Problems with right hand. Maybe video might clarify problem?

Let's get this straight: you play piano with your fingertips, not with forearm rotation. I'm in no way suggesting that forearm rotation should ever replace the work of the fingers. My argument is about a well-coordinated playing apparatus in which certain parts of the body are worked out separately, independently, and then integrated into the whole. As far as I'm concerned, the fingers themselves play NO role in solving the problem at hand. Although forearm rotation is an elementary movement that is used very often in our daily lives, it takes special training to develop it for speed when you have to apply it for special skills. The process can be quite frustrating because one feels so helpless. I'd go as far as to say that it is one of the elements that make our dominant hand dominant and our other hand "weak". Very often, when people work out at the gym, they forget to train and stretch the muscles involved in forearm rotation. If you don't train, then you are at risk of developing a "tennis elbow" (inflamation at the outer side of the elbow) or a "golfer's elbow" (inflamation at the inside of the elbow) when you apply the movement incorrectly under certain conditions. YouTube is full of clips on how to train this. Just enter "forearm pronation" and "forearm supination" as a search term. Instead of doing the exercise I suggested above (flat fingers on the table), you can also use a hairbrush (hold the handle - close the hand around it - such that the head with the bristles is either on the thumb-side or on the pinky-side of the hand and tap it lightly and repeatedly against your thigh in perfectly timed pronation/supination. The back of the hand is always UP in piano playing position for both pronation and supination training) This is by no means easy (I'd say it's rather hard) to do with your left hand if you haven't had the training. Needless to say that the fingers play no role here because by the very nature of the exercise, they just cannot take part. Paul

I would say that the book is not even about piano playing as such. How you move a key, for example, is NOT discussed and one cannot hope to become a good pianist by reading/buying the book. His only claim throughout the book is that one needs to develop/strengthen the extensors (he shows note fragments that cause certain problems in certain students with certain hands), but that does not mean that you have to play with highly lifted fingers at all times. It's better to look at it as the training a ballerina does. Many things she does at the barre seem to be rather useless in performance, but are indispensable for all-round physical development. Paul

I had to think a bit and reread the book before I could reply to your opinion. I think training of lifting muscles is indeed required for the following reasons: 1) lifting a finger is unnatural in daily life, but it is still very much required in something like playing a musical instrument (think of preparing positions, for example), working at a computer, etc.; 2) when a finger "fires" to play a key, there are 2 up-strokes of the finger for every down-stroke of that same finger, whether you realize that or not. Besides, the lifting finger is constantly resisting the natural tendency of the hand to close. Therefore, the lifting muscles are also used to regulate the speed of the descending finger (tone control); 3) spreading the fingers apart is also related to lifting the fingers. Whenever fingers are spread apart , the lifting muscles are automatically activated (abduction is related to extension), so even the simple act of preparing the hand to play an octave "stresses" the lifting muscles to some extent, even if you have really big hands. That's why it is safe to say that if the hand has to spread even a little and the extensors are weak/untrained, you are potentially in for trouble. If abduction is already extension, and there is a tendency to stress even more for moving the key itself (as I said, extension cannot be avoided), then we are trying to "ride off with the handbrakes on". In this way, one can say that certain positions, angles, etc. on the keyboard put a certain "stress" on certain fingers that are then perceived as "weak" and spoil the working of the next finger. As a rule: the smaller the hand, the greater the problem. The natural reaction of someone who doesn't realize what is going on would be to train for more flexion ("make the fingers stronger" with gripmaster devices, Hanon, etc.), but as I said before, the flexors (that bend the fingers) are often more than strong enough to do the job. Still others will try to "relax" the hand, pushing from higher up on braced fingers, etc. P.S.1: All of the above applies even to those who play "close to the keys", and is NOT the same as saying that one should visibly lift the fingers at all times when playing the piano in performance. P.S.2: Avoiding certain angles, positions, etc. as Taubmanites often propagate, is very often NOT a real solution to the underlying problem; merely yet another opportunity not to solve it. That's as far as the purely anatomical problems are involved, but there is also Kochevitsky's research into neurological processes: In the central nervous system, reciprocal relations exist between flexors (bending muscles) and extensors (straightening muscles). The intense excitation of flexors will call forth intense inhibition of extensors, and vice versa. Since the inhibitory process is weaker than the process of excitation, a slight raising of the fingers (intense excitation of extensors) before their descent into the keys appears to be a valuable means for strengthening weak inhibition of flexors. The tendency to rush, to accelerate passages is observed mostly among students who are not used to raising their fingers while practicing. Now we see one more reason for the requirement of raising fingers in slow practicing. Paul

Let's get this straight: you play piano with your fingertips, not with forearm rotation. I'm in no way suggesting that forearm rotation should ever replace the work of the fingers. My argument is about a well-coordinated playing apparatus in which certain parts of the body are worked out separately, independently, and then integrated into the whole. As far as I'm concerned, the fingers themselves play NO role in solving the problem at hand. I do see where you're coming from- but I don't personally think that the rotation side is especially hard to develop. There are many exercises which can aid this side- which are perhaps most easily done in mid air. Also, there are things like the powerball and the theraband flex bar, both of which I strongly recommend. The problem is that, however much freedom you develop, it will be lost again unless there is a very precise coordination between the timing of what the fingers do and the rotational practise, once at the piano. In short, I'm all for practising rotation in itself (primarily out of the context of playing altogether), but as soon as you relate it to piano playing, it can only be understood in relation to the correct style of finger activity. This is why I believe that any tapping exercises should be viewed as much in terms of the fingers helping the rotation as in terms of rotation helping the fingers. Also, I'm not saying that you advocate Taubman yourself, but their style of rotation proved to be something of a waste of time- until I combined it with the finger element, with both understanding and intent. I think it's easiest to understand the basic quality of finger action first and then add rotational elements only once that is completely clear. Otherwise rotation almost always supercedes the fingers and encourages inadequate activity- where it should merely serve to complement them.

2) when a finger "fires" to play a key, there are 2 up-strokes of the finger for every down-stroke of that same finger, whether you realize that or not. Besides, the lifting finger is constantly resisting the natural tendency of the hand to close. Therefore, the lifting muscles are also used to regulate the speed of the descending finger (tone control); 3) spreading the fingers apart is also related to lifting the fingers. Whenever fingers are spread apart Some interesting points there, but I'm not altogether convinced by no. 2. With the style of resting down on the key surface (but already pushing the knuckle back up) prior to producing sound that I have been employing, there's not necessarily any up stroke. Similarly, the return can often be achieved solely by the springs of the key- rather than as an active retraction of the finger via muscular work. In that respect, sometimes there's neither a preparatory lift and neither is there a follow up via the extensors. Personally, I don't consciously perceive any regulation from the lifting muscles. I just feel the extent to which I look to extend the finger through the key. That involves lengthening of the two mid joints, but there is only a closing action at the knuckle itself- not necessarily any active extension at all, but merely a passive one when the springs push the key back up. It's a fair point on number 3- but does that mean our extensors aren't usually strong enough? Not necessarily. Are we using the simplest actions or fighting with two conflicting intentions? I think Thomas Mark points out that any pure knuckle pulls necessarily close the fingers together. Do extensors at the knuckle need more strength- or is does simply create cocontraction? With my extending action of the fingers, the action that plays the keys also serves to open- which means that there's no conflict between closing and opening. I don't know if Prokop assumes it's about one thing overcoming the other via strength, but I find that there's no conflict in the first place, if you use this particular style of finger action. Although this action lengthens the fingers, it does not actually require the extensors at the knuckle to do anything. I think this is very important for a small hand. If the intent is to use pure knuckle pulls, everything will always be closing up the hand- no matter how hard the extensors fight against that and no matter how strong they are. P.S.1: All of the above applies even to those who play "close to the keys", and is NOT the same as saying that one should visibly lift the fingers at all times when playing the piano in performance. Specifically why though? The only preparation I perceive for many finger actions is merely the beginning of the same action I go on to sound the key with. I use it to lightly apply pressure against the key surface, prior to moving it. Of course, there's some kind of activity from the knuckle extensors at times (in terms of readying a finger on top of that key in the first place) but I don't think this requires any significant power. I think it's primarily about avoiding situations where muscles work against each other. I don't see having powerful flexors as a bad thing, but neither am I convinced that the role I use them in actually demands significant power. In the central nervous system, reciprocal relations exist between flexors (bending muscles) and extensors (straightening muscles). The intense excitation of flexors will call forth intense inhibition of extensors, and vice versa. Since the inhibitory process is weaker than the process of excitation, a slight raising of the fingers (intense excitation of extensors) before their descent into the keys appears to be a valuable means for strengthening weak inhibition of flexors. The tendency to rush, to accelerate passages is observed mostly among students who are not used to raising their fingers while practicing. Now we see one more reason for the requirement of raising fingers in slow practicing. I'm a little unconvinced by this. What does "inhibit" really mean? Is it a positive act? Or simply the ability not to do something? Personally, I'm convinced it's primarily the case that this style of practise trains greater stability of the fingers that keep keys depressed. I don't think it's about an ability to "inhibit" so much as the fact that when you are stable, you are less inclined to perform muscular actions that are unnecessary when balanced well. When balanced poorly, the same actions may be serving some kind of purpose- that would be better served by the clearer contact between finger and key (which is often inspired to improve by lifting other fingers) When I am stable, I am not inhibiting an unwanted action, but simply not doing it. To me "inhibit" suggests trying hard to avoid something- which is totally different to simply not doing something because it is never on the radar to begin with. It's just like how lifting my right arm does not make me lift my right leg. I'm not "inhibiting" that action. My brain simply has no reason to have ever been sending out the signals that would make it happen. Not doing should be a genuine and automatic absence of something- not fighting desire to do something with an additional intent to inhibit. I think this is why advanced pianists can often play without any evidence of finger lifting at all. They have learned to achieve enough stability in whatever fingers are keeping keys depressed- so the rest of the hand is not "clenching" for stability. They don't need to wipe the slate clean by lifting the fingers- because the extra muscular actions that unstable pianists must rely on serve no role that is necessary to them. By this point, it's not an inhibition but an activity that has fallen off the radar. They are not inhibiting, but rather are not in the habit of placing themselves in situations where the additional activities would serve any purpose to them.

As a light-hearted side note: Here's . She has no fingers on her right hand, but (after only three years of practice) she plays the piano better than some who do have them. It's a pity this is not one of my students... Paul

Prokop says that the folding and lifting muscles work in balanced opposition as the key descends. Starting from the key surface, the amount of force exerted by the flexors compared with that of the extensors will vary upon three things: 1) the speed or intensity of the downstroke which influences how loudly or softly the note is played; 2) the duration of the note being played. Quicker note values such as eighth and sixteenth notes require a quicker release than whole or half notes. In addition, quicker note values that are played require that the fingers shift into reverse before the key reaches the bottom - a function of the lifting muscles (extensors) - to immediately counteract the downward momentum that they have produced. 3) the resistance of the keys. The muscular demands of a stiff action are different from those of a light action. And then he adds yet another two of his theorems about this synchronization of flexion and extension: - Synchronization within soft dynamics (piano, pianissimo) is more difficult to accomplish than within loud dynamics (forte, fortissimo). Playing softly or lightly requires that the fingers hold back more on the downstroke than when playing loudly. This requires well-developed lifting muscles (extensors) which control the descent of the finger. His second theorem goes like this: Within synchronization, slow practice stresses the lifting muscles (extensors) to a greater degree than fast practice. As a result, technical development is accelerated. To explain all this, he gives "science-based" info (without clear sources, of course) that I haven't been able to verify. Besides, I would need at least one bottle of vodka to convince myself that the game is worth the candle and then analyze it all. Much of it sounds rather religious if I may say so. Having gone through the Lazar Berman stretching regime, I can do splits between adjacent fingers, so I couldn't care less actually... (Hahaha) They might not be strong enough. I've heard more than one famous pianist advise stretching exercises, presumably not to increase the size of the hand, but to train those required muscles. About the Kochevitsky quote: Kochevitsky is talking neurology, not psycho-analysis. I'm sure the terms "excitation" and "inhibition" have completely different meanings and are in no way related to what we intend in our minds or to what we are consciously capable of. Paul

Do you know if there are any sources to prove this? I'm open minded, but I'm tremendously doubtful. Also, I think that flexors/extensors usage is actually quite ambiguous- particularly when I use the extension action to play keys (which some say can be attributed to interosseus action rather than tendons). For that reason, I'll speak of actions that move in the direction of the key, vs those that go in the opposite direction- as I'm quite sure it's not as simple as extensors performing one role and the flexors the other. 1) the speed or intensity of the downstroke which influences how loudly or softly the note is played; 2) the duration of the note being played. Quicker note values such as eighth and sixteenth notes require a quicker release than whole or half notes. In addition, quicker note values that are played require that the fingers shift into reverse before the key reaches the bottom - a function of the lifting muscles (extensors) - to immediately counteract the downward momentum that they have produced. 3) the resistance of the keys. The muscular demands of a stiff action are different from those of a light action. I'm EXTREMELY doubtful about no. 2. Firstly, you can rebound from a key VERY quickly, based simply on a confident application of force followed by instant release. I don't think Prokop has thought this through- because no active retraction is necessarily required at all. The idea of reversal is even worse, for me. I'm not sure if you've read my posts on keybedding, but I'm certain this is a case of someone who has totally misunderstood how shock absorption works and built his theory upon an error. The idea of suddenly slamming on the breaks in the milliseconds between passing escapement and landing the key is extraordinarily dubious. Personally, I'm certain that my theory about redirection (but not direct reversal) in momentum is the explanation- not any nonsense about slamming on brakes in the middle of the action. I'm certain that this is a case of fitting a theory around a rational misunderstanding about what is necessary. As I think I describe in that post, aiming for a sudden retraction of the energy that was being sent in a positive direction is like trying to stop a putter dead as soon as you have connected with a golf ball. Either you'll slam the brakes on too early (sacrificing all control) or you'll just do completely unnecessary work. All this does is introduce margin for error and wasted efforts. I think this can be a disastrous intention- whether for quiet playing or for even for staccato (where I prefer to perceive a single action that sounds and releases the key as a single act- not one that depresses the finger and another that actively tries to pull it away again. The latter is a classic mistake that I see in students over and over.). Also, regarding number 3, I think this is one reason why the extension action is so useful. With that, you only need to apply more energy or less energy. With indirect paths, different actions require a wealth of adjustments. And then he adds yet another two of his theorems about this synchronization of flexion and extension: - Synchronization within soft dynamics (piano, pianissimo) is more difficult to accomplish than within loud dynamics (forte, fortissimo). Playing softly or lightly requires that the fingers hold back more on the downstroke than when playing loudly. This requires well-developed lifting muscles (extensors) which control the descent of the finger. I have to say that I find this plain barmy. While there may objectively be some kind of balance between two opposing actions, the above sounds as if he is suggesting that we have no sensitivity of the action that goes through the keys- but can supposedly produce fine control by a more sensitive action that works in direct opposition. I find this extraordinarily dubious as a supposedly rational theory and vastly worse still as a practical mindset. Who would seriously believe that the best means of controlling how much energy to put in is to do enough work against that very same energy- when you can simply employ less to start with. I personally believe that any sense of intent at holding back is disastrous. Maybe it's impossible to remove all traces of opposing actions, but I would never embrace them or view them as a good thing to intend. I look to perceive exactly how much positive intent is required and do just that- just as a golfer moves the club steadily through the ball for a short pitching shot (rather than swing the club faster, then try to subtract by slamming on the brakes midway). Ironically, making it more about what you do put in offers vastly more control which ultimately makes the very softest playing easier. I'm fundamentally opposed to any sense of active subtraction in the finger. If I want to play softly, I might feel the wrist drifiting very gently and steadily upwards before the finger starts to move. This enables the fingers to act extremely positively, but the slight wrist drift makes it possible to play very quietly. The sense of positivity from the finger allows the results to be very predictable, even though the wrist motion acts to subtract. If I perceive any sense of restraint in the finger itself, the results fall apart in an instant. Also, given that I clearly perceive the muscles that act to move through the key acting upon the keys before moving them, why would the opposing muscles be having to work even as a preparation? Provided that whichever finger is currently depressing a key creates a good enough sense of structure, I can actively be to be strong are on dubious ground, to put it extremely mildly. Sure- it's possible. But is the real reason that they are no strong because they are permanently fighting between opening actions and playing actions that actively serve to close? Rather than follow Prokop's ideas of strengthening against flexors, will they not just become stronger when they stop having to fight against the flexors? Kochevitsky is talking neurology, not psycho-analysis. I'm sure the terms "excitation" and "inhibition" have completely different meanings and are in no way related to what we intend in our minds or to what we are consciously capable of. Paul Even in the brain, what does inhibit mean though? Does my brain "inhibit" my leg from lifting when I lift my right arm? Or are the signals never on the radar to start with? I'm not sure if the esoteric language hides something genuinely significant- or whether he's just engaging in esoteric language as a more complex alternative to a simpler and more pragmatic explanation.

Do you know if there are any sources to prove this? No idea, really, because the field of anatomical science is too far away from what I'm after in life (If it feels right, it must be OK). Besides, I have big problems in general accepting anything "scientific" as ultimate truth. For me the alpha and omega in piano playing has always been the artistic picture, nothing else. Of course, if someone impresses me by their playing, then I'm eager to find out how they achieved the results and to listen to advice related to practising. When I look the book through, though, I see that a lot of what Prokop states seems to be based on his understanding of work by the Swedish physical therapist Signe Brunnstrom. The book is mostly endorsed by people from the therapy field. The foreword, for example, is by Dr. Paul D. Fragner, a recognized specialist in the field of hand surgery and orthopedic surgery. If we assume that all those people were not bribed to endorse the book and actually read it and thought it through, then there must be something plausible in Prokop's statements. Even if Prokop is mistaken, and his only real argument is: "Why are you asking for proof? I'm the living proof of this or that conclusion", still I would be more interested in the artistic result. When Alan Fraser, for example, makes a statement about piano playing that cannot be verified scientifically, then I can at least watch him on YouTube, see him play, like the results and take what he says as a given. Same with your ideas; go to YouTube - if one likes the result and one is not so utterly stupid as to deny the progress you have made since you first started investigating, then there is no immediate reason to doubt that the mindset and the result may be related somehow. Even if the science behind it is not 100% correct, who cares? My problem with Prokop is that I have no idea whatsoever how he plays or how his students play. "The piano is a percussive instrument." (One of his statements in the book) Oh... OK. But what if his touch by default is an ugly, agressive, percussive staccato, as one can witness very often in the world of Jazz? (He seems to be a Jazz pianist). Wire him to equipment and register muscle contractions in the name of science. These muscle contractions may be very different from those seen in another (classical) pianist X with a much more gentle touch, a much more beautiful tone. P. may strike, hit the keys, "fire" his movements, while X may be one who caresses, "hugs" the keys... I already mentioned some of the reasons I'm really interested in this extensors thing. I'll just repeat and add something: 1) great pianists do it and advise it (even Rachmaninoff with a stretch of a 13th did it and even Franz Liszt instructs to "lift the fingers and strike with precision" while doing his Technical Exercises) 2) I feel that my sounds become more crisp, my movements more free and balanced after a "lift-and-let-drop" (or maybe better a "lift-and-gently-swing-into-the-key") session, lifting the finger from the knuckle joint or lifting the hand from the wrist (octaves and chords) 3) benefits for memory: three repetitions and ANY new material that goes through my hands in such a "lifting/dropping" fashion is (and stays) in memory. Of course I UNDERSTAND the material in more than one way, but still... Maybe it's just "religious ecstasy", huh? Be it so, I'd be a fool if I changed anything about it for the sake of working more in accordance with scientific rules (ergonomics and stuff) or to silent those who say I'll surely get RSI, carpal tunnel trouble, etc... Scientists may have a very hard time explaining some or any of this. Paul

Absolutely, I'm only interested in science where it has practical consequences. Personally, I care little about which muscles are being used- provided that something works. However, I think the point about opening vs. closing actions is of enormous practical significance- and literally defines what is possible in practical terms. I think this is one of the big reasons why using the finger extension action is helping me- because relying on purer knuckle pulls conflicts with nature, when the hand needs to be opened out for large chords. Extending actions make for a much better stabiliser. The value of scientific realisations are when they illustrate that, beyond subjectivity, there are significant and inescapable limitations to certain styles of intent. I must say that I am VERY skeptical of such things. Many advanced doctors know relatively little about practicalities of healthy body usage- even if they can do surgery on a particular area. Given that the passage you quoted basically says that the trick to controlling playing is to use extremely work extremely hard against your own muscles for soft playing (rather than use lesser efforts), I can't believe that it would be healthy if taken literally. Cite a few background snippets of theoretical science (that has scarcely been put into practical use) and you could probably pull the wool over the eyes of doctors- who wouldn't have much clue as to the mechanics of piano playing. I'd say yes- to an extent. The problem is the amount of subjectivity- in what makes particular things works for an individual. Countless great performers are clueless about what they really do. It never fails to amaze me how many people insist that they slow down the key after escapement and before the keybed. You won't find a single golfer in the world who preaches the value in stopping the club head in the first instant possible after contacting the ball- which this is tantamount to. It amazes me that how have this mindset can be successful at all- as I feel certain that they play well DESPITE the mindset and that virtually anyone who is not lucky enough to have learned something altogether different to that will be harmed by attempting it. I see your point- but I do personally believe that the most objectively correct ideas are the most likely to be successful with a wide range of pianists. That is- provided that they are used to create sensory exercises which train all aspects of the big picture. Simply giving a cold explanation is not enough- but wildly subjective exercises will always need to be given to the right person. I think objectivity should guide the sensory aspects, if you are to come as close as is possible to an allround method. Yes, while I respect jazz pianists, they can get away with tight muscles a lot more easily than classical players.