One More Point About Gravity

Hi, I think we're pretty much in agreement on the gravity issue now, but I'd just like to raise a couple more points- which I think goes a long way towards explaining the disagreement. I realised that there is a basically watertight argument that proves what a big role gravity plays- although it's kind of an indirect role in moving the key. When the arm is position over the piano without resting gravity into it, the net force is zero. The down action of gravity is equalled by an up action of the muscles, keeping the arm still. However, when a finger pulls upon a key, the arm is repelled. The reaction force pushes the arm up. Now, this may be fairly slight if we are talking one rather quiet note, but let's use an extreme example for the sake of completely clarity. Let's say the pianist is playing loud and fast. EVERY note results in an up force at the arm. This is added to the up force that was cancelling out gravity. So we are left with an upward force that is unresolved. For the arm to remain still, something must cancel that force. Either a muscle must push down into it. But remember that would be adding downward pressure to ongoing muscular action that cancel gravity. That means you are pushing down AND lifting up at the same time. Much more feasible is the idea that the arm releases in balance with these reaction forces. When you see Volodos, nothing about that gives the impression that he is pressing heavily into those reaction forces. His arm could not look freer. So the only rational explanation is that he is balancing those forces with gravity- that is he is NOT collapsing but rather he is using gravity to STAY in a stable position from which his fingers can carry on pulling the keys as they wish. I'm not saying Volodos never pushes to any degree whatsoever. But it's clearly not the case that he is pushing heavily. It's an amazingly passive arm that just lets the fingers get on with what they are doing. This overwhelmingly points towards the use of the releasing the arm into a chain, in my opinion. Incidentally, a chain absorbs reaction forces with much less need for exactness. Imagine a taut chain. You can apply a force from any direction. If it's taut, it will resist that. Using gravity to make that means it's far easier to absorb the forces that try to repel you, compared to trying to press into them. Pressing relies on perfect matching of forces- not on the automatic absorbency that a taut chain offers. Does that make sense of everything? The fingers do all of the work of moving the keys, but it's because of the taut chain that the arm turns into that they are able to absorb the reaction forces with so little effort? I think the irony is that, when you allow a little gravity to pull backward upon the elbow, it simulates a situation where gravity seemingly displace either the elbow or the wrist (any more than reaction forces can), because the chain is taut. It's a kind of perverse irony, where releasing gravity in the most important place makes it feel like there's no such thing as gravity! I think this goes a long way towards explaining our own disagreement as well as many others about technique. Try to force weight to descend into the keys and it can be disastrous. However, if you do what effectively amounts to using gravity (in one spot) to stabilise AGAINST the action of gravity in another spot, it all slips into place and the hand can get on with doing its thing. Anyway, thanks for your persistence in being skeptical! I think it's come to a point now where I can see what the reasons were for your continued skepticism. Although a description that ignores gravity could never make any rational sense to me, I think I can now see what puts you in a situation where you can basically feel neither gravity nor reaction forces even seem to exist. Hopefully, on your side, the idea of gravity existing solely to tighten up the chain (allowing the fingers to act to their full potential) rather than cause downward movement also makes sense now?

Also, here's a recent post about various issues, by the way. Nothing terribly radical here, but in my next one I'm going to talk about the nature of one-ended and two-sided systems of balance (and why "relaxed" means something altogether different if you exploit the second). There will also be a number of exercises for feeling the difference in the arms.

Hi It's been interesting to follow this debate and I learned a lot.I think it was the parallell to the gym-device, that is weight is "travelling" , which made me understand the mecanisms of gravity. The mistery of armweight is solved when you cease to think that those vectors only work up and down. As I transferred old 8 mm films to dvd this christmas I watched a film with myself playing in my teens. I played much more between the black keys than now which, associating to this debate, gave freedom to the forces in play to "cansel" out. Now when I'm older i've started to curl momentarily to avoid situations between black keys and to avoid twisting.Which is due to that my third is thicker than it was in my teens.it something I can fix the funny thing is I didn't notice. My point is that NOT thinking vectors may lead to lazy "up and down- thinking" locking up cancellingforces etc ceteris paribus.

I like this first sentence because it reminds me very much of that sign that hangs in the Feldenkrais Center in Paris "Gravity: it's the LAW." And so it is, even though in our daily lives . We really do, for the most part, go through our lives as if "there's no such thing as gravity," although gravity is the most constant force at work in our existence. So yes, things are coming clear... and in the end it does seem that our seemingly opposed points of view are actually getting at the same thing! Indeed it does! Thank persistence! AFF

Wahey! It's great that it all fits into place now, rather than existing as something that seemed to be opposed. I had a feeling that there had to be some kind of just reason for your skepticism (even if I couldn't make sense of how this could fit within a feasible mechanical model) so it was a big help in working towards the idea of the horizontally conceived "chain"- rather than a scenario where the consideration of gravity and reaction forces is based only around the up and down (incidentally, that reminds that Carola Grindea used to INSIST there were only up and down movements in piano playing). While it's not necessarily identical in absolutely every respect, I do think there's a massive amount of overlap within what you describe as skeletal playing and what I'd now describe with the regard to the state of a taut chain (which is actually fits in as a very literal comparison, rather than just as imagery). I think the two explanations ought to complement each other extremely well. My ability to produce and control sounds from the hand has improved drastically since I've understood that the elbow has to be proportionately released to stabilise, if the hand is to operate to it's full potential (incidentally I had some amazing results from a student the other day while getting to her to squeeze the hand around loud chords, rather than push into them. Just slightly prodding her upper arm backwards made a huge change to the sound). Equally, when it comes to what the hand does at the end of this chain, there are very few points that I'm likely to be able to raise which you haven't already covered. Also, I see what you mean about the "elbow out" again. I've gone back and forth with this (originally having overdone it, but then having realised it was actually slumping in too much)- but when that chain is kept taut, there's a limit to how far the elbow can collapse into your torso. When it's taut from both ends, the arm itself really doesn't feel like it has to make much effort. It becomes as much the case that the whole arm lines up in response to the finger as about lining up the finger over the notes from the arm. Strange as that sounds on the surface, it's actually completely consistent with the mechanics of equal and opposite reactions.

I agree, VERY exciting to have things starting to fit into place. Mostly exciting because our PLAYING gets so much better! Thank you once again for an extremely stimulating and fruitful dialogue. AFF

Yeah, I'm very much looking forward to getting some lessons from you again next month (I'm 99% sure I'll be able to make it to the workshop). It will be very interesting to hear your perspective on how these things are currently coming across in practise. However, it's a strange position where on the one hand I'm playing vastly better and more easily than ever before- yet at the same time I feel as if I'm still merely in the beginning stages of using this to work towards (what I hope will become) a polished technique.

To be quite honest, I feel the same way about myself! Also, I am in regular communication with Kemal who keeps having breakthroughs in HIS technique and going back to the drawing board to change everything (he tells me that I understand NOTHING about skeletality compared to what he's discovering these days), and he feels the same about HIS playing... So my boy, you are in good company! AFF