Two-sided Support For The Arm

Just wrote a new post with a couple of exercises for the arms- to illustrate the difference between one-sided and two-sided system of balancing the arm. Arguably, the main one is a feldenkrais style awareness exercise, that demonstrates the feel of how the basic alignment can be found via an entirely passive arm. I think this is a really simple way to get a feel for how the arm can hang entirely released- yet create a state of natural alignment. I'm thinking that one of the problems with the starting point is that we ALWAYS start in a one-sided system of support before playing the first note. The question is- can we exploit the two-sided support once we start play the very first note, or do we retain the (now obsolete) efforts that balanced the elbow and wrist before? I think this makes a lot of sense of why the "flopping" approach helps some people- it shows them the releases that are needed upon making contact. The question is whether they will get lost in the collapsing- or start balancing it by using their hand properly? I'd be interested in any thoughts on this. I think this is an excellent way to get a preliminary feel for what the arm supposed to be doing and how it should feel, before actually starting to use the fingers on the keyboard. With this starting point, there is no nonsense about how the arm is supposed to do everything without the fingers- rather it ensures that you have an entirely specific feel for what it's like to release the arm into balanced state required. I've seen so many students tentatively "hold" their arm over the piano and then struggle to get their fingers to do anything. If you can encounter the fullest state of release before you even play the first note, I think it then gives a massive head start- when you begin the actual playing based around finger actions. However, I am starting to think- maybe an arm drop really is a valuable to play the first note of each phrase for beginners (ONLY the first note)? It makes it far more easy to enter the released state. From then on, the fingers can provide all the action and sustain the two-ended support by playing legato. Once you're in this state, it's a lot easier to stay there, than to create it from an arm that was formerly held against gravity over the piano. A lot of beginners really struggle to find the release and make the transition between states.

I think you are absolutely right. Mastering the art of letting the arm hang between fingertip and shoulder must be essential. I think an armdrop at the first note is a good idea with beginners. In a former post Alan talked about P Wirth did you watch it? He is overlapping your area and working with children. But he assumes that the fingers can work indepedantly of the biceps and triceps I don't know if that is true but the struggling to relax these muscles makes a true wonder. To be able to do this I guess you need strong finger (tips) a healthy arch and a welltrimmed hand. The weight of the arm comes in play only when you move it either by transfering the weight from one finger to another or by dropping it. Wirth doesn't advocate a no-use-at-all of biceps/triceps it's a question of diferrensiation. Alan gave me the advice to use my fingers more sometimes my arms are to tense and paradoxally trying to play with fingers only can result in the arm hanging between shoulder and tip. I'm waiting for your exercises to come I like when you do a clip it's the understanding becomes more "effortless" .

In a former post Alan talked about P Wirth did you watch it? He is overlapping your area and working with children. But he assumes that the fingers can work indepedantly of the biceps and triceps I don't know if that is true but the struggling to relax these muscles makes a true wonder. No, I haven't seen this yet but I may well order it sometime. Sounds interesting. I'm pretty sure the fingers can work independently of biceps and triceps. If I move my arm into a range of different positions and wiggle the fingers, I really don't feel that the movement is hampered at all- except when stiffening the forearm. I don't think it's anything to do with moving the fingers themselves (or at least, not a particularly significant issue). I think it's just about what happens when the fingers meet with something and how this reaction force will then affect the whole arm. I don't think it hinders the actual movement of the fingers- but rather the ability to act upon the keyboard with movement without being repelled. I am finding a slight pull of the upper arm useful at times- rather than just allowing gravity to generate that backward pull. However, I'm convinced that most normal playing can be done simply with release of the upper arm, rather than with an active pull.

I tend to believe that sometimes we should follow the example of Mosche,if one took his chair i read in alan's book that he claimed that he would not fall but would be active and standing without falling,i believe relaxing and let go should be replaced with thoughts like "active scanning of apparatus at a given time,ready for action",there is a difference between being ready to act and send a signal than to relax. Relaxization leads us to less control right?While effective movement may seem as effortless,maybe there is never a kind of 100% relaxization but rather alterated states of preparedness ?

I tend to believe that sometimes we should follow the example of Mosche,if one took his chair i read in alan's book that he claimed that he would not fall but would be active and standing without falling,i believe relaxing and let go should be replaced with thoughts like "active scanning of apparatus at a given time,ready for action",there is a difference between being ready to act and send a signal than to relax. Relaxization leads us to less control right?While effective movement may seem as effortless,maybe there is never a kind of 100% relaxization but rather alterated states of preparedness ? I don't think such generalisations are of much worth, to be honest. They way well apply in many instances, but it's all about specific context. Generic, unguided relaxation of the whole body would clearly lead to less control. But to say relaxation in general means less control in general would simply not be accurate. Individual relaxations often serve a specific purpose in the whole- beyond simply the obvious one of comfort. In the post, it describes the difference between one-sided and two-sided balance. An arm could look identical on the surface- yet that which is hanging in two-sided balance could be vastly more relaxed in various muscles. However, it would actually be far stable than the harder working arm that is in one-sided balance, despite vastly more muscular relaxation. It's not about the relaxation/tension involved so much as the state that results from all the individual factors making up a whole. It should never be taken as a rule that relaxed=floppy or that stable=more effort. This would hold absolutely true in one-sided balance- but the moment you are in two-sided balance, it does not necessarily hold true at all. How these details go into making a mechanical whole really has to be taken into account. If we get carried away in assuming the truth of generalisations, it's very easy to make false assumptions about what generates the stability of a great pianists mechanism. I think this is why it's very hard to find the "suspended chain" state of balance- because when we see great pianists using their arms in a very stable manner, we instinctively presume they must be working many muscles hard to keep it stable. We tend to assume the rules of one-sided balance- rather than approach it from both ends. However, if they keep things tightened up primarily from the ends (rather than with large efforts around every individual joint) they can have relaxation and stability. The two actually go hand in hand, within this particular balance. Contrary to expectation, it's more stable than the strongly "held" arm that so many resort to. Ultimately, it all comes back to whether something serves a purpose or not. In the example with the chair, a strict mechanical analysis would reveal that he would most certainly be using his muscles altogether differently when the chair were removed. Unless he worked the muscles pointlessly hard when sitting normally (and did not actually contact the chair when sitting- as simply touching lightly would change the balance of the forces) it cannot be taken too literally. I think his point is probably that he was not merely slumping into the chair and depending on that alone not to collapse. However, I should be stunned if he was actually suggesting that his muscles would be working in an identical way to if there were no chair there. It certainly wouldn't be accurate to suggest that and I don't imagine that he meant that absolutely literally. It would be interesting to be able to analyse these things in the most literal sense, but I have a strong feeling that "readiness" is frequently more about the mental state- rather than necessarily working many muscles hard just in case the chair is removed. Even if he were supporting a lot with his feet while sitting, the moment you took that chair away, his muscles would make countless adjustments to balance. Otherwise it could be stated beyond any doubt that he would indeed fall over. Unless you are squatting over the chair without contacting it, you will certainly become unbalanced by that chair being removed- unless your muscles make some adjustments. Presumably in the case of Feldenkrais the adjustments to balance would be a lot of smaller than for most, but they would not be zero.

I beleive it's more a question of controlling the tension/relaxation in the muscles that's the way to experience a controlled sound and controlled movements.At some point you have to let go. Controlling by let go controlling. It's pretty obvious in most sports especially golf.Or boxing.To get that nice clean shot the relaxation/tension has to be perfect and it's only when you get this timing right that you'll play good golf. You're in the zone and it feels as you're doing nothing. The difference between a pro and an amateur is that the pro konws how to reenter that zone when he screws up. Same in using a rifle you jeed to squeeze the trigger and the shoulder has to start relaxed otherwise the pain from the recule will be unbearable. I think Andrews allagory with the chain is really helpful with this a startingpoint you can work out different alignments and different degrees of muscle tension. And experimenting with biceps/triceps totally relaxed. To my great joy I've improved my golf quite a bit while working with my pianotechnique maybe more than my pianoplaying!

I think Andrews allagory with the chain is really helpful with this a startingpoint you can work out different alignments and different degrees of muscle tension. And experimenting with biceps/triceps totally relaxed. To my great joy I've improved my golf quite a bit while working with my pianotechnique maybe more than my pianoplaying! Yeah- quite honestly I don't think of it as even an allegory but a very literal description of what an arm is. I'd heard the suspension bridge idea before, but it was only after going through the mechanics that I realised quite how close that comparison- if you involve this state. As a metaphor it only gave me a vague idea, but as something more literal it has been phenomenally useful. I should stress though, there's nothing against putting any efforts back in. It's just that most people's point of departure is the held arm of one-sided support. If you turn that around and start with the totally released arm in two-sided support, you are in a much better position to put efforts back in. It's just a way of well and truly wiping the slate clean before you get to work on the positives. Anything that serves a purpose can be added freely. However, it's only by starting from true release that you can be sure it indeed serves a purpose. If it's not possible to hang a released arm, how can you ever be sure that the efforts that are occurring serve a function? There is no point of comparison. The problem with traditional arm release approaches to counter stiffness is that they encourage dysfunctional flopping and collapsing. When your beginning is from a state that is relaxed AND both stable and functional, you have a very sound point of departure from which to experiment.