Elbow out and the meaning of 'skeletal'

Oh yes, one more thing, "return forces:" When I play really well, there aren't any return forces, even in fortissimo. It all balances out instantaneously. I take care to use just enough force to get the sound I want, and then I don't use any more. The hammer hits the string and bounces back, but I CAN'T FEEL THE HAMMER HITTING THE BACKCHECK even if I hang on to that key. The back check neutralizes the return force so that I don't have to. In fact, creating this state where there aren't any return forces is what makes the piano really sound well. All other sounds are pathetic by comparison. Using a complex form of checks and balances, arm weight, counterweight etc is one possible way of arriving at this state, but it doesn't seem to be the most convenient. Clever use of the skeleton gets you there a lot faster and a lot easier.... Hmm I'm feeling feisty tonight, aren't I! AFF

"When I play really well, there aren't any return forces, even in fortissimo. It all balances out instantaneously. I take care to use just enough force to get the sound I want, and then I don't use any more. The hammer hits the string and bounces back, but I CAN'T FEEL THE HAMMER HITTING THE BACKCHECK even if I hang on to that key. The back check neutralizes the return force so that I don't have to. In fact, creating this state where there aren't any return forces is what makes the piano really sound well. All other sounds are pathetic by comparison." I see what you mean, but my question would have to be "how?". If someone can't do it, what next? Why not go into more analysis of WHY certain ways of using the skeleton absorb a force so easily? If it were hugely complex, I'd say nevermind, but it really is quite simple in the fundaments. I believe that it be achieved by subconscious processes- but why leave it at that any more than we'd use the hand and whole body only subconconsciously from day one? I've found the subconscious actions so much more easy to develop, since I put a number of rational concepts into place as the basis for physically oriented work. Why should a person restrict themselves to only exploratiry movement based work, or rationally based work? Why not combine the benefits of each? I'm thinking of aligning my skeleton in a path where releases absorb the return forces, not efforts. In other words, from a mechnical perspective, I'm using my skeleton and in a way where its gravity is free to absorb the forces instead of muscular efforts. Muscular actions do the aligning. But releases (NOT collapses) do the absorbing. "Using a complex form of checks and balances, arm weight, counterweight etc is one possible way of arriving at this state, but it doesn't seem to be the most convenient. Clever use of the skeleton gets you there a lot faster and a lot easier.... Hmm I'm feeling feisty tonight, aren't I!" I appreciate that different people think in different ways, but personally, I cannot settle for the idea that the "skeleton" absorbs it. If the skeleton is used differently, it doesn't absorb it well. So what is the difference? It must be that the alignment of the skeleton is better equipped for ease- for reasons. But I want to know as much about those mechanical reasons as the skeleton itself. I don't see how either the mechanics can be understood without reference to the skeleton, or how the skeleton can be understood without references to the mechanics. Why not integrate the understanding? I just can't see how thinking of the skeleton, without reference to the mechanical forces, is easier. It's precisely because the implications of my mechanical thinking were so simple, that I've found the movements leaping ahead so much recently. If a person does not absorb the forces easily- surely it makes sense to set about understanding the notion of what makes it possible? It's almost as literally simple as forwards against backwards, in the simpler form (although slightly more advanced issues about 3 planes of movement have also been involved to huge benefit). This has made the goals of my movement based work so much clearer. I don't want to have to worry about return forces at all in the long run. But the only way for that to occur is to develop a mechnically efficient means of absorbing them into the body.

"The hammer hits the string and bounces back, but I CAN'T FEEL THE HAMMER HITTING THE BACKCHECK even if I hang on to that key. The back check neutralizes the return force so that I don't have to. " Also, you'll have to excuse my bluntness, but that really isn't at all scientifcally accurate. The hammer has a very small effect and comes far too late. That doesn't keep your arm still, when using a very strong finger action. The majority of the return force comes mid-motion and at the landing of key against key bed. There's no question that this could be perfectly synchronised at all times or in perfect opposition to the finger's force 100% of the time (if ever at all)- even at the exact moment of the keybed. When using the finger really well, it's actually a "return force" of a kind that stands the whole hand up, via the fingers action, before the key even lands. These are in play too (most crucially of all there, as it contributes greatly to acceleration mid-flight). Mechanically, I can assure you that this amounts to moving a mass and using SOME (not either all or zero) weight, in itself- just not collapsing or which is altogether different use of gravity. But for this to be "internalised" (without the visible movement but no loss of force) something has to account for the fact that the movement no longer occurs. It's a long chain of forces and counterforces that could not be fully computed in all detail. But if you take it in terms of the more general causes and effects, there are many valuable things that can be uncovered, without getting into anything absurdly complex. The simplest aspect is simply how a backward force (via slight release of gravity by releasing the wrist) can balance against the forward pull on the arm that occurs in a quality finger action. This is involved not only at the keybed, but midstrike. It's a very basic way of illustrating what makes it for the wrist to relax more in a balanced action, as the finger pulls. This release also allows the finger to pull vastly harder than if the wrist fails to release and apply more force.

Does anyone ever tell a baby about the weight of their leg when they are learning to walk? No, if a child tried to think like that about any movement they would be frozen into immobility. Although what you describe may be accurate according to mechanics or physics, I question the usefulness of thinking that way. I have an intention: to move the key a certain way. I organize myself to do that in the most effective way possible. Thinking about the weight of my arm is a part of that mental organization. Arm weight technique is THERAPEUTIC. I teach it sometimes when I see it helps someone loosen up. But eventually WE MOVE ON. If we get stuck there, the results are never optimal. I have been playing and really thinking about what you say, and the more I fool around with it, the more I see that I can indeed try to feel my arm's weight and evoke an instant relaxation. That is good. But it's only a side effect to my main activity, which is fulfilling an intention to move the key. And for that I use my fingers. I move them. I use my sense of my own skeleton to do that really nicely. I don't screw up my own perceptions with a bunch of extraneous sensory information that only clouds the issue. Yes, of course my arm has weight. A car has weight. EVERYTHING has weight for God's sake! But do we obsess in everything we do about using the weight of whatever? No! ALL activity takes place in the field of gravity (unless you're an astronaut). All movement takes place in the field of gravity. Why is is that only pianists actually think about using it? Why are we so screwed up about this? It's obsessive! Go ahead, be obsessive, but don't mess with other people's heads about it! I am tired of seeing the negative consequences of this over and over again, in my students, in other people's students, in professional pianists, on YouTube, all over - it's an arm weight pandemic and its overall affect is negative! Let's change the way we think about these things, and recover from this digression! AFF

Andrew, sensing your arm's weight and then figuring out just how much you need to withold that weight inevitably gets you into a vicious circle. The only way out of that circle is to forget about it! Just use your fingers to get the musical expression you want. Think more about connecting to your instrument, being at one with it. This weight-counterweight conundrum always gives me the feeling you are walking on eggs or on a tightrope... I am never comfortable with it because it seems you always have to fiddle with it, tweak it, fine tune it... But we need to be able to think about other stuff when we play. Horowitz was incredibly sensitive to his instrument and required it be extremely finely regulated. He could sense if one key was 1/1000 of an inch too high or too low. Look at how he plays: does he give the impression of someone who is sensing the weight of his arm and calculating how much of it he needs to withold? Of course not! Look at Gould - of course not! If you ask Kemal who is still alive to talk to us about it, he will tell you: the piano playing mechanism is a series of levers: the more sound you want, the more of those levers you employ - END OF EXPLANATION. Arm weight technique is anti-intentional. Kind regards! AFF

I think you're really misunderstanding what I am talking about. "Armweight technique" has absolutely zero to do with what I am referring to here, as traditionally understood. What I am seeking to do is to reconcile the style of movement that you showed me with what I know about physics and the nature of how exerting any force returns consequences. For the monitoring of weight not to be an issue an absolutely physical impossibility, beyond any question. Either the arm would have to release 100% or 0% at all times to get even close. If it does neither, how much it DOES release in between those is an issue- as it will be in constant flux. You can only ignore that if you stumble across the means of fitting the forces together by the subconscious. But why ban conscious understanding of the other side of the integrated balance? When my arm was bouncing erratically, I had neither understood it nor learned the subconscious means. How would sticking to the fingers help- rather than explore the nature of the forces that the fingers were causing, hence bouncing my hand about everywhere? The only help from the fingers would have been to reduce the intensity, so as to make the forces less strong- ie. limiting the possibilities. You're talking of subjective sensations, but that's precisely what happens when you experience no significant return force to the finger action. The return force DOES occur, based on irrefefutable physics. So how do you absorb it well enough to stop it being an issue? This is a key question. You see so many amateurs fighting these forces or bobbing up and down inconsistently. It's a classic problem. I haven't got stuck in anything recently. I've broken away from bobbing hands caused by return forces. That's precisely what is now starting to enable to me use my fingers AS IF the return forces did not exist. But that's a very important "as if", hence the stress I'm placing on this element as well as that of the hand. Not instead of though. They are two sides of a single balance. Physics illustrates that this balance must indeed be found, whether it's part of the mindset or not. There is no talk of weight moving a key iof a finger from me. Where have I ever even slightly implied this? As I'm stressing, it's a balance- not a replacement- and the sensation is primarily in the finger and collapses come nowhere into this etc. I refer to it as 'counterweight' precisely to be sure that it does not come across as being instead of finger activity, but as the balancing mechanism that enables finger activity- without resultant stiffening or unpredictable arm movements. Think of the situation where the finger tries to pull but slides along a key. the release. If you do not do so, you cannot pull the key with a stable finger. The fact that the release may be very small is precisely why I think it's essential to study it- rather than aim to collapse or have zero perception of weight. Understanding these principles gives a vastly clearer guide, when looking to solve problems. "Horowitz was incredibly sensitive to his instrument and required it be extremely finely regulated. He could sense if one key was 1/1000 of an inch too high or too low. Look at how he plays: does he give the impression of someone who is sensing the weight of his arm and calculating how much of it he needs to withold?" Quite honestly, I get this tremendously from him. Weight is not collapse. Weight is a contributory force- unless balanced by a perfectly contradictory force. I believe that Horowitz is the ultimate master of releasing or lightening, as appropriate, in perfect proportion to what his hand does. You cannot be still unless you understand the highly variable forces that the piano throws back at you. Horowitz did not stiffen against those forces (well, a bit sometimes, but not on the whole) so logically he must be monitoring (perhaps solely subconsciously) the way forces are released to balance them out- but in to what comes back at him from the instrument. Counterforces don't seem to be an issue for Horowitz (despite the fact that his variety of actions would make them extaordinarily erratic, compared to those involved in monotonous note-spinning) because he knows how to cancel them. How would ignoring them from day 1 lead to that state? It would be like trying to swim a straight line in a variable current without noticing which way it pushes you. The irony is that the only way for them to become unimportant is to know how to cancel them. Ignoring them cannot rationally make the issues go away unless you already know how to. Personally, I could not find stillness when using extreme finger actions until I explored and understood these forces. I've broken free from various limitations and perceived the HOW- in terms of releasing effort at the elbow and shoulder etc. This has opened countless doors, not closed any. And it's done as much to expand the limits of the hand itself as for the arms. This is not any kind of alternative to your approach for the hand, but a means of letting it get on with what it's supposed to do, unimpeded by the reflected forces. Also, regarding the tricep, I've tried touching it lightly or grasping it firmly but I honestly don't feel a flicker of activity in rapid scales until I start playing really loud. Even then, it's very slight.

Andrew, I really admire your steadfastness and your willingness to explain yourself clearly. That's why this is such a great and informative dialogue. Please forgive me if I got a little hot under the collar, but I am glad I elicited such an "light-shedding" response. I do experience myself releasing my arm in order to help my fingers do their job. And OK, Horowitz was the master of this. But I still maintain, he didn't think about it. He had integrated the ability into his subconscious motor functioning. Perhaps when you finally do that too, your playing will be reminiscent of his! Warm wishes, Alan

Andrew, I really admire your steadfastness and your willingness to explain yourself clearly. That's why this is such a great and informative dialogue. Please forgive me if I got a little hot under the collar, but I am glad I elicited such an "light-shedding" response. I do experience myself releasing my arm in order to help my fingers do their job. And OK, Horowitz was the master of this. But I still maintain, he didn't think about it. He had integrated the ability into his subconscious motor functioning. Perhaps when you finally do that too, your playing will be reminiscent of his! Warm wishes, Alan Absolutely, that's very much my goal! I want to integrate the rational and the sensory approaches, but the final product must always be in the sensory part. I'm just convinced that if it doesn't all evolve by instincts, it helps greatly to go through a conscious consideration of how to effortlessly set these repelling forces against gravity, before it is sent to the subconscious level. I think that what you perceive in terms of the physical release, I'm thinking in terms of the balancing force that results. But unless that balancing force is proportioned to forces that the hand's action causes (whether specifically concieved for that role or felt merely as release) an imbalance will result. A release always has consequences to the balance of forces- depending on how much that release is. The strange thing is that, while most people fight these forces with stiffening, if you can balance them in the right way they serve to make the effort LESS not more! Honestly, I can't stress enough how much more stability this is bringing- but with lightened effort, not a feel of heaviness. I'll see if I can upload a new film sometime, as I'd be very interested to know what you'd think. I'm still monitoring this very carefully in slower work, but it's already had huge consequences to the reflexes. Oh and no worries! A bit of opposition helps to think these things through even clearer. Just let me stress that this is intended to be a complementary approach to your own ideas, rather than in square contradiction to them. If I ever get around to actually designing the website that I've already been paying to leave empty for a few week, I need to fit some of these things into a clear an accessible form to write up sometime, so it's all good practise for thinking it though.