Understanding Weight As A Preparation- Not To Move The Key

Just been experimenting lately with Alan's idea of starting finger movement before the key is going. In association with the extension style of action, I've been getting major benefits from this. Anyway,just want to run past an idea about weight, that I believe plays an essential role in feeling the optimal position from which a finger can go on to generate efficient key movement. Basically the idea is that you start extending the finger from contact with the key, BUT you must not move the key by even a mm. It's a sense of resting a small sense of weight (really very small) while the finger is simultaneously pushing the knuckle up. It can never be a large weight- or obviously the key would go down. Similarly it can never be replacing the finger's role, or the finger would be slumping down (again probably depressing the key). I think it's the perfect place for feeling how a "firm" prepared finger is created by a tiny sense of resting down (creating less than the 50g of pressure that would move a key) balanced by a tiny sense of the finger pushing back. It's a totally different thing to a generically "firm" finger in the air- as it's created by interaction of muscles against contact with the key surface and not by muscles working against each other. The mass or weight plays an integral role in creating this firmness- but you have to be ultra sensitive about the balance or the key will go down. From this position, if you don't judge it perfectly, you have an immediate means of feedback- make it it relatively easy to get the interaction between slight finger extension and slight weight spot on. If the key moves even a mm you got it wrong- but equally, if the arm is not resting on the finger slightly, it cannot firm up properly and the arm is making wasted efforts. From this position, the finger goes on to move the key. Any weight issues are all done with. If it's only used to create the initial firmness against the key, it doesn't inspire any collapse but instead sets up a position where finger movement generates maximum key movement, without any give. Currently, I'm realising how poorly my fifth is usually prepared. By feeling this preliminary act of both resting against the key and pushing away from it, it's making a big difference (and avoiding more complex compensation movements). Any thoughts? I know Alan is generally opposed to weight, but I found that judging it prior to key depression (but not thinking of it during depression) makes the fingers work better than if I eliminate all thoughts of weight. Sometimes I'm not resting clearly enough on fingers before depression to move the keys well- which is exactly when my arm start falling in the most during depression! If you restrict weight to that which is still insufficient to even move a key, it becomes a totally different thing to that which encourages the hand to droop. It's always working with the fingers to set them up for efficient movement- not encouraging them to do less.

Just following up from that, I was practising earlier and observed that my fingers move overwhelmingly better when I look for this slight sense of resting on the keys before sounding them. My fourth finger tends to start from a badly droopped position in arpeggios, but when I think both of resting a little weight on the key first and of trying to push the knuckle up via finger extension, the following act of sounding the key via finger movement is very direct and simple. Ironically, it's when I feel this minute sense of resting weight before sounding the key, that my finger operates best. When I'm not doing this, my finger is much more inclined to collapse and fall in or stiffen. By feeling a very small sense of weight for the finger to push back up at before actually moving the key, I'm finding it easier to remove the typical arm weight associated problems than when I'm completely forgetting about weight. When I only view it from the finger side, my arm doesn't release properly and the finger doesn't feel so well primed against the resistance of the key. My knuckle elevates more easily when I'm looking for that sense of resting down than when I'm not. It's like a reminder to a finger to prepare with some activity in the opposite direction. Without that minute weight, the finger forgets to ready itself. Although this resting is obviously minute (considering that it must not move the key at all) I'm finding it of key importance to get this sensitive interaction between resting slightly down via the arm and pushing slightly back up via the finger. I'm wondering whether this moment of preparation might be what arm weight technique triggers, for those who are successful with it? Is it actually the sense of resting on the key BEFORE moving it, that enables some to move the fingers perfectly well despite focus on the arm?

Hi Just read "All Thumbs" so my intention not to think about technique this year failed. Indeed some invaluable tips. But this is not the thread for that. I think that with preparation Alan did mean creating a kind of tonus in the lumbricals? I did something like yourself for a while but i pressed the keys down a millimeter or so-it was only for practise purpose. But your way is much more clever this improves the aligning big time-I'll take it into practise for a while.Thankyou.

Actually, this is one of the principles of the so-called Russian school. I do that by nature, but then I have "heavy" hands, so I never thought about it consciously. In the Taubman method, they call it "Resting down". Description ("Resting down") with the difference that they don't use or describe the extension action of the fingers. They do note that the finger joints should not collapse, something that can be achieved by that very extension action without deliberate fixation in those very joints. I think that Alan will reconsider his opinion with time since he likes the "Russian" golden sound so much. It is virtually impossible to sound "Russian" without arm weight. The only problem is that the descriptions we have on how it works don't make too much sence. The only one who gives a more or less acceptable description of arm weight as a shock absorber + a factor in tone quality is Josef Gat. I'll try to look that up and quote it here. Anyway, it must be clear though, that mass, acceleration and height are different means to create different effects and different sounds. If you leave any of those out, then the sound will be limited; good, but less than what can be achieved, other things being equal. Paul

Do you mean judging that downward resting from how much you rest against a key (but push the knuckle up) BEFORE the movement of the key begins though? I have heard descriptions of things that I suspect alude to the same kind of principle (including what Alan says about starting the finger activity early) and things about feeling "contact" with the key. However, I've never heard anyone specifically refer to weight in terms of having just enough to rest down against the key (while the finger acts slightly in the opposite direction) before the act of actually starting to depress it. From what I heard about the Russian school, descriptions almost always seem to refer to involving weight in moving the key and in generically trying to rest down as much as possible. I have to stress that this is not what I'm speaking of. I'm actually using this to minimise the weight that bears down- while using the idea of resting against the key without moving it to ensure that there is a very slight amount of settling (rather than holding the arm is place entirely from the shoulder). EDIT Sorry, just spotted the link for the Taubman thing. Interesting to read that. I suppose that where I differ is that I see it not merely as "resting" but as resting slightly down but pushing back UP. I see it as an exceedingly active preparation, not as a act of neutrality. I'm fully in agreement with Alan about the dangers of thinking of weight moving the keys, or wanting to rest weight down as an end in itself. However, the thing I don't agree with is that you shouldn't think about weight at all. I still find that if I go for a long time without considering the issue, my playing deteriorates I do much better when I come back to thinking about the means ofthe weight- but without locking the arm up. For me, if you abandon weight-related thought altogether, it can actually cause the very same problems that Alan associates with willful intent to throw weight around. Especially with my fifth, I'm currently finding that thinking about this very tiny amount of weight as a positive preparation (in a situation where it becomes clear if you overdo it) makes it far easier for my fifth finger to activate effectively. Currently, it's when I feel this preparatory sense of weight against the key surface that my arm falls down the most- not if I forget about weight. However, I'm definitely not arguing in favour of traditional weight thinking- where weight is supposed to add anything to actually moving the key. I'm only using tiny amounts of weight to feel how to prime the finger for efficient movement. After that, weight (or probably more accurately "mass") stabilises movement that only comes from the finger. I'm hoping to write some more posts soon, particularly about this issue of how the arm rests/floats before and after each depression. I've found various useful strategies- with the goal of getting a state where as far as the arm is concerned, it's as comfortable as if it's supported almost entirely by the hand. However, as far as the fingers are concerned, it should be as comfortable as if the arm exerts no weight on them at all. If you look at it from both ends, I think it's possible to find a happy medium where you get both sides feeling comfortable- without sending a major workload to the other end, in order to be comfortable. Of course, there are also situations where the fingers may lift and attack from above and where the arm my push or drop from height, but this is the basic foundation of ultra-efficient energy transfer that I'm looking for. I'm certainly not excluding other possibilities, in the right context. I'm just realising quite how inefficient many of my basic finger actions still are, unless I slowly and sensitively pay attention to getting this preparatory state for simple movement.

Hi I think that with preparation Alan did mean creating a kind of tonus in the lumbricals? I did something like yourself for a while but i pressed the keys down a millimeter or so-it was only for practise purpose. But your way is much more clever this improves the aligning big time-I'll take it into practise for a while.Thankyou. Yeah, that's it. I'm finding that it if I feel the finger trying to push the knuckle up + slight weight resting down (to "firm" the knuckle before the key even moves), I have the perfect position from which to move the keys in a simple and predictable fashion. Come to think of it, I've often been doing the same thing of depressing keys by a millimetre or two. Obviously this would be less literal in the final product, but I think it's a great practise method. I think the main thing is that it's sensitive. Whether it's a millimetre or no movement at all, you can feel the interaction between the finger pushing the knuckle up and the sense of how mass acts very slightly down from on top, to firm the finger from other end. As soon as the key is flying down, there's no sensitivity- so it's easy to allow and not notice the collapses that weight may cause. However, with either no key movement or tiny movements, it's almost impossible to accidentally fall into misuse of excessive weight- as long as you have clear intent to lengthen your finger into firmness rather than to buckle it. One thing I'm finding about these preparatory actions is that you get a sense of the perfect line of movement. I'm currently on a very slippery piano at my parent's house. Yesterday I had been all over the place, but these preparations get the fingers feeling how to middle the action, without slipping across the keys.

The "Russians" don't throw weight around on the piano. If that is described somewhere as "Russian school", then it is either misinformed or it is probably a metaphor for something else. There are exercises for beginners like "mostik" (hanging bridge) which involve lots of weight hanging with depressed keys, supported by the shoulders at one end and one or more fingers at the other end, but those are preparatory exercise and are meant to 1) "strengthen" the fingers and 2) loosen up a tense body. As Neuhaus says, the fingers should be able to bear, to support the weight of the body, but this has more to do with not collapsing whatever the reactions are when lots of energy is used. This does NOT mean that one should throw weight or mass around. The fingers are seen as independently moving entities, and in such a case, before the movement of the finger begins, the hand rests on the keys just enough exactly as you describe. This is nothing passive or neutral; it is indeed preparation for action, like a cat ready to spring at its prey. Arm weight itself, however, DOES NOT CAUSE tone. The sound may change, however, become "warmer", when arm weight is somehow involved as a factor or merely as an idea to take away stress. For example, thinking of "arm weight" in slow passages may decrease acceleration of the finger a bit, and the tone becomes rounder, fuller, etc. And, of course, if you lift your hands as high as Rubinstein did at times and let them come down with the violence he demonstrated, then the mass of the lifted entity clearly takes part in tone production. There's no denying that, I think. Now, let's have a look at how I understand arm weight is really used in "finger passages". I will use terminology I read on an on-line source that is no longer available, but the ideas are by Josef Gat (a student of Franz Liszt) in his famous book on piano playing, which is out of print and also no longer available (I have a copy in Russian). Let's assume that each key has a nominal weight of 1 ounce. In slow tempo we may only play, let's say, 2 notes during a four-second period, with an upthrust of two ounces. At higher speeds, however, we may play 50 notes during the same time frame, and our fingers find comfort beneath their "blanket" of arm weight as they have to deal with a daunting upthrust of 50 ounces (actually, the forces become significantly greater while speed increases, but we want to keep things simple for theoretical purposes). One could say that the many little springs of upthrust form a "mattress of resistance" against the weight of the flexible blanket. As we increase the speed from fast to faster and very fast, the amount of weight gradually increases with it. One may also think of the fingers as wheels and the arm weight as part of the car's shock absorber system. If the latter weren't there, the car would start take-off at higher speeds. I hope this makes sense somehow. Of course, in slow or medium tempo it is of no use to deliberately apply/"transmit" weight to create tone. Even Matthay called this a "sin". Those false ideas probably come from the "heavy" (link to a direct download of the pdf version of his "Natural Piano Technique") and are explained as "Matthay" even today. Paul

The "Russians" don't throw weight around on the piano. If that is described somewhere as "Russian school", then it is either misinformed or it is probably a metaphor for something else. Okay, perhaps it's more bastardisations of the approach the give the impression that the arm is providing key movement? However, I've heard plenty of talk of "transmitting" the weight of the arm or passing on "energy" from the weight of the arm. If used as a metaphor, I think it should always be made clear that the reality involves no energy transmission- otherwise a metaphor can have exactly the same effect as an errors/lies. It can be called a metaphor after the event, but if it leads to major misunderstandings by not being identified at the time, it still has to take the responsibility for those who up believing innaccurate descriptions of the product and passing them. It's a very a subtle thing here, but I do have a slight problem with this. It suggests that the hand simply becomes strong enough never to collapse. In line with the demonstration at the end of my blog post about the fingers, I don't think it's really strength but directed intent at movement. It does seem to me that Russian approaches tend to promote the idea of "strong" hand that cannot collapse- rather than fingers that can never give way because they are moving positively in the opposite direction. As I demonstrate in the post, general strength cannot actually prevent collapses altogether- only intent at movement in the opposite direction to collapse can eradicate it. In that respect, it doesn't necessarily matter whether you can support the whole body weight or not. If the fingers move positively enough, they never need much weight for a large tone. I think Russian technique is traditionally very literally about arm energy in most loud dynamics (this is certainly what happens in most Russian pianists I see)- but I think it's possible to get far more resonance with small additions of extra hand movement than when the arm puts weight through a hand that merely tries to avoid collapse. I actually suspect it's more that hands that habitually move through reactions naturally go on to become strong, than that hands that are strong can resist reactions easily. Interesting. I don't honestly think I've ever seen arm-weight described as a small preparatory thing via which an active finger can firm itself against the key, but perhaps the interaction between slight preparatory weight and an actively extending finger is something that evolves through the teaching approach? I think there's definitely something important in this. The Taubman ones sounds like an encouragement of passivity. If I use their "natural" hand position, it's very hard to prime the fingers when I "rest down". Everything tends to rest flaccidly, not alive. However, if I use an extreme arch like Rubinstein, the finger can firm itself in preparation very easily (and often completely instinctively). Absolutely. The thing I'd stress though is that it goes beyond mass and weight alone. When the wrist is bunched up forwards, it becomes very hard to absorb the reactions passively- whatever you do with the weight. However, when everything hangs back, the sense of the arm being stretched out slightly serves to absorb the reactions in an additional way- that goes beyond weight or existence of mass. It's like how a tightly outstretched violin string only vibrates- but doesn't get pushed all over the place. Mass just exists anyway, but it's by keeping a sense of length (rather than bunching it up together) that it can absorb shock effectively. In some cases, I think it's more important to actively pull back a fraction with muscles, than to feel as if the arm's weight is the important part. If you lengthen the arm well (while keeping suitably loose) the easy absorption is there whether you think of mass or not. Increasingly, what I'm thinking is that if you can feel the arm hanging back from a slight resting on a finger even BEFORE you play, most of the other stuff works pretty easily of its own accord. If the setup is just right, all you have to do is finish moving the finger along the path that it's already exerting a slight pressure in. My feeling is that if you judge the tiny amount of weight in terms of finding a sense of resting on a key (without it being enough to accidentally depress it) there is much more simplicity than if you worry about the role of weight during key-depression. That, is as long as you are using that slight weight to prime the knuckle into an elevated position, rather than to collapse it. Looking at it this way is filling in many holes is how effectively my fingers can accelerate the keys. If the arm is already felt as hanging back from a subtle resting on the key surface, the key receives way more acceleration from even surprisingly small finger movements.

The problem is that in class, you don't always have the time to talk in scientifically correct sentences and statements that can be 100% verified. It may be enough to say "more weight", "more height", "weaker tone" to a student and the acceleration of the fingers decreases; no more harsh fortes, etc.; exactly the right tone. Does one need to continue explaining then to make it all scientifically correct? I don't think so. Indeed, a "strong" structure makes things a lot easier. Although it may not be really necessary, I still see nothing but advantages when one develops such "strong" structures. Isn't that part of the purpose of some of Alan's exercises as well? Learn to stand up so that you don't have to think about it or waste too much energy on fighting collapse later on? Although nobody in Russia explicitly says that "one should move positively in the opposite direction of certain forces", this does not mean that nobody is aware of it (the Soviets conducted very extensive investigations into such matters, by the way), that it doesn't happen or that anybody has anything against that idea. "Diagonally forward into the key", for example, is nothing new here, although the mechanical advantages as such are not always explained. You "just do it" because it's in the arsenal of effective movements. We are all subject to the same physical laws, aren't we? There is not much room for success if one systematically defies laws of nature. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that Richter, Rubinstein and others didn't think for a moment about keeping their arches up. Even when they were walking, the arch was always there in their hands dangling along their bodies. Teachers are very careful not to give descriptions of technical or scientific stuff. They will mostly prefer metaphors to explain what they want, because words are just words. What you describe, for example, may be understood as "unnecessary tension" (something really bad and to be avoided at all cost) by those who haven't been through the process. You have noticed that, I guess, in your attempts to communicate something on pianostreet and pianoworld; it's virtually impossible to have a good conversation about it with people who don't understand or recognize from their own experience what you are describing. There may be a world of Feldenkrais and Alexander experience between you and your audience. How are you going to get your message across if you don't use metaphors that even a 10-year old can understand? Of course, but not everything is explicitly mentioned in methodology. For example, if you have Richter's hands, you will move differently from someone with really small hands. By the way, have you ever seen Tatyana Nikolaeva? That's also old Russian (or should I say "Soviet"?) school. Some would call that "weight playing", but weight is only part of the story. Of course, with her comparatively small hands, she has to jump through hoops sometimes to manage, but she manages rather well with a pleasing sound. Please have a look and comment: Paul

I'm not a believer in having to do all specifically in scientific terms. However, I do think that teachers ought to have a duty to identify metaphor as metaphor and not to present it as fact. Otherwise it does nothing but add to long-term confusion. What I'm trying to find myself is a simple approach that is both practically effective and consistent with objective reality- not an approach that is based on scientific terminology. True. I'm not saying strength isn't useful- but for me it's all about whether you feel to prevent collapse with aimed movement. However much or little strength, the same requirement is there of trying act through the reaction. Strength alone cannot compensate for failure to time the movement through reaction forces. Without timed intent at movement even the strongest hands in the world will be collapsing and moving the keys with less efficiency than a "weaker" hand that can time the movement. Sure- it's just that, for me, unless you specifically understand the distinction between trying to be strong enough not to collapse and simply moving in the opposite direction to collapse, it's a hell of a lot harder to find the most effective product. I'm not saying nobody would teach the things that lead to this, but I don't think the strong arch in itself is enough for everyone. Many, myself included, benefit greatly by understanding the difference between trying to hold a position with strength and simply trying to move in the opposite direction to collapse. While some get this on instinct, pianists with stiff hands will get a huge advantage from realising that well-aimed movement is objectively better at avoiding collapse than any alternative. They rarely even intend to be stiff- but simply have not perceived the easier alternative and hence have no choice. I find that understanding the simple difference between positive and negative movements gets to the heart of the issues very quickly- and requires minimal understanding of actual science. The objective reality is what matters- not whether you use scientific terminology. The terms I use are actually my own entirely- to describe the practical issue, in a simple way, without use of scientific vocabulary. True, but I think it's because they learned the internal feel for positive movements so well. If they were routinely collapsing their hands, would they have had that shape while walking? Not necessarily. I don't think that just because some pianists did it with little thought, that we should assume that learning is better without understanding. I like analogies- that give an extremely comparable situation to reality. What I don't like is metaphors that actively contradict reality. Even without analogy, however, you can show the concept of positive and negative movements to a ten year old in minutes- and they can feel for themself how poorly negative movement transmits energy and how well a positive one creates tone. It doesn't have to be fiction to be easily transmitted (and neither does it need complex science- I just believe in being consistent with it). The main difficulty is getting a point across to someone without being able to directly watch what they are doing. The problems lie in their existing preconceptions and habits- particularly if they are used to the inversions that Alan speaks of ( perhaps most notably a wrist that keeps rising up into a held position). I find that the major issues can be conveyed very easily in person, however. For me, metaphors are best for interpretative inspiration or mere technical refinement, but I really don't like them for basic foundations. A pianist who starts with the metaphor of weight producing tone will end up doing just that 90% of the time- unless his teacher is spectacularly good at telling him to do one thing, while simultaneously directing him to do the very opposite of what he is asking for. Although I'd likely use dropping exercises on a pianist with locked arms, I'd always be clear that it was a matter of releasing the arms so the fingers could move. I'd never consider telling them that weight would literally produce tone in scales. Honestly, I'm not so sure on this one. I think it's just all the more important to do the right things with small hands. How can a small kid play well with minimal mass- if it's a big issue? For me, this supports the idea that it's a combination of the arm's mass and a well lengthened arm that does not bunch up unnecessarily. The sense of tautness between finger and shoulder gives them stability to play pretty loud via the hand- even though they do not have a heavy arm. When described as being all about weight, it often causes the slumping that Alan associates with armweight thought. However, if it's understood as being about lengthening the arm (which weight-thinking can sometimes lead to, but certainly not necessarily) it's a lot easier to find that objective state where the arm helps the hand without having to bear down on it.