Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Signal to Noise Ratio

Do we think unrequired muscle tension (like that sometimes caused by antagonists) and especially the tension at unrequired joints swamp the data received from sensitive motor movements? Are they a distraction?

I don't think any joints are unrequired. Nor do I think that tension is a distraction - I think it's actually at its worst when it goes unnoticed.

Very much agreed, Kreisler. I think one of those most dangerous approaches is to perpetually be looking at the negative of trying to generally strip it away. unless your arm falls of the keys it is still there but not noticed. Far better to shake the arm loose away from the keyboard to remove all tensions first. Virtually everyone can loosen and relax this way. Then slowly and patiently add the smallest efforts as perceived positives- with an acute feeling for the purpose and what is achieved by each action. The awareness is a world beyond that which can result from always hoping to go from positive to negative. If the positive of effort went to far in the first place, subtracting is too complex. It's far easier to shake your arms loose and start from a positive once more. But this time do it better. It takes patience but it's far clearer and easier.

While you come up with such novel notions, why don't you use the same time to practice..? I know I am! So much better to analyze your playing rather than fret over words on a screen, in so many complicated sentences. Is it just me, or is this stuff completely useless?

That's what I mean, it's a pre-noetic distraction i.e. below the level of consciousness.

I am afraid I have to agree. To use the golf analogy:

There is a book "The Golfing Machine" by Homer Kelly. It is all about breaking down the golf swing into "force vectors", "angular velocity" various levers, etc... However an overweight, red-neck, alcoholic (John Daly) can go out and win a PGA and British Open without all the gobbledygook analysis.

I have no problem with all the musing going on here. I understand what some are trying to say (I did have a year of physics in college, and have a doctorate in human physiology). This might be useful in the design of a piano playing robot, but is kind of at odds with the underlying principle of making music, which is artistic expression, and that is highly personalized.

Interestingly, my teacher rarely focuses on how to press the key down. It is really as much about the UP as it is the down. You can't go down unless you are first up, no matter what type of motion you use. So we focus on not getting stuck down in the keys. This approach is described best by Barbara Lister-Sink's teachings.

Stanza, I'm not quite sure where any of that relates. All I'm saying is reduce the unnecessary signals to the brain and maybe you'll be more aware of the necessary ones.

Sure and a lot of fat red-necks play terrible golf too. Are we taking a survival of the fittest approach here or is there any interest in generating a means of improvement? Is that supposed to imply that if some redneck can do, any old fool should just be able to play golf well anyway? Are we extending that to piano, too? What if they can't?


The question would be whether the book simply analyses complexity for its own sake, or whether it used the findings to pinpoint classic mistakes and translate the physics into a very simple practical solution that would be easy to perceive and execute. If it didn't I'd say it would mostly likely have been pretty useless.

Also, the implication seems to be that an efficient quality of movement is somehow at odds with artistic expression? Does that mean that all forms of intent at progress are at odds with expression? So we should just stick at our current level and focus on however much or little artistic expression is possible within our god-given limits? Why?

To me, a distraction is something that interferes with your attention. I don't really understand the idea of a pre-noetic distraction.

And what can be done about something below the level of consciousness, anyway?

Just because the distraction is below the level of consciousness doesn't mean it isn't having an effect - 90% or more of your functioning is below that level. If it is the case the body's system only processes x amount stimuli it could well benefit to make that stimuli the most appropriate for the action.

I know it's having an effect - that much is clear. But what can we do about it? Parkinson's disease operates below the level of consciousness, but being knowledgeable about it doesn't help you overcome it, so why bother?

Play with less unnecessary tension! Easily said.