Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum The correct way of pressing a key ?

Well, 40 years ago I got a degree in physics (and then forgot all I had learnt within the next five years) but your scientific explanation sounds very dubious to me.

One question though: some time ago I seem to recall you were advocating 'balancing' the arm on one's fingers and allowing them to support the weight of the arm. I can't see for the life of me how that is possible with flattish fingers.

Your finger is a lever. The fulcrum is the knuckle. The closer to the fulcrum your load (the piano key) is, the less effort it takes to move it. Curving the finger brings the load closer to the fulcrum.

I'm not arguing with your assertion that playing with the pads is better than playing with the tips.

I am taking issue with the inaccurate use of the language of physics to try to prove that assertion.

The language of piano technique and tone production is imprecise and poetic. It works in person, with a teacher. The language of physics is precise, but it is not the language of piano technique because piano technique goes beyond physics and into aural trickery.

Yep, that's all I meant. And I didn't mean that playing on the pads of the finger is never appropriate!

They need to support a portion of the arm's weight, yes. Not all of it though and not none of it. Why a flat finger might not be able to do that is beyond me. I'm doing it right now on the tabletop and it's far more comfortable and balanced when I use the whole pad of my finger.

So what is your reasoning for saying that a strike that is clearly in the plane of required motion would not be more efficient than one that is not and in which give in the joints is inevitable?

"Your finger is a lever. The fulcrum is the knuckle. The closer to the fulcrum your load (the piano key) is, the less effort it takes to move it. Curving the finger brings the load closer to the fulcrum."

I see the point. But it is not a fixed structure. Especially not with a greatly curved finger. What of the inevitable loss of contact upon the key from the reduced area of contact? What of the inevitable fact that motion from the knuckle cannot be transmitted on a direct plane- due to a truly substantial amount of the energy being channelled on a horizontal plane (assuming that you don't have a staggeringly low wrist)? What of the fact that any muscular action in the end joints of the fingers decreases the stability of the structure and contact- instead of aiding it or serving to contribute additional energy input on top of that provided from the knuckle? Or that all of the muscles that contribute (especially the lumbricals) operate with more strength and function when beginning closer to a neutral position- than when already starting from an exaggerated position.

Sorry, but I don't believe for one second that these factors can be outweighed by the small change in the distance. After all, if that were truly the biggest factor, would we not all seek to form a perfect right angle at the next joint after the knuckle and keep the final joint perfectly straight? Neither do I observe pianists who make the biggest ranges of sounds tending to play on extreme tips with exaggerated curvature in the fingers- except for a specific effect.

I particularly can't see how it could reasonably be argued that finger tips are inherently superior, based on science. There are so many factors against it that I'm definitely siding with the dual possibilites for either direct or indirect angles for energy transfer, that come with the flattish finger.

My main issue with the open-fingered approach is that I am immediately aware of how much tension it introduces by default. For me, this tension is extremely effective at stopping much of my musical intention dead in it's tracks. Also, I do not support your notion that 'give in the joints is inevitable' - at least not in the sense that it would constitute any more give than is inevitable with any approach? A degree of flexibility is surely desirable in any case, as without it, there would be no shock-absorption?

You just prefer the alternative, which is what motivates you to find the physics unconvincing. That's fine. But the physics of the situation remain, irrespective of all mitigating elements. And bear in mind that the OP is in the context of the discussion about the difference between pressing a key on a digital and an acoustic (which feeds out of discussion regarding the value of a digital piano for beginners). The flat fingered approach works just fine on a digital in ANY circumstance, and students who have been playing on a digital piano tend to play with their fingers more or less rigid from the knuckle with no ability to control dynamic. A conversation about what is appropriate at a concert performance level is somewhat out of place in the context of this beginners-on-a-digital/acoustic origin of the question - what is effective in a concert performance is often far from useful for a beginner, which I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing?

FYI:

The finger is three levers, attached to another lever, attached to another lever, attached to another lever. Two of those levers are not simple hinges (wrist and shoulder) and they have the ability to change the orientation of all the other levers.

Each of these levers are controlled by a complex system of muscles and tendons, and the entire mechanism rests on a foundation that is somewhat flexible (the rest of your body.) This foundation is balanced at three points - the pelvis and two legs - but the weight distribution between them is often in flux.

Oh, and did I mention that the levers on two of the fingers are anatomically linked (the 4th and 5th.) Also, playing a finger by itself is a very different motion than playing it after another. Finger 3 alone requires a different motion than finger 3 after the thumb, which also requires a different motion than finger 3 after finger 4.

Simple physics may be useful in describing narrowly defined microscopic aspects of technique, but for actual piano playing, accounting for all the levers, angles, and forces used, in their proper contexts, would require hundreds of pages of equations.

Why tension by default? You have to use a lot of muscle tension to form such a curved shape. Far more than to play with a natural finger shape- according to many who know a lot more about the anatomy than I do. I certainly feel more comfort with small stabilising actions that are spread across each joint, than when the hand is curved to the point where the last two joints are unable to contribute anything that does not act almost solely horizontally. As for shock absorption, yes it would certainly be necessarily. But it would detract from efficiency, which was the source of my disagreement. That ain't efficient! A naturally shaped finger undergoes far less shock and absorbs the little that occurs really very easily- and requires no joints to be fixed into position or to undergo comparable compression. No joint gives! They all squeeze faintly inwards and spread the load.

The substantial number of mitigating elements I gave are not 'physics'? It's a complex issue, but I simply do not believe that so many factors fail to outweigh a small difference in the distance from the knuckle.

Also, with regard to ease, playing with a rounded tip requires far more factors to come perfectly together. When you squeeze from a slightly flattened finger, you can feel every joint acting positively. If you start too curved, you often collapse and then often have to use the opposite(!) muscles to those required in order to reset. And then many students collapse again. If you start flatter, you feel the natural inward action in every joint- until it carries you into a natural position. The most natural action creates a balanced position. There's no danger of forcing one joint into place but then having to use opposing muscles in another to keep it there. The whole finger does it's naturally evolved function of squeezing lightly inwards and every single joint contributes towards contact and balance. There is no fear of a near vertical joint accidentally slipping. Every natural inward action reinforces the balance. It's so simple that I can't understand why anyone would not want to use this as the most standard and normal way to play.

Thank heavens for some reality instead of pseudo-science.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasoning that you present to get there, at least the part that's "based on science". Drawing conclusions from a simplistic application of theory to a complex system is not science.

Playing with flat fingers can have advantages, and (as I understand them) they are almost as you describe-- but not for the reasons you describe. Again, you're not using the language of physics properly. As I understand it, flat-fingered playing can be useful precisely because it is *less* efficient at transferring kinetic energy from the body to the piano. Once you are in the action, and the key is depressed but the hammer has not hit the string I believe flat-fingers can give you greater control and can produce beautiful, legato, cantabile playing. But it was precisely because the kinetic energy was diverted from its intended direction (down) that the playing became more delicately nuanced.

And what is this "outside the plane of motion" business? Do your fingers curve to the right and left?

None of the factors I listed are pseudo-science. Would I also be making silly talk if I said it is less efficient to turn your palm the wrong way and only using the opposing muscles to play the piano? Is it too complex to say that this is less efficient than playing with the muscles that can act most directly into a key?

There are sound reason for many things- such as why the lumbricals can't produce much power from the knuckle if you play from an enormously high wrist either. That's not pseudo-science. It's very simple application of mechnical laws based on horizontal and vertical components of a force. If you want to transmit power with the utmost directness from the knuckle, you need a naturally shaped finger, not one that curves up to play on the tip. You have used up most of the capacity for motion and thrown that which remains off-line. There are a thousand and one other things you need to do as well, but the more flat-fingered approach is inherently more efficient- if you want to be able to transmit energy from the knuckle, without always having to sending loads of it on a useless horizontal plane. That's not pseudo-science. It's fundmental mechanics.

Of course not. I'm talkin horizontally as in towards yourself. Think about motion that occurs about the knuckle. When the finger has been curved up, that motion does not operate very directly through the path of the key. You waste a lot of the energy input. With flat fingers it is geared very directly into the near exact plane in which the key travels.

I'm sorry, Nyireqyhazi, but you seem to use terms without really understanding what they mean and you also seem to have a lack of basic understanding of levers.

I point you to wavelength's last post which also sums up my thoughts.

[Edit] However, I am sure you are an infinitely better pianist than I could ever hope to be.

I understand the notion that this could make a reasonably big difference IF it were a fixed structure. It isn't. To attempt to make it so would be very dangerous- particularly as the last two joints of a very curved finger would be rendered virtually useless (as they would act almost SOLELY towards you, not into the key) unless you work two opposing muscles groups against each other to stabilise. I would not want to recommend this to anybody.

And you feel that the notion that when a force is applied on an indirect line to a path of motion it wastes the force substantially is "pseudo-science"? Why dimiss this but keep repeating the business about the lever? It's a case of balancing the role of two subsantial factors. Neither is any less worthy of consideration. And if you acknowledge that flat fingers work better, why not make the same assumption that I do? ie that the indirectness of attack must cause serious problems- coupled with all the other perfectly reasonable problems I pointed out.

Sorry, but any method that places value on efficient transmission of energy from the knuckle (without seeking seizing up in the finger) requires a finger that is in a more natural position. Not one where the muscles have already "shot their load" before they even end up able to start act into the key (from a necessarily less than optimal angle).

If you don't want efficient transfers from the strongest, most able muscles of the hand then that is fine. I'm just saying that it's definable that that this pointed finger method does not permit the lumbricals to operate to high efficiency or without a highly complex means of balancing. The alternative is inherently far simpler and more direct. I didn't say either is right or wrong.

This is a most interesting discussion; however, I want to remind all that the greats for the most part played on the pads of their fingers, but with curved fingers. They were/are able to do so by maintaining a lower wrist position than what is generally illustrated (and I fear taught) in most method books and piano texts which I've seen.

Yeah. One thing that has occurred to me is that some of us may not even be talking of totally different things, necessarily. Almost everything is somewhere in the middle. I don't advocate collapsed joints as normal, or totally flat fingers (although I certainly employ the latter at times). Primarily I just don't think that any alignment that stops the natural function inward function of the last two joints is good for balance or ease- at any level of attainment. I've spent a lot of time slowly squeezing an initially flat finger through various positions using the natural inward muscular actions. If done slowly, you can feel the point where any additional activity from that joint would induce a feeling of horizontal force and not directly contribute any further to vertical contact. That's my primary yardstick for the normal position. I want any activity in those joints (faint as it is) to benefit and contribute to both balance and motion, not to leave me feeling like I will slip unless I stop and leave either fixed or devoid of muscular activity. This takes me to a position that is not entirely flat but neither would it come even close to only the tip of the finger. All the inward muscles work lightly but productively to glue you against the key and permit the strong lumbricals to move from the knuckle a direct plane with the key's motion. Nothing feels compressed or works against the limit of a joints motion. I feel vastly more potential to transmit energy here- and the fact that the pianists who produced the most searing "big" cantabile usually moved in this way does not strike me as any coincidence (or transcedence of physics). I realise that my point about the lever aspect was mistaken. However, I do believe that those about the planes of force and stability of motion must be a major factor in what is easily observed in practise. I think your point about the slightly lower wrist is important. It makes that direct plane of motion possible. Funnily enough, I've recently tended to do a lot of lighter things with an increasingly high wrist. However, I'm increasingly thinking that if you want to squeeze a big sound out (without thrusting the arm in), the lower the wrist the better.

Hang in there Nyiregyhazi. I completely agree with the main thrust of your argument.

Ron

Did you get all that, Cashley?

I have been re-reading "The Well Tempered Keyboard Teacher," which presents a historical overview of piano pedagogy. There is as much hogwash and contradiction in that book, from historically famous teachers, as in this thread.

You can't break it down to simple physics. That's why the great teachers use poetic - rather than scientific - language.