Fulcrums

It just occurred to me that the big problems with some of the physics oriented approaches of old lies within the spectacularly oversimplified explanations of the fulcrum. To think of the knuckles as being a fixed fulcrum is extremely problematic- likely causing a host of tensions to keep them stable against the reaction force. Also, if the knuckles were a fixed fulcrum, how can the finger do anything other than slide across the key while moving it? When I was thinking about this just now, I was actually rather deeply confused as to why the fulcrum is generally defined at that end. After thinking about how the muscles pull on the bone, I realised that this does indeed make sense. However, doesn't it make a lot of more sense to think of the fulcrum as being the point where the finger actually contacts the key? I hadn't really thought about this very consciously before, but this is by far the most effective way of producing tone in the experiment I did with the pencil moving a key. In that experiment, nobody would even think of describing the fulcrum as lying anywhere else. Trying to keep the poiny where you grip the pencil as a static fulcrum introduces spectacularly more requirement of effort. My arm has to stiffen like hell to even attempt this- even with the pencil! I don't think it's exactly "wrong" to view the knuckles as a fulcrum of a kind, but I think it's spectacularly problematic if you don't at least cross-reference it with the idea that everything moves around a fulcrum between the tip and the key (nb. I mean with the finger action still occurring from the knuckle- I don't mean using the tip). I find it intriguing that none of the traditional "physics" explanations seem to have viewed it from that end- favouring something that is basically simplified to the point of being factually inaccurate and without any useful bearing on practical reality. It's pretty clear why this simplified nonsense could cause tensions. It works far better if the point rises up- in its natural response, without being fixed in place. Incidentally, one thing that occurs to me is that from our natural perspective you can see why we'd think of it more from our end. It's almost like you have to see it more from the piano's perspective than your own- with your body moving around in relation to the piano rather than the piano in relation to your body.

And Arnold Schultz sees the pelvis as the fixed fulcrum supporting the arm/hand/fingers - another error in perception. I like this a lot, let's develop it - does anybody else experience a change in their sound and physical feeling when they simply envision things like this as they play? AFF

Oh yes. I beleive a big part of our practising is spent on "tricking the mind" like countless ours with impulse notes or rythmization extreme slowplaying tapping you name it. I have even tried to practise with rythmizations away from the piano with exactly the same (good) results as if done at the piano. Right now I'm "tapping" a lot and that involves sensations in the finger-pads. From this comes a lot of good things. One more curious effect is that it has "wakened up" a kind of new sensibility in my 2 finger. It sounds crazy but I've discovered now that before while playing in my mind some fingers didn't sense which key to push which then broke the passage and made mind-playiong extremely tiresome.Now with a recently developped sensitivity (by tapping) it's like this second finger knows exactly were to go when "mindplaying".Hard to express in english but what I mean is the memory process has improved quite a bit. I agree about the fulcrums. If you look at it realistically there are countless fulcrums and focusing to much on one of them might not be so smart. The process is far to complicated to make "consciuos". But thinking of the end of the fingertip as a fulcrum seems a great idea. If you think from the perspective of the piano the last fulcrum is the end of the shaft of the hammer!

Eric, you expressed this very clearly, don't worry. A really nice perception and description. It makes us realize not only just how much of our work is 'brain work,' but also how varied ar the of brain work involved. The increased kinesthetic sense in the 2nd fingerpad bleeds over into the actual mental planning of how to play the note - fascinating! Remember, Schultz's basic error was in thinking that a fulcrum needs a fixed base from which to move. The entire piano playing mechanism, from feet on the floor to sitz bones on the bench to the fingers on the key, is a series of fulcrums in which the internal bases are moveable. Only when we get to the points of contact with the external world (floor, bench, and piano key) do we get fixed bases. AND the piano key itself is a moveable base, at least until it hits the keybed. Lots to think about and to sense... AFF

regarding the contact with the stool as a fulcrum, I think schulz is arguably right- but simply because the sitting in itself creates stability (assuming you don't use a rubber stool greased up with lard). I think it's better to just let that happen. However movable you make the pelvis, you have excellent support (as long as you sit reasonably forward on the stool). In no way does it need to be fixed still. After continuing to think about this a lot, I'm almost certain now that ANYTHING that goes down during the instant of key depression is bad (relative to the point where you contact the key- obviously the tip moves down)- but anything going up is fine. Anything going down gives a poor lever action and wastes loads of the input. This includes the classic 2nd finger collapse and also when people let their whole upper body collapse inwards so as to follow towards a big chord. It's nothing to do with making the points static- but rather making it all about ups not downs. This may sound odd- but I've discovered another use of the pencil that gives a very practical illustration. Even in an arm drop, exactly the same principle applies once contact is made- or you have downward collapses and wastage. I'm going to write a post all about the nature of what makes for efficiency quite soon. I've been finding this stuff an excellent conscious guide to work with. Also, not that I'm saying all fingertapping is bad- but this is my slight problem with it. The arm stays still as a fixed point. I found it useful to spend a time only doing actions that always stay in contact with a table- levering the knuckle up around the fulcrum. I may well come back to more tapping actions at some point, but I found it very helpful to think around the point of contact as normal- not from the point of movement.

I found exactly that to Andrew. You might end up with the biceps/triceps accumulating tension. I "cheat" besides basic tapping I altere with letting the pad go down "as if tapping" and resting once in a while on the pad-key down- loosening all possible tension in biceps/triceps. Like if you took the keys away the arm would fall down.I try to keep it all p/mf.

A couple of points: Schultz is wrong because he actually advises the pelvis to create that stable base instead of viewing the bench as the stable base. About "everything up": I couldn't agree more. About fingertapping: perhaps tapping not only increases the richness of physical sensation at the pad/key contact point, but also "educates" the entire finger/hand/arm to the possibilities for "up" rather than "down," because they are now relieved of any unconscious "down" they may have been indulging in. AFF

the pelvis to create that stable base instead of viewing the bench as the stable base. Ah, I see. Definitely wouldn't agree with willfully fixing it. Speaking of the support creating itself though, I was practising in some nylon shorts and it was actually enough to make a big difference. I could feel muscles wanting to hold a bit tighter, to stop me sliding around. I actually wonder whether some of the dresses that female pianists wear might ever cause problems in this respect? Also, I can see now how the light tapping is far less risky. I think I used to stiffen my wrist a little- from just imagining the reaction force that would be coming back from such a movement. I've been deliberately trying to stop myself doing such movements while resting my hand on a table. I can see how the lighter movements are much less likely to train the wrong style of movement. However, I do think it's useful to go through a period of only using finger pulls to move the arm around a point of constant contact- rather than imagine where an invisible key would be. It brings aspects of the arm's balance and freedom much more into the simulation. I suspect that if this becomes the more "normal" way of conceiving it, isolated taps of the fingers can be useful too without interfering.