Sure. That's what I was getting at by contrasting it with an active contraction.
I don't think the rebound theory means more relief. If it is correct, then the extensor of the MCP has to be tense while the MCP is being flexed by he lumbricals. If it is wrong and the return is active, then extensor is relaxed during the flexion phase but works during the extension phase, rather than just springing back. Either way it works for half the cycle. Equally, the lumbricals only work for half the cycle, but they are working a lot harder if the return is just a rebound, because in that case the opposing muscle is actively resisting them.
I don't see how you could prevent the rebound from happening even if you wanted to - the issue is only whether it is the whole story.It seems logical to me that the natural release is responsible for some or all of the extension process.
I don't think so either (I'm not sure you should be consciously attending to any of these details of the movement in ordinary playing). I don't understand how this point relates to the release though. Also, I don't think you can equate conscious movement with active contraction. We don't consciously instruct all the muscles involved in walking to contract just the right amount at just the right time, but that doesn't mean that this is achieved by a catapult effect rather than by controlled active contraction. We are only conscious of a tiny part of what our brains are doing.And if what I just said is true, I don't think one should should consciously extend (or reach or straighten) from the middle joint while flexing from the knuckle joint. Notice I said "consciously".
I just needed a word for the part of the stroke where the MCP is flexing and the PIP is extending. I was also thinking that, for someone who believes a controlled plant is important, it might make sense to use a technique that limits the speed of the flexion but gives you a faster extension, which is just what pre-tensioning would do.BTW, I'm am not a pro-planting guy. Planting is useful for learning certain things, but I don't think one should base an entire technique around it. The free stroke is one smooth movement and I believe it should be practiced as such.
I agree with this, Kent. Good technique generally has a very natural look to it, and seems to "piggyback" off normal human movements. Those movements are the body's response to technical and musical demands. Attempting to imitate something based on a visual and then intellectual analysis (which which imposes two additional layers on top of an auditory/kinaesthetic basis, and one which may be in error) seems risky to me. Also, the good players did not do this.kmurdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:29 pmgit-box says: "Most all of the time the joints are moving in opposite directions and it doesn't matter if they are playing slow or fast."
It's hard for me to tell if they are moving in opposite directions about half the time or more than that. But in either case, the stroke is the result of a very natural and continuous movement. The idea of trying to consciously imitate this movement would be risky for anyone. There was a time (40 years ago) when believed that the stroke was a bicycle movement and I practiced scales for months consciously making this motion. In the end it did nothing for me, probably because I was using extensor muscles within the stroke where they shouldn't be used. It may be that this stroke can never be learned except by feel. But maybe not.
Good stuff for sure, I have them all and have talked with him many times about right hand techniques. He's in agreement that the middle joint plays a much larger role than the traditional pedagogy. Philip Hi told me that he plucks with the middle joint.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 10 guests