mass that makes any failure to align the centre of gravity correctly much more evident. This is where you have to be careful- it's more evident because if you balance by stiffening it's more uncomfortable with added mass than without. But you just need to have a clear idea of how to notice it and fix it at once. So, the exercise should reduce effort in the long run- not increase it. It reveals tiny imprecisions in the balance. Any sideways forces can only be prevented from causing undesirable movements via muscular effort. So it's vital to identify the and perceive where they are occurring. Exaggerating them makes them easier to spot and eliminate- hence eliminating any 'holding' against them. Conversely, when you align in the right path, the forces that occur in response to the finger action are solely in two planes- and can be cancelled out effortlessly by releasing a matching counterforce via gravity. Imagine if someone would pull your arm slightly left or right from time to time, as you play (but to widely variable levels and without any predictable pattern). When the hand is poorly aligned for the path of the key, this is basically the same thing. It makes it very likely that you will just stiffen more in general, to stop your hand being pulled from side to side. "I agree it is a fundemental movement,but like you said many times it is overdone especially at classical concert taught pianists." Yeah, definitely. I think it's extremely useful to identify the excess though, but then analyse what needed, when you are looking to strip things away. The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think that the "clucking" action is the basis for what the arm needs to do in basically all standard playing. It plays a big role in determining the amount of weight that the finger has to act against, as well as keeping things loose. "Collapsing everything is not natural skeleton motion" Yes it is. When a person faints they collapse. Unless I've totally misunderstood it, I believe this is whole premise of the Feldenkrais approach. The purest skeletal action is that which occurs when no muscles are engaged but when external forces are all that act on it. I'm just a little confused as to what specifically defines the difference between skeletal and non skeletal, when muscles are involved. "actually the art of collapsing everything leads to tension." Not in a corpse, or when someone faints. It only causes tension if you are intent on performing a specific action that cannot occur through release alone. So you subconciously seize up in compensatory actions, or fail miserably to perform the intended task. However, relaxation in itself does not intrinsically lead to tension- unless through subconscious emergency actions that are required for a task (eg. to stop you falling over when imbalanced) or habitual associations. "To me skeletal playing is more playing with natural hand shape,and when one deviates from the natural shape to return to it through frequent and infrequent use of the antagonistic set of muscles,(eg one group lifts fingers other group lowers fingers)." But what about the arm? I follow with the natural hand shape, certainly. A lot of Alan's exercises are specifically based on releasing completely and noticing the natural form that results, from releasing muscles. The skeleton forms that shape, not the musclar effort. But what of the arm? A functional arm is tremendously far from the whole concept of the skeleton's natural shape. A playing arm couldn't be much further from what the released arm would look like, when the skeleton is left to its own devices. It seems like a massively different case to the hand. Surely the practicality of playing dictates that it's so far away from the natural skeletal pattern, that the term doesn't really mean that much any more? Isn't it easier to judge primarily in terms of mechanical efficiency, rather than by beginning with the bones? If the bones were the foremost issue, what actually leads to the massive muscular adaptations from what would be natural shape of a released arm? I think the big issue for me is that good muscular use in the hand doesn't deviate too greatly from the released skeletal shape. But you can't even begin to move a key without departing considerably from the arm's 'neutral' shape. So what makes one setup of the arm skeletal and not another, specifically speaking?

This is quite possibly a very good thing. My "duck motion" arm out refers to the kind of pumping that destabilizes and weakens the hand. Anything can be good in the appropriate context and measure. What you describe is functional, what I refer to is anti-functional. Fair enough! ...to a useful extent. Sounds fine to me! OK, I just reached out and picked up the spoon on my table. I did not consciously "withold my arm weight." If I had I would be crazy. I just picked up the spoon for God's sake! And playing the piano is like that too. But I understand why you have gotten into this vicious circle of feeling your arm's weight and then needing to withold it - you are going through the wonderful experience of sensing in detail what you are doing. You are hypersensitizing all your physical perceptions in order to LEARN. This is excellent. It gets you into this kind of conundrum but it's worth it. However, at the end you should be able to , to just play! Yes it is indeed very possible! between bones and muscles. Exactly. See above... Thanks for another perceptive, inquiring post! AFF

Very well put! I think that Andrew (Cziffra) is using the weights well, actually, from what he describes. His approach is speculative and self-sensing. But I understand your concern very well. There is a real danger of someone using weights and causing more harm than good. Exactly, you see it all the time. When I do that movement at the beginning of the film, I am imitating one of my fellow Academy professors (who shall remain nameless), a very fine pianist and good musician by the way - but in this case hamstrung by tradition. Collapsing everything is not natural skeleton motion,actually the art of collapsing everything leads to tension.Even relaxement is not collapsing,when you relax you dont collapse,but when you collapse part of the mechanism is shut down while other parts take a considerably larger part of action in order to compensate for the lack of action elsewhere. To me skeletal playing is more playing with natural hand shape,and when one deviates from the natural shape to return to it through frequent and infrequent use of the antagonistic set of muscles,(eg one group lifts fingers other group lowers fingers).Brilliant, I couldn't agree more! Thanks! AFF

Yes, but you must admit this is again a compensation. Remember what I said about picking up the spoon. When you are truly skeletal, you will put your hand on key and play without having to worry about a slight, more or less constant elbow out or elbow in... I repeat this next quote in its entirety because it is SO pertinent!It's seeking to AVOID stress that makes the weights useful. Why would you assume that I'm advocating high stress? I'm talking about a mere added kilogram (or less!), not 20. This means that poor balance and collapses in the structure are shown up at once. Anyone who has no patience would be advised to stay well away. It's about identifying minor discomfort at once and finding how to remove- not fighting through pain and strain.If you use it for the slowest of slow practise, with clear understanding of what to look for, it's exceedingly useful. If you want a hand that can play FFFF without effort, how is that ever going to be possible if you can't find even find a stable and functional hand while supporting a mere extra kg (or 0.5, or less if you prefer) at a mere mf or so, for a few minutes at a time? That ought to be nothing, compared to playing Liszt with a big sound. So it's a very useful test of whether everything really works properly. It's all about what you do with it. Blasting through loud pieces without a care in the world would simply be deranged. But doing the same without even wearing wrist weights is a hell of a lot worse than spending a couple of minutes noticing the sensations that come from added mass. One of the most useful things is that the added weight means that the hand is more easily destabilised. With any unwanted sideways forces- eg if the fifth finger slants at an angle where it's line of transmission is not confined solely to two planes of motion (with no sideways component) you will have a big problem staying balanced. This is where what you do is important. If you strain against those forces, you will do more harm than good. However, if you patiently perceive the far clearer lines of motion via the added mass, you find a purer line of motion which can be retained when you play normally. If you eliminate the sideways components through better alignment instead of through stiffening, you will have a vastly better sense of the line of motion that leads to a balanced centre of gravity. The added mass that makes any failure to align the centre of gravity correctly much more evident. This is where you have to be careful- it's more evident because if you balance by stiffening it's more uncomfortable with added mass than without. But you just need to have a clear idea of how to notice it and fix it at once. So, the exercise should reduce effort in the long run- not increase it. It reveals tiny imprecisions in the balance. Any sideways forces can only be prevented from causing undesirable movements via muscular effort. So it's vital to identify the and perceive where they are occurring. Exaggerating them makes them easier to spot and eliminate- hence eliminating any 'holding' against them. Conversely, when you align in the right path, the forces that occur in response to the finger action are solely in two planes- and can be cancelled out effortlessly by releasing a matching counterforce via gravity. Imagine if someone would pull your arm slightly left or right from time to time, as you play (but to widely variable levels and without any predictable pattern). When the hand is poorly aligned for the path of the key, this is basically the same thing. It makes it very likely that you will just stiffen more in general, to stop your hand being pulled from side to side.. "Collapsing everything is not natural skeleton motion" Yes it is. When a person faints they collapse. Unless I've totally misunderstood it, I believe this is whole premise of the Feldenkrais approach. The purest skeletal action is that which occurs when no muscles are engaged but when external forces are all that act on it. I'm just a little confused as to what specifically defines the difference between skeletal and non skeletal, when muscles are involved.an intention. The wisdom is in using that quality of total collapse to discover the optimal alignment and then investing that alignment with an intention which will of course change it but not hopefully disturb its mechanical effieciency. "actually the art of collapsing everything leads to tension." Not in a corpse, or when someone faints. It only causes tension if you are intent on performing a specific action that cannot occur through release alone. So you subconciously seize up in compensatory actions, or fail miserably to perform the intended task. However, relaxation in itself does not intrinsically lead to tension- unless through subconscious emergency actions that are required for a task (eg. to stop you falling over when imbalanced) or habitual associations.tention. "To me skeletal playing is more playing with natural hand shape,and when one deviates from the natural shape to return to it through frequent and infrequent use of the antagonistic set of muscles,(eg one group lifts fingers other group lowers fingers)." But what about the arm? I follow with the natural hand shape, certainly. A lot of Alan's exercises are specifically based on releasing completely and noticing the natural form that results, from releasing muscles. The skeleton forms that shape, not the musclar effort. But what of the arm? A functional arm is tremendously far from the whole concept of the skeleton's natural shape. A playing arm couldn't be much further from what the released arm would look like, when the skeleton is left to its own devices. It seems like a massively different case to the hand. Surely the practicality of playing dictates that it's so far away from the natural skeletal pattern, that the term doesn't really mean that much any more? Isn't it easier to judge primarily in terms of mechanical efficiency, rather than by beginning with the bones? If the bones were the foremost issue, what actually leads to the massive muscular adaptations from what would be natural shape of a released arm? Excellent point. Again, for me the quality of skeletality is not simply relaxation to the point of discovering the skeleton's natural alignment: it is the sophisticated interaction between the neuromuscular system and the skeleton where skeletal alignments are modified to achieve a particular intention but where mechanical efficiency is always kept to an optimum. Does my answer just above clarify that? Wonderful discussion, guys! AFF

"OK, I just reached out and picked up the spoon on my table. I did not consciously "withold my arm weight." If I had I would be crazy. I just picked up the spoon for God's sake! And playing the piano is like that too. But I understand why you have gotten into this vicious circle of feeling your arm's weight and then needing to withold it - you are going through the wonderful experience of sensing in detail what you are doing. You are hypersensitizing all your physical perceptions in order to LEARN. This is excellent. It gets you into this kind of conundrum but it's worth it." I see what you mean here. However, I've been thinking so much about this notion of return forces recently and I'm convinced that these are of key importance in so many places. What if there were a big spring that would exert a slight force on your hand, while you picked up the spoon and you didn't want to either be pushed away or strain against it? The spoon has the simplicity of simply coming into your hand and not disturbing anything. However, with the return forces that come from playing a piano firmly, it's very hard to maintain that natural state. It's like a dog who tenses up when someone comes near, in expectation of a beating. I think this is why it's so much harder to stay relaxed at a piano. If you get in the habit of fighting forces early on, it's very hard to stop doing so. So, while you can learn to make it as effortless as picking up a spoon, it's very hard to balance out the forces that you put into the piano, without learning a mechanically efficient means of neutralising those which the piano sends at you. This is why I'm so convinced about the value of understanding the specific role that gravitational forces play in good skeletal playing. I'm absolutely convinced that the ability to absorb these forces into mass (to the point where they scarcely appear to exist to anyone watching) is the key to avoiding negative muscular tensions. This is why few people struggle to pick up a spoon, but why the very same person might start seizing up/collapsing at a keyboard. They just don't understand how to maintain natural physical actions, in a manner that absorbs the forces without undue effort. Rather than learn to absorb forces by proportioned release, they either fix or dig in against the forces. I've become really convinced by this ultra-slow clucking exercise, because I feel pretty sure that it trains the exact mechanism that enables you to monitor how much weight you have for these forces to disappear into. Whether starting too heavy or too witheld, I believe that working at this can lead to big improvements- simply by revealing the action that actually allows you to choose how much free slack you have for a force to dissipate into. Whether you get it wrong by seizing the arm in preparation for the upward force instead of releasing a little into it, or by overreleasing the arm too heavily, I think this is the very action that needs to be understood for the hand to properly function in a balance of forces that is contributed to by the whole arm. I cannot stress enough how much more easily my hand is working now, since I took my elbows a little further away and started to feeling a permanent by miniscule outward drift. Stacatto in particular is hugely easier. I've been trying this both with locked up students and those who lazily collapse their elbows in against the body. I've seen both types make notable improvement from perceiving these slow motions. A couple of months ago I still had big problems with "bouncing"in certain legato passages, where the hand would keep being repelled and my arm always wanted to dig in to stop this. Since then I've almost completely eliminated this, thanks to that combination of the finger's action and suitably proportioned control of counterforces. Whether I need to release a lot to balance highly vigorous actions, or feel the arm "floating" to balance very light finger actions (without 'fixing' the arm) returning to the faintest memory of the bigger clucking action has proved tremendously useful. "However, at the end you should be able to , to just play!" Well, only if you have subconconciously figured out a way to balance these forces though. This is my slight problem with how heavily perception based the feldenkrais approach is. I've been reading awareness through movement recently and it's extremely interesting and has provided much benefit. So, let me stress that I have no desire to sound like I'm rubbishing it. However, I feel that a number of rational mechanical principles have recently provided overwhelmingly clearer guides for WHAT I need to seek to perceive. I don't want the 'what' to be left to the subconscious. I'm trying to set very precise rational goals about what goes into creating the possibility of low effort balance and movement, before trying to use the subconscious to put the details into place. This is my slight problem with 'skeletal'- I'm all for understanding the structure and this neutral point, but balance is determined by the mechanics of forces. Shouldn't this be given more stress? It strikes me that skeletal playing will always absorb return forces easily, rather than strain against them. But isn't efficient balance of mechanical forces what goes into good 'skeletal' playing, more than vice versa? It's mechanical requirements that determine what adaptations must be made. So aren't those at least as worhty of consideration as the skeleton's nature? Perception of the skeleton's structure is obviously highly worthy. But why try to perceive what determines mechanical interactions so much from that side of the perspective? Considering just how many adaptations occur from neutral, surely it's more a case of finding an efficient balance of forces that is aided by understanding of the nature of the skeleton- rather trying to use the skeleton to stumble upon a good balance of forces? Maybe it's just my type of perspective, but it seems to be determined more greatly by the necessity of balancing forces efficiently, than the skeleton's nature (even if both are obviously interwoven in the whole and crossover to a good extent). Thinking about the "skeletal" aspect alone says nothing about the mechanical issues that allow a skeleton to be involved in efficient movement. The return force has nothing to do with the skeleton- although a skeleton must obviously be used in a way that helps it to absorb this force efficiently. I think it makes sense to analyse the mechanical aspects in more depth, in tandem with the 'skeletal' analysis. Incidentally along these lines, I realised today one of the fundamental errors in much gravity thinking. When you flop onto the piano and let your hand sag onto the palm- it initially goes almost perfectly BACKWARDS towards you far more notably than down! I've realise that this is a collossal factor to use. When I pull from fairly flat fingers, if the finger bonds with the key properly, the whole arm is pulled faintly forwards, allowing the return force to virtually vanish without trace. Although this is forwards, the matching release of the arm (right back from the shoulder, as well as the elbow), acts in direct opposition to this action- pulling the arm backwards and hence cancelling it out. So the cancellation of gravity and the finger's action is not up against down. It's backwards against forwards! In that sense the neutral skeletal action of releasing at the wrist literally amounts to use of gravitational force (but not collapses) within the balanced equations. Anyway, counterintuitive as the idea of thinking of gravity as a backward action upon the skeleton (rather than in terms of it's downward nature) may seem, if you think it through it makes it massively easier to perceive the true nature of gravity within balance and has also stopped me from slipping into pressing downward- (supposedly in the name of gravity but actually out of excessive downward thought causing excess pushing). I think that mechanical issues and the nature of skeleton can be understood in a unified way like this to great effect, rather than as separate issues. The unison flourishes at the end of the Chopin 4th Ballade have never felt easier to play with a big piercing tone- but my wrist is now in a position of balancing out the equations by releasing MORE with each finger action. It's not about blind release or intent at relaxation but about matching a specific level of forward pull with a specific level of backward release- enabling the wrist to stay aligned and supported without localised effort. The more I use this kind of simple rational thinking (which I'm overwhelmingly confident makes mechanical sense), the clearer my most sensory based work is becoming and the more effort is dropping away. There are various issues along these lines that have made for phenomenal improvement to the sensory work. Currently, improving the arm's alignment and my sense of how to monitor the means of controlling the balancing counterforce (whether aiming for a big one or a tiny one) has made an overwhelming difference to the hand's ability to carry on developing the strong actions from the knuckle. The skeleton itself is the means of movement, but it's laws of mechanics that determine what it can do within the field of gravity and returned forces etc. I think there's phenomenal scope for improving the use of the skeleton by knowing the mechanical premises that govern what it can do and striving for the most integrated understanding.

"Yes, but you must admit this is again a compensation. Remember what I said about picking up the spoon. When you are truly skeletal, you will put your hand on key and play without having to worry about a slight, more or less constant elbow out or elbow in..." But compensation for what? Gravity, I'd say. In the purest skeletal state at the shoulder, my elbow droops against my side. My arm is not aligned to play properly. Any action from the finger would contribute to pulling my elbow slightly back out to the side. It would not be aligned to play well. So I need to compensate a little more for the gravity that tries to collapse my elbow against my side. The gravity is never going to cease (especially when reaching to the sides of the keyboard) so it seems to make mechanical sense that the outward force must ALWAYS be faintly felt- or it would just collapse my elbow back inward again. So, how would what you describe as 'truly skeletal' be more functional- unless the outward force is indeed there to stop the action of gravity but no longer felt in the conscious mind? But, if the only way to align the elbow is to be feeling this drift against the act of gravity- surely it makes sense to start from these rather pure mechanical issues, which state that gravity's resultant force must be acted against, if the arm is not to collapse very close against the torso? A functional state of not noticing could only come from instinctively having stumbled across how to do it without thought. Isn't it clearest of all to start from the realisation that a slumped elbow is simply relaxed (and learn how to do that neutral release) but then set about making the adapation of acting slightly back out against the natural gravity? Only a small but continuous outwards force can stop the elbow collapsing inward under gravity. This is why I'm still a little confused by "skeletal". The elbow that collapses into the torso is more neutrally "skeletal", as far as the shoulder's activity (or lack of here) is concerned. But this leaves the hand off-line and means that any finger action will pull my arm sideways and pinch against the side of my wrist, as the forces impact in a poor alignment. So as far as the hand is concerned it's not going to be able to play in a good skeletal way. But when I make the adaptation, it's specifically departing a 'skeletal' elbow, to make the hand more skeletal. Surely the idea of skeletality is starting to become notably self-contradictory and notably incomplete as an explanation, in this state? Surely the mechanics that go behind this have even more to say about the reasons for making an adaptation, than my skeleton's natural form? When making the adaptations, I'd want to use as little effort as possible and know what the natural form would be. In that sense I see the basis of the 'skeletal' idea. But isn't the nature of the mechanics in the above issue (and the need to align a of centre of gravity behind the action of each finger- to prevent sideways pulls in the return forces, or straining against them) clearly much more important (and explanatory of the situation) than then the skeleton's form in abstraction? Obviously I want to avoid unnecessary effort but I can't see how the skeleton might be a bigger issue than the mechanics of how the forces are applied in an efficient way. Surely this is all pointing towards the idea that the two really have to be integrated somehow in the understanding? They are so intrinsically interrelated that I cannot see how to make the most of one side, without exploring the other in tandem. Mechanics means nothing, in abstraction from how we can move. But equally, the skeleton cannot ever be put into true abstraction (seeing as the closest we can come to that is to feel how it acts under gravity alone). Surely these need to be put together more fully?

Maybe this is a bit out of the thread but it would be interesting to hear your (diverging) opinions. Bars 115-132 in Grieg's Sol(-)Ballade a pretty common pattern with Grieg. Here I think I usually play more like Andrew suggests arm moving slightly forward and then I press my body upwards standing on the fingers involved. But I can also do it with pure fingeraction then I "grasp and up" with fingers 1-4 or 1-3. With this technique I get a more razorsharp sound-I beleive-but I need a really good action. ?

If you were dead and somebody pulled on a certain part of you, the way the bones lined themselves up to follow that part would be the ergonomically most efficient way to do that movement in life. But for me that is not skeletality. Skeletality is the of the skeleton in organizing movement. It’s the neuromotor system’s ability to respond to the innate inherency of the skeleton to line itself up in an ergonomically efficient way. Thus your elbow that collapses into the torso is CERTAINLY NOT more neutrally "skeletal", as far as the shoulder's activity (or lack of here) is concerned. It's just more dead. Again I must keep this post short but I hope this paints a clearer picture? AFF