In: Roehmann FL, Wilson FR (eds), The Biology of Music Making,Proceedings of the 1984 Denver Conference. MMB Music, Inc., St. Louis 1988, pp 154-179

SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN MUSICALPERFORMANCEBIOMECHANICS OF THE HAND
Christoph Wagner
Professor of Physiology of Music
Institut fiir Experimentele Musikpadagogik
Hochschule fur Musik und Theater
Hannover, West Germany

Legend has it that Artur Rubinstein once said that he owes his career tohis hands. Obviously he was joking. More seriously, the great pedagogue
Heinrich Neuhaus (1967) wrote in his well-known book: "Look upon the handsof our great contemporary virtuosos, Richter, Gilels, Horowitz. You will after
the ﬁrst impression immediately be convinced that these are hands ofpeculiar, rare and unusual qualiﬁcation for great piano playing." How much of
the suzcce~ss is determined by the hand, really? As you know, there are extremely differing opinions.
A widespread view, as expressed by Kochevitsky (1967), is the following: "Anyabnormal bone-muscle apparatus is sufﬁcient for the development of a highdegree of technique because of the brain behind the hands." However, the assumption of a so-called "normal bone-muscle apparatus" of the hand contains
the same fallacy as the notion of the "average man" (Hertzberg, 1972). It is, inmy opinion, the origin of many fruitless discussions in the field of instrumental training.
Nearly ﬁfty years ago, Otto Ortmann (1929) devoted a special chapter of his
book to "individual differences of the hand." At the same time the physiologist
Wilhelm Trendelenburg (1925) also noted the large extent of individual differences of joint mobility in respect to string playing. Their observations andarguments were hardly taken seriously and remained largely unknown,
despite the instrumentalists’ daily experience that, in the words of Ortmann,"...in the ﬁne adjustments used in piano playing even the slightest restriction
is a hindrance." It is this aspect of our question that interests me. How do we
explain the thousands of instrumental students, professionals and amateurs,

154

Christoph Wagner

who even after ten or ﬁfteen years of concentrated training do not reach that"high degree of technique"? Is the hand, due to its individual nature, responsible for the failure in these cases? And if so, was it merely a matter of training which had been neglected? The teacher would then be responsible for the
student having failed. Or is it a question of manual characteristics geneticallydetermined and therefore resistant to training?
There are many variables related to success or failure in music performance. I
am not going to discuss the relevance of manual factors in comparison withother factors. I want to ask only one question -- is it possible that the individual biomechanics of the hand can be a limiting factor in instrumental
training?
Biomechanical Factors — Measuring; Reliability
The biomechanical characteristics which are, in principle, able to inﬂuence
the dexterity of the hand can be summarized in the following groups:
1. Shape and size of the hand (and of the arm)
2. Mobility of the joints of the hand (and of the arm)
3. Strength of the muscles which act upon the joints of thehand (and those of the arm).
The manual requirements for the various instruments are quite different.For
this reason it is necessary to examine separately the essential biomechanicalfactors for each instrument. We have largely restricted ourselves to the pianoand string instruments in relation to factors of the ﬁrst two groups, shape andmobility (see Figure 1).
Shape of the Hand: This includes the length of hand, breadth of hand, breadthof wrist, length of the back of the hand, length of the middle ﬁnger, and difference of the ﬁngertip 1-3 and 5-3.
Active Mobility: Included here are the ten maximum spans between theﬁngers of one hand, the range of ﬂexion of the basal joint of the thumb, therange of ulnar and radial abduction in the wrist as well as the range ofsupination and pronation in the elbow joint.
Passive Mobility: This includes the range of passive lateral movement of thebasal joints of the ﬁngers 2, 3, 4, 5; the range of passive abduction of thethumb; the range of passive hyperextension of the basal joints 2, 3, 4, 5; andthe range of passive supination and pronation, each under the effect of a given
external torque. Measuring passive joint mobility means determining the

Success and Failure in Musical Performance

155

HAND

SHAPE

W_ l "
ﬁﬁﬁth
RANGE OF ACTIVE MOVEMENT

§Q‘¢I

\\_§

_\ld~""~‘

5-..___~.

PA SS%l‘V'E~'\'I
u-noun/'\""In-nu‘.
I
0="'_---

_'_§
n‘:05

F L E X!|lBIIlL I T Y
I
-—‘I

Q-I‘O

‘G,--I"*1§‘
IQ“

Figure 1
Characteristics of the hand which had been recorded in the investigation. The symbol-- ~—- indicates the application of an external torque when measuring passive ﬂexibility.
\

amount of mechanical resistance which every individual joint offers to movement.
3
The combination of measurements is different for each instrument. An examination of the range of supination is of interest for playing the violin andhardly of interest ‘for playing the cello. In the case of the piano, both hands
are examined, whereas in string playing we have until now examined only thecharacteristics of the left hand. Apart from the strength of the muscles, someother factors of joint mobility have not been included, e.g., control of passive
wrist mobility. What was decisive for the compilation of data was the time requirement necessary to carry out the tests. In its present form, the examina-

156

Christoph Wagner

tion lasts about twenty minutes with stringed instruments and about forty
minutes with pianists.
It would be going too far to describe the technique of measurement-here indetail (see Wagner 1974, 1977). The shape of the hand is measured according
to the rules of anthropometry. We have developed our own methods for thetesting of active and passive mobility. Figure 2 provides a survey of themeasurement instruments and procedures.
The reliability of the methods was tested in test-retest measurements by two
independent examiners on the right and left hands of 30 test subjects. That
they might provide different degrees of variability with various joints is not
surprising and has been reported before (Hellenbrandt et al., 1949; Wagnerand Drescher, 1984). Apart from this, the size of the external torque plays a

MEASURING HAND SHAPE

MEASURING ACTIVE MOBILITY-

MEASURING PASSIVE MOBILITY

Figure 2
Measuring Equipment

Success and Failure in Musical Performance157

role in the control of the passive mobility (Wagner, 1977). On the whole, thereliability attained seems to us to be satisfactory. Of the 79 test-retest correlations, 44 lie above .9, 66 above .8, 9 between .7 and .8, and 4 between .6 and.7. We hope to improve consistency by technical changes. However, like otherinv.e.stig~ators, we have noted that determination of joint mobility of the handpr-esrents considerable difﬁculties (Hamilton and Lachenbruch, 1969; Hasselk-us, et al., 1981; Wagner and Drescher, 1984).

Variability of the Musician’s Hand
Up to the present time we have examined approximately 600 professionalmusicians and 130 adult non-musicians according to the methods described.
In addition we have examined 160 young people as well as 130 children withand without instrumental training. The majority of pianists were enrolled as
students in the piano classes of six German State Colleges of Music. Music
teachers at the high school and college levels and free-lance pianists also took
part in the study. The majority of string performers were intentionally drawn
from professional orchestras ranging from smaller provincial orchestras tolarge well-known orchestras.
First I would like to show those results which are important from amethodologic point of view, namely the question of variability of themusician’s hand. I will show an investigation of 91 male pianists aged 16-33
years. The variability of the left hand of the 31 characteristics investigated isshown in Figure 3. (At the suggestion of B. Scheider, 1981, instead of the coefﬁcient of variation, I use a non-parametric coefﬁcient which provides a ratio of

the interdecile range to the median. This is done because we cannot make any
assumptions about the form of distribution of the various characteristics or,alternatively, we have indications that in some cases the distribution may not
be normal).
Shape
Shape factors as a group show considerably more limited variability than thefactors of active and passive mobility. It is interesting that the relative lengthof the ﬁfth ﬁnger is apparently the least consistent characteristic.
Active Mobility
In assessing the pianist’s hand one often thinks ﬁrst about the 1-5 span. As
the data show, it is precisely this span which shows the least variability

among the ten spans studied; the 3-4 span almost doubles this variation.

158

Christoph Wagner

VARIABILIIY

CHARACTERISTIC0

HAN9 I-.EN,,Gl"'!

7&2

HAND BREADTOHO2°WRIST BREADTH

‘O
1

_

i,T

A

9

'."i".

5°
.1

80'/°

iv"

J

-.
l

I

.J

F"*'
°ERT'F’_ 1T>'§T - ///W//.l “
FINGERTIP olsr1' - ' ".2'/
E"!<5EB_5PAN - /Aé- . 1 -, A .1-“
Ll‘

ill

41

-I

TY
_
BL

---1-1.“

Wt
"

e

-

.-

ii

1

i
1

i,1|.......4f.‘,-...

,,L_;
-'

’//A I.L A. Q

4///_
/f
, 1
//
,

Possess-~-. - \\\‘\‘§\‘
|~;-A

W

ﬁnk

(JR)

\N

A

L

.L1.-i 1 1

918*

VEM0
_
ACT
TY
._.

_.

Muwbw

-5 ’//4’/4%!

THUMB FLE)§l0N_ ._ .

WR'5LULN;ABDU¢T.._
WRIST RAD-ABDUCT.
ELBOW PRONATIONFINGER SPREAD_ 1-5,,
AT5ONcm_ 1-1. '////Z//47////¢|

_

-3
-2

. ~ 1
,_ __ ,

O
F'b"5..ER SPREAA—

MOBL AT 50~<=m 7'
E

.—

-'

2-5

V
PASS
'

2 -3 -4 - 5lp __, __r__j
.

AT 15

A

1

1

r
206

Figure 3

Variability of the pianist’s hand. Dccile coefficients (Interdecile Range x 100/Median) of

characteristics of shape and mobility of the left hands of 91 male pianists, 16-33 years.

Much greater differences are also found in the active ﬂexion mobility of thebasal joint of the thumb and in the active lateral mobility of the wrist.
Passive Mobility
A graded picture, one similar to active mobility, is also found with passive
mobility in that the level of variability as a whole is considerable. The decile
coefﬁcient of the active span 2-3 is 31%; the coefﬁcient of the passive spread 23 is in contrast, 66%. This means that only with measurements of passive
mobility does the actual extent of difference in the biomechanical pre-require-Success and Failu¢r.e in Musical Performance159

ments become clear. Finally, gross variability is found in the passive extension mobility of the basal joints of ﬁngers 2-5.
Knowledge of this graded variability is also of interest for instrumental train-

ing as well. From this it is possible to derive a type of ranking order in respect
to the teachers’ observing manual characteristics with their students. As you
see it is precisely the shape of the hand which tells us least of all.
Quite apart from the interindividual variability, the intraindividual
variability is also of interest. If at least some of the characteristics measured
here were in close relationship to one another, then the number of factors to
be examined could be reduced. For example, to what extent can we draw conclusions from the size of the hand on the hand spans, or from span 1-5 onother hand spans? In the practice of instrumental training such conclusions
are constantly drawn unconsciously.
The calculation of correlations provides a number of surprises in this connection (see Table 1). In the test series with 91 pianists there was, at most, a correlation of .49 between the length of the left hand and its spans. The breadthof the hand has a correlation of .32 with the span 2-5. Several spans have acloser relationship if a common ﬁnger is involved. Between spans 1-2 and 3-4
there is a correlation of only .23. In the matrix which considers thirty characteristics of the left hand of this pianist group, there are 435 rank correlation
coefﬁcients. Of these, 319 are below .5, 407 below .8, with only 27 values over
.8. Even a correlation of .8 is an unsatisfactory basis when we are considering
the assessment of individual preconditions for piano performance. The correlation between spans 1-2 and 1-4 amounts to .84. As Figure 4 shows, wemust nevertheless reckon with the fact that, for example, with a span 1-2 of
220mm, spans 1-4 can differ by 35mm. That corresponds to a distance of athird on the piano! It hardly needs to be pointed out that, under such circumstances, general statements about manual preconditions for piano performance should not be made.
At this point it is worth recalling the investigations concerning the problem ofgeneralization of dexterity which were carried out by Henry (1958) andFleishman (1958) which essentially speak in favor of the specificity of motor
skills. The question seems to be whether the non-generalized biomechanicalcharacteristics of the hand could not also, perhaps, be part of the cause of
these ﬁndings. I am reminded of J.P. Guilford who wrote in 1958, "Theproperties of bones and muscles, and the manner in which they are put
together, should have much explanatory signiﬁcance in accounting for many
psychomotor abilities."

160

Christoph Wagner

_

3NAM:
£_§__mﬁmcﬁq
3Emi‘ﬁlm‘A2
Gm2
H
WyEdam£gm_5
Mp
ﬂ
gM+3I ___

_g__g

___

__
_g

Et5%“E34
w_w6mcaucwmm
Miii_r_m:O
2&5_*OU52Em:
“O
HE
mag
Hm
BCU5
v_Ew__
mBOcFEE“=m_m_w___whe
UE_w_\Q%m__E$N
OO|H£mEEm_ _V 8_€UG gum

i__

iW

_
_I

__
__

P
m_Dm__Dov
E

S uC C B S S 3 n d F

M T C _m_m

M S _mM P onW C
8

O

n

B

161

260 -

71-

240
(mm)
NI-4

-+———iI r,=0.84
I

220

0
'.
0

0

..

@O

O...::- --u-':¢I
O

-

--

0:‘
. gb.II

ZOO

gr...

.

_..

.

SPA
NF
GER
,.

.

,4“

.

.

I
.

-ri.r

.

.

.

r__.

1...

I-\\§

0

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

FINGER SPAN 1-2 (mm)Figure 4
Correlation between active span of ﬁngers 1-2 and 1-4 of the left hand; male pianists,
16-33 years.

Success and Failure Criteria: Comparing Two Groups
In the search for essential biomechanical factors for instrumental perfor-

mance one could ﬁrst of all compare musicians with non-musicians. We did
this in an earlier investigation with violinists (Wagner, 1975), where we wereable to show with a range of characteristics the biomechanical advantages ofthe violinists’ hands. It seems even more instructive to contrast very successful instrumentalists with a group of players who have had serious difﬁculties
with the instrument during or after training. The implementation of such investigations is, however, problematic. For example, the grouping of successful
and problem cases for statistical purposes must be done carefully. One

depends on successful people who, in spite of their success, have enough timeand interest to undergo a biomechanical examination. Also needed is thecooperation of musicians who can recognize their technical difﬁculties andspeak openly about them. For these reasons only a reiatively small amount ofdata are available for contrasting both groups.

162

Christoph Wagner

It would be desirable to select well-known soloists and winners of international competitions for the "Successful Performers" group (Group S). This restriction would, however, have failed because of the considerable time and effort
required. Moreover, I don’t consider rigorous limitations to be required. Ourinvestigations are, after all, looking only for biomechanical causes of technicalsuccess or failure —- not causes for a performer’s musical success as a whole!
For acceptance of an instrumentalist into Group S it was sufficient that theymeet one of the following criteria:°

mastery of major works from the virtuoso literature°

participation in international competitions'

membership in a top orchestra°

regular concertizing activity

It would be inappropriate to designate the other group as a failure group foralso here it is a matter of professional musicians who have reached a corresponding level of technical achievement.

The group of Problem Cases (Group P) included:°

instrumentalists who had to struggle with selected technical problems
over a long period of time, e.g., lack of speed, lack of manual security,
lack of endurance, and difﬁculties with grip and spacing°

instrumentalists with acute functional or organic disorders related to
the locomotor system in connection with instrumental performance,e.g., tendinitis, epicondylitis, neuritis, and coordination disorders of

the ﬁngers.
We were able to contrast a total of 110 "successful" instrumentalists and 46"problem" cases. We further divided the subjects according to instrument, sex,
and age.
I would like to report on two of these comparisons -- other comparisons haveyielded similar results. The null hypothesis that both samples (successful andproblem cases) originate from one and the same population was tested withineach characteristic using the U Test of Mann and Whitney (Sachs, 1969). Thismeans the comparison does not take into account the intraindividual combination and weighting of the factors being examined. We should, therefore,
neither over-value the presence of statistically signiﬁcant differences with

Success and Failure in Musical Performance163

particular characteristics nor the lack of signiﬁcant differences with othercharacteristics. The analysis serves to describe the present status of results
and to call attention to speciﬁc tendencies. Later we will want to apply otherstatistical methods which do justice to the intraindividual combination of thefactors. At this time we are not recording a number of biomechanical factors
which will be of undoubted importance.

Comparison I: Successful Pianists to Problematic Pianists(Males, 18-30 years old, right hand. See Table 2)
Table 2 shows both the median and decile coefficient for each of the characteristics examined. Also shown is the indication as to whether a signiﬁcantdifference is or is not present at the .05 level. A two-tailed test was applied tothe characteristics of shape of the hand so that arguments for a difference ineither direction might be put to rest. We can see that in the selected characteristics of hand shape there were no signiﬁcant differences.
Characteristics of mobility, however, are quite another matter. All ten active
spans are larger among the successful group when compared to the problem
group. The same is also true with the active range of ﬂexion in the basal jointof the thumb. There were no differences in the active lateral mobility of thewrist and in the active angle of pronation. With passive mobility we ﬁnd nodifferences in the angles of spread in which the thumb is involved. In contrast, higher mobility is seen among successful performers in the six angles of
spread without the thumb. The passive extension mobility of the basal joints
of ﬁngers 2-5 is also higher among the successful performers.
Comparison II: Successful Violinists to Problem Violinists(Females, 18-30 years old, left hand. See Table 3)
Included in the Successful Violinists group were 11 female violinists appearing at an international music competition. Quite by chance, the Problem
Violinists group also included 11 female subjects. The two-tailed test was applied to the characteristics of the shape of the hand, and the one-tailed test
was applied to the characteristics of mobility. This procedure is similar to thatused in Comparison I.
In contrast to the comparison of pianists, here we found differences in the
shape of the hand -— although not those we might have expected. The handsof the Success group were on an average shorter and the wrist narrower whencompared to the Problem group. There was, however, no difference in therelative length of the ﬁfth ﬁnger, even though it is precisely here that an

164

Christoph Wagner

Tlhh

Comparison of the samples of "Successful Pianists" (Gram S) and "Problem Pianists" (Group P) with respect toshape and active mobility of the right7

7

7

bharactenstic

7

7

I I I IiHAN15ISHAPEI

7

7(Males, 17-33 years)
7

7

7i

{Hand breadth(mm)

I I II 737 II‘ I I19I2 I

37

7mger span 1-5

7

7

(mm)

-7..

"OED

‘I7-7

77—7 777

1(inIm)

I I

77

U9

IinIger £5331 1 2

7,177;‘ 7__1[mm]|

fl5mIge} épah Q-3 Irm}.-.:fy=‘ ‘7.
7;— —7

U136
‘TI

7 7

4|!

~

.26I

10
‘ 26

777

.

‘Finger span 2-4(rinrmi)
,7
F
I
(mm)

UJ
'1?

inger span 3-5
Finger span 2-5

411$;

7

“QUE r

7 I

Thumb flexfon

(mm)
7771

6‘)

I

‘W1-ist ulnar abduction II 6’) ‘I

WHSI radial abduction

I I (°)II

Elbow pronation

II I (°)_

U]

7 7 777; 7I

L-7 7 7

711°
s
76

7J7

7q7

7

74

4+

7

7

7 7

7

71

7

77

717

I
gr

71

7

so

7

7

7

——

—'

7

fl

7

7

7

77

7

I-

77 7

P
ll..

7

'

'7

L

77

777

l

77!

7

7

L

Sis

7

77

L

7

74-

77

~

7

1-

7

Sis
77

7

7 517-420.2

ji777i*77

77§
77 ﬁg _

7

_I

4

‘
S

32:0

,

37.1

l

33.4
50:6
28.8
34.6
19.7
26.2
14.I2I
3-4.6

131.5
11'9

13-If
712477
174.5

-

#-

.

Slg.

7_d,

7"'7

7'

1

sag.

7!

I Isig

>

sig
i

I‘

sig

1

I

7

I

7

I

7

.
rI.
lll

T“-7

Success and Failure in Musical Performance

T

-I

7

Sig

48:6

93
ss

i-

sis

7

7

-

77

t7

7

7

77

7

77

7

77

7

7.‘

7

7

77

7

_ 7

77‘*7

I I

7

_

I7

155 . .2
55
sefs
03.0
717077 444_ __,_i,
49.0
I
26
I
345
I
"UU'J;"U7l 7 7977 777 35 7717 7 77. 1
4I8TsIA
26
25
1
9 47-7‘U03
56.5 771
23-777
hi I-'
82
59.0
CD"U .7 *7 --§ 71
are
7 81
l

'

T“

18.8

"dU)~-..1_-_....
"U
O>®Oi

U7

J

7

1

13.8

_3s_.o

)n—7

7

I’

2.-all
§s_.s
1

7'

nu-7|

27.3
13.5
32.1

7-2

Q
I

’

7

or-=-=-(D.ﬂI‘57$13977 7 7‘7 7
228

77

82 I

7

7

11.€

7

:97
so

10

71

17'

I

18415
777 167.5

26
10
26 I

“UUJ W|[mm]i

7I

212
202

10

|[mm]iinger span 4 5

7|

2-'13

10
26

Awm

inger span 3-4

71

7

11.5
18.7
9.3
8.4
10.9
21.2
19.7
20.3

233.5

77

26

7 ..7 726. 77"QED 77¢,3

iFinger span 1-3

7 777

"19

“UCO

(mm)

inger span 1-4

7

U-Test17-11177

74
77275§7'I'III as
10. 7- 39.5 ,7 _,_I:7Acr IVE MOII-IILITY$'7“ 937‘ "’
10 ‘

“GUI

(ins)

77

57

10

'-um

I

1'.

373
1.1077777(mm)

ihgertI1pd1stIanceI1-I3 I I I (mm) 'iFingIertip distance 5-3 I I

7

I

I

7" io
17397
_. _-T -4,__.3.'i7..__86"'"UU3"dUJ

I

7""'I‘I'_II""IIII"""'II'I"I‘(nim)I II II I7

iledian‘ I’

Coeﬁ%

I

mind length
Wrist breadth

7I] amp I N I I

1

7

+
“F

I

Table 2bComparison of the samples of "Successful Pianists" (Group S) and "Problem Pianists" (Group P) with respect topassive mobility of the right hands. (Males, 1'7-33 years)

I{Characteristic‘A£PAs*s‘1vE rvi0*B*1L1"TY.

’. _1s_

(0)

__ _

__

L.

5

‘V

n

7

1.“)
}~

7‘?

If

1-\

‘U00 __._sL_

R.

Yiingeer spread 35-4"

‘IT-"ﬁnger spread 4-5

or1?

r r "/5.
1. ,| H‘ re
I Y
|LQJ|

7.

_

\‘.

._

.\
rm
‘

"6U)"UU)

10
6

i7.

Q?
.

'73;

(D
p_*

Al

(Ox

1L ,|

‘

UJ'U

i

\.I

‘

\.

5

i

10

‘.

37
10

"5

905
51 _
57
5.5
40

_

5557?‘ 42
.

RF
1_ ,l

if-‘inger spread 3-5

7
r
'1jUJ

i5I"iZng£er gprezid
Eikinggr

5 5

rextension 2~3-4-5';Fihg'er

W

Hex*tcI]si0ni2~3-4-5

166

at 37 Ncm

(6)

5W

11°»

41*

5:. 75 Ncm ("1-

6

_

0-»
'10’) :

__.

5;;

05¢

1,1 ri_,.

3

‘HUD

"UUJ

__,

*_rL

1

OS

iwiii

I- IO:C)-Q

,__l

F

_f
I

_

Decile‘U-TestCoetf_.°/5

A

g=Q*.Q5Z

_

_l

45.2
45.3
52.0
Q0-53

in

\

5;

73.3
87.4

\\
\
:-J-L

_*L*

is

55.5
§3 _

20.5
12.5

35
25.5

Christoph Wagner

_-

T

_

45.1
58-3
_..

ii_

*.'7¥*

\

?_

7_

.

7_

5

i

i.

;

-—|—

1

__+

iv-—

41.4
50.9

\

—

—

112.3
4_5-2.

1

_

—, ——

41.3
*42.6
,__

5'2

— —¢¥—

106”? .
10

52.5
38-5
55
__._§_,__-._ 45.5

-um
_

I

.

is

34.5
27
23

‘U03

|.

_ i

53 M
75.5

6 .1‘
37

k_ _

"0

finger spread 2-4

A

9? 5
87.5

\
_

r

_

6 _. M _

10
6 .

2.:-'

_

[Finger spread 2-3

‘1
A

r-= O

5

Finger spread 1-2

Median

4‘

_

.
4.

"GUI

Finger spread 1-3‘_

5
1 5-7,-

Finger spread 1-4

N\_,~t‘ ._

.

7 I

‘I

.

‘Finger spread 1-5 at 50 Ncm

Group F

\
'

sig.
7; '

-<7

sag.

‘\
Y

_J

L

slg.

* 59.5

slg.

43-_1
53.4
45.4

sig.

105. 1.138.-.4

_

\

_J_

sig.

92.6
91.2

134.5
127.2

1
_.

~_

\
i

i

53g__lslg.

_,5: *4

1

-

"J

.

\

Table 3
Comparison of the samples of "Successful Violinists" (Group S) and "Problem Violinists" (Group P) with respect

to shape, active and passive mobility of the left hands. (Females, 18-30 years)
—

_

115

Characteristic

55_.

‘ Group 1_

1~lAlNDSI-IAPE

*

’

1

1

‘

hand breadth

T;

.

' ’.

"

1

"UUJ

(mm)
.

Fingertip211515555 5-5.W. _.

___

i

.4
.

if

7

1:155.» 555155555 at 551 N55.“

7‘
___

1°17»

-~

_._

_

-. .

.77

Finger spread 4-5

_

‘P711
19'

|Finger spread 3-4
-

'

_-

_ .1_..

11_ ‘UCD..__W._- ll___.‘,.

11

1
:7

1
8
Wing’? 11ll"UUJ"TJU)

11"GU?
"1 _, -

. 11.

7

1

55 511....-.

-3‘
1 1 ,1

U3
“B

W11
11
.-1 .1 .1 .

5 5.5

.s1;~

~uc/-__2

.

11
11

A

11

U2

1
Finger spread 2-4

U7"‘U“U N _ (*1Finger spread 3-5“([011 H

Finger spread 2-5

-v

rﬁr
11 4|

77
'-um
“

‘UV!

*
‘
55¢

*1:

1

T

1
1.

1

It

11

_

.30

11
1
11

120

1

191.5
55
45

.L

._‘1_

60
61

F1

50

in
1

J

56'
4?
57
49

'15
§8
1.821

a= 0.05

sig.

lsig.
f‘:‘t_'_.
1

. 1'

'1-4

.

'

i

_

55.6
28.-2

34.8
111.5
28.0
71.0

Sig.

/7

41»--< 5

_

'1

Psié.
.1
P.__

25.7
.40-.3713.71

74.8

38
37
28

1
i

55

U -Test

i

108

~31

ii

J

105

11

111
11
11
11

10.8
15.5
26.5
23.2

1}

159 5
190

_.
'1

—

;

15.5
15-.1,

i.

_59

5—..— ____ __

11.9
17.3

it ;_

.11

5

C0eﬁ.%

37

W7

.

._

I‘M4 4

so
-53

11
11

11

.

Decile

172 5

11

Lifir

_11

L1‘

(or,
K 1
1

"UH?
.

ti

\ mgerat 75 ﬁcm (bx)?
Extension 2-3-4-5inger spread 1-2 at 50 Ncm
r‘\.

(T

3”“ it 11(ml
1 1

Elbow supination at 64 Ncm

11
11

11*

P_J

1

__

r,

S

1°31

151556.» supinatibniat 15:N¢m5"
1_

r*5—_5=P Ass IVE Mb B 1 L 1 T Y

._

‘GUI

515

._._.... 55

0‘

11.- (O).

lElb0-W supination

Finger spread 2-3__ 1.

(mm) ‘

1AcT1vE MOBILITY

1__

“U0!

if ii."Median

.1_1.

' "

(mm)

Wrilst breadth_<:——_

;

-184
74

“GUI
. _

1

‘1

(mm)

ll-land length

5

N

sig.
-__-

J1

11

1*

44.2
69.4

sig. '7
sig.
sig 77

P

sig.

32.5

_

Sig.

“K

49.3
25.6
67.2
83.2
89.2
85.7
45.0
69.1
81.5
47.7
63.1

sig:

: W7

_

_

smg.
5%

Success and Failure in Musical Performance

sag‘

1

167

anatomic difference would be plausible. The data also show that except for thepassive range of abduction of the thumb, the Success group is on average at
an advantage with regard to active and passive mobility.
We will repeat these comparisons at some future date when a larger amountof data have been collected. Current data show greater variability in the
Problem groups than in the Success groups. Even so, present results conﬁrm
and explain a number of things that students and teachers experience in an
attempt to overcome performance difﬁculties.
The Individual Behind the Data
I would like to speak about certain basic connections which from a physiological and pedagogical point of view, perhaps also from a medical point of view,
seem of interest. In the test series with 91 pianists we noticed that thegreatest variability occurred in factors of passive mobility (Figure 3). Passive
mobility factors were also seen as having the largest relative difference ofmedians in the comparison of Success and Problem groups (Tables 2 and 3).
It is important to keep in mind what individual differences lie behind these
data, and what the data suggest in terms of instrumental performance. Particularly striking are the data related to passive mobility, especially the passive extension mobility of the basal joint of the ﬁnger. In the case of handshape factors, the 9th decile exceeds the lst decile by at most 30%. (Figure 5)
In the case of passive mobility the 9th decile exceeds the 1st decile by 200%,
300%, sometimes 500%, 700%, and even more. This means that in an unfavorable case the joint must be moved against two or three times the resistance, sometimes even against five or ten times the resistance, than might be
moved by a person with favorable manual preconditions.
What can an individual affected by ﬁve or ten times higher joint resistancedo? He can try to reduce the disadvantage by assuming individually favorable
postures and movements ——- something which is seldom done because of abelief that there is only one correct playing posture. Typically, the performer
will try to compensate for higher joint resistance by using a correspondingly
higher muscular effort, which causes an increase in the basic tension of theaffected muscles. Muscle tension is a component of joint resistance which, according to Barnett and Cobbold (1969), comprises an average of 50% of thetotal resistance when the joint is moved in its middle range. This is the range
which is used above all for rapid and precise movements. When muscle tension increases, the affected joint is harder to move — a phenomenon known tomany musicians suffering performance anxiety. The increased muscular effort

168

Christoph Wagner

I

Figure 5
A "large" hand as compared to a "small" hand of two successful pianists. In regard to hand

length, the large hand exceeds the small hand by 28%, in regard to hand breadth, by 30%.

needed to move the joint requires a correspondingly higher central nervous
control to overcome these unfavorable conditions (Bernstein, 1975). Perhaps
the most important effect of biomechanical disadvantages of the hand lies in
the increased load on the central nervous system.

Problems of Performance
Once one becomes conscious of these connections, some negative aspects ofmusical practice are more easily seen. There is, for example, a considerable
amount of work needed to acquire such technical skills as trills, ornaments,
and repetitions which rely primarily on quickness of execution. For someplayers, the development of these skills is achieved relatively quickly; forothers the process is laborious and time-consuming. For years I have observedthat players who have difﬁculty in attaining speed of execution show high extension resistance in the basal joints of the ﬁngers. This is completely understandable from a physiological point of view. It is known that the speed of con-

Success and Failure in Musical Performance169traction is dependent on the loading of the muscle. Differences in the range of
1:5 or 1:10 must make themselves noticeable! No one would expect the same
performance from two 100-meter runners where one is dressed in racing attire while the other wears hiking boots, heavy clothing, and carries a backpack. Long hours of practice would be of little use to the weighted-down runner.
It is not surprising that in cases of particularly limited passive mobility, complaints are heard and injuries occur in the hand and arm. Injuries may include tendinitis and epicondylitis resulting from excessive demands of performance.
Despite the best preparation, some musicians are never able to rely completely on their technique. It is understandable that they develop anxiety. I am
convinced that this anxiety, more often than we suspect, is biomechanically
based. It may originate in the barely conscious realization that one hasreached the limits of central compensation for peripheral weaknesses. Therefore, before anxiety is treated with beta-blockers and tendinitis with cortisone, one should be sure that the primary cause of such troubles is not an
unfavorable biomechanical condition.
I would like to finish this comment on the topic of failure with an earlier finding because in this, something of the "safety interval" becomes visible. It is amatter of the measurement of the passive supination ﬂexibility of the left
elbow joint with non-musicians, non-selected orchestral violinists and participants in an international violin competion (see Figure 6). The noticeable
difference between the medians is not found between violinists and nonmusicians but between non-musicians and orchestral violinists as comparedwith competition participants. (By the way, the lower variability of the active
mobility can once more be read here.) Biomechanical advantages such as wesee here are naturally not the reason for success but are a part of the background for the success.

Training or Talent?
If successful and less successful performers can be shown to be different inrespect to certain biomechanical characteristics of the hand, one then may ask
how these differences came to exist. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine that theleft hand of the female violinist becomes shorter by playing the violin (compare Table 3), but that the spans of the pianist increase in the course of training. It is the opinion of most musicians and instrumental teachers that170

Christoph Wagner

0l2O -1"

C
O

T

r

715

5

‘

we

5

I

515

g

g

5

-55

-|u_¢

_______,._--13~2‘""-.. 3

1

Sup'n

,

1

-.

'*_'
O

1

‘*1
1

-0-v

Q

at

___

.

50-

-1

I

-

-

1

-

1

.

J

1
1

6

-1|

-10

UJ O

Ang

I

p

.

f

2

1
L

n

.1

-1

‘

.

11-

.

o1~55¢5o

25o

PQSSlVe

1 ~

500

1

150

1

1000 [p]W. -ActiyeeExternal Ioirqiue (rc1=d1i1u-5 co-nstorrt)

Figure 6
Passive and active supination of the left elbow joint (medians) examined with different groups:
1. 11 violinists, participants in an international music competition (19-29 years)
2: 19 violinists, members of orchester (24-35 years)
3. 13 non-musicians (18-30 years)

mobility can be taught. Our investigation, however, gives no deﬁnite answer
whether and to what extent selected characteristics are teachable. An initial
review of present data indicates no general tendency of increasing mobility inthe case of any of the mobility factors. Regarding the average value in relation
to time, we can see either no shifting at all (compare Figure 7) or a more orless decreasing tendency in general (compare Figure 8).
In order to complete the survey about development of age we have presented
in Figure 9, apart from data on professional musicians as far as was available,
also data on children and young people. This example should remind us of thefollowing points:
1. The amount of joint mobility of the hand at early childhood can obviously
not be maintained at the same level in any case, even under the condition ofdaily training.

Success and Failure in Musical Performance171

(mm )

120

0

100

0
0....

cu 0
ESPAN3-4".-}';.-.;.;.2f'”.

' so
ACTV

._.;1.

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AGE

70

(years)F igure 7
Active span of ﬁngers 3-4 in relation to age; male pianists, 16-33 years, left hand

('°)

9'0

HUME
T

-.3
O

7'0

I

OI

XON
5~O

.

FLE

.%.

"

TVE
-30
AC

.

I

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

AGE

60

70

(years)Figure 8
Range of active ﬂexion of the basal joint of the thumb in relation to age; male pianists, 16-33
years, left hand.

172

Christoph Wagner

9
0

9

9

0

'7 -0
90

'.

Y

SE
PREAD3-4
O0

,. Q"

, -

9 ..

.

‘Q9 .0
.0

.

PASS
V
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AGE

(years)Figure9~Range of assive spread of ﬁngers 3-4 in relation to age (pre-set load 50 Ncm). Male
pianists (8 ) 16-63 years; boys (.) ; girls ( 9 ) 4-16 years, left hand.

Success and Failure in Musical Performance2. The variability with children and young people, seen in absolute terms, isalready very high, sometimes just as high as with adults.
3. On the basis of high variability ofjoint mobility, it can happen even with adecreasing tendency in general that a 60-year-old has a considerably higher
mobility than a 20-year-old or even a 10-year-old.
In view of these facts I once again think about Artur Rubinstein, remembering his marvelous performances at age 80. Perhaps his remark about his
hands was more than just a joke.
Summary and Conclusion
We have considered ( 1) the variability of biomechanical characteristics of thehand; (2) the lack of uniformity within one and the same hand; (3) genetic
determination as probably the more relevant inﬂuence upon joint mobility
than the effect of training; and (4) the dependence of the level of technique on
certain biomechanical preconditions. There is one conclusion I would draw,
namely that instrumental training should be based on knowledge about theactual manual preconditions of the individual. To this end an examination at
the very beg-inning of training is recommended. It is hoped that such a
strategy would also contribute to the prevention of some occupational diseases
to which musicians are prone.

c

At the State College of Music and Theater in Hannover we provide those whowish to be informed about their manual preconditions with a "Hand Profile."(Figure 10) It shows an individual’s constellation of measured values as compared to the decile values of a reference group. The central column corresponds to the 5th deciles, i.e., the average values of the reference group. To
the right are the higher, more favorable values; to the left the lower, lessfavorable values.
In the given example one can see a frequently found irregularity. It is obviousthat the student should try to compensate for the extremely small range of
ﬂexion of the thumb (Figure 10, line 16) by moving the arm in advance when
the thumb passes under in scales and arpeggios.
Two further examples are given in Figures 11 and 12. The former is of aviolinist who won prizes at national and international competitions; the latter
is of a student who came to us because of pain in the forearm after doing
ﬁnger isolation exercises. For years his teacher had admonished him to relax.
The student’s comment: "I just can’t hear that word anymore!" — and withgood reason.

174

Christoph WagnerﬁnHAl{lJ~—l‘!-l;JllL[ mwisis. MALE [>0lll_i-'.M.E H

UATE:;Q4_‘l_.__8_1_NAI’lE:,_ l§'l_8§._..,,___l)ATE or BlRTH:,'1-_?--G1_

H/u.~m:uurss:__ B_ __1 usmun. /PROFESSIONL PlA_r§lO,_$TU_I_)._ _(REFERENCE sRouP:_94 NALE_-F?1ANIST5_ 15;!>f:LY§A5_s“_)

lol

Y
-

p W_

0

I
F-,

Ii

1111121 L3] l"lDlE5cI IJEIEFIT81 PI

snub

SHAPE

l?@.-iE.'?‘GT“ _.""l‘.‘.D BBEBDTHl‘\J|-—-I

U1-D

__

__

1
iili- _p

*ACWTIViEWRANGEM0FiM0VEMENT

5PAN_1t l\J_sPAn 1-:

U‘)

\.|

,SF’f\" 11-.C.'\J~l r _SPA!"1"5, .__

O0

_

_

.
,__

,

-$€e~_?;3...-1- __..

_

l\Jl-‘$

-1-

\.N
a
.4»

.-

kill;-CI‘

_

O‘)

|

‘\.|
I

OC

LO
|\)I-'@-_sPA_N 11:5

W” S C"J n“J_s3#~ri2-"__._ -_lI-§*14~._3:§-_.-._1_. _ _lIJ— ‘III .11I
I
Y
I
I
—
—I
I
_
—_I
_
—_—I
QI
I
I
_$'i’¥"2‘5_
M -.---IIHHIIEE .
mums FLEXl0Np_ _i-is 1 sr l_JLNA_R_ dI§B_DUCT_I ouﬁ.w-as RADIAL AB°“°T1_°'L§uPIiW1<>~

_

.

3

‘

.fl5°!*5ﬂQ'1_____._______.__

_

__ _

__-.__ _______,_Ff_A__§_l_‘L1'§___R B N G FE _ OF

21- SPR_EAD lf2_ _.32 -l.sr.sw> 1:} _S

2§_. SPREAD 1-H

Y."-l s.*w.*?.1.;5i__.um 2-3___v_
25'i,5PR_’
STREQD 3+‘ -1.

_2‘7_:_ sPigEAn__ll_:SgPF. .-_ _ g ,

- l

_

.
F‘

_

28- sP.R§&.I2_?~" _30. ._§i.°l“-"P 2 1-5--_1-_1-_
m'PLR§xi_£_us1ou_2§§~ll— _52,, .Hv1§RE>5I.§~S_10~ 2 1359§s. PROiNATl0N I 11_1vp

LI'l\J'l

__

_.

. - _

0'

ISH

Iii
.- - - I

_
_

S

S S

,i

._

it-O

it

.

_ Q VF? P? E N T

_

.

_ _

__,

[,2_9- sr?REA1>§75__ U _ to ____; K C
311“.

_
g

'

_sP5_N 3-‘-I‘IF‘- ‘LO.._r _mun gmoEx__ ___pfpiusgRi1PU1>_1srAN_cs 1-3
FINGERTIP DISTANCE 5-3

LN

__..

_

_

1.

.-

_

_

Figure 10
Hand proﬁle of a piano student. Description in text

Success and Failure in Musical Performance

_

I

S

if

-.

Sill‘

HAND-PROFILE STRINGS. MALE D<] l'!_‘MAI.E I3-9 yr 1]

L

0Are:£2-.9.}LnAmE: _ARD :l:lf.__.__DATE OF siRTH.;;.s,§;
HANDEDNESS:__R____l NSTRUM./PROFESSION:1/LQLIN, 51'!-12..
/(REFERENCE GROUPL .'5_6..\L|Q!-JNL§T§.Al:lD- V!Q|=l$I&L__) * "’ * F
ii
L.H..]R.H.

lino. ll @EB“éeRTT

l i --

CBA.. _ 1,lhllﬁfﬁl

H A N D

~.:

1-Urn

»-+<~Tyn- *-if 21""“—+m Plldlﬂl

HAND BREADTHS C HAND INDEX-In-all-U

S H A P E

1 Hm u;~GirH...-_. _ __ ih'R-l§,T,,BR,§A9.TH _ -

Z

_

‘ _

-

F'"G€RIJP v1$wrI.¢¢_5-3

C'JW\J"l-='\.NI\.)|—'

VA
vc. , ._I__.-

. r

_

U

'FlNGERTlP$BREADTH I Uppg
ACTIVE RANGE OF moveneur

sslllsllsl
HH lllil l ii_...PR°NATl0"._._” 1
1 _ - ___
1___
.PASSlVE RANGE OF MOVEMENT
gE}g._HsugP1NAT1oN 1
j____ p___p L
pK
10. SUPINATIONII W
A pp
_
_
_
ll. SUPICNATION IV

l2. HYEER€¥TEN§l9" 251i i

13. HYPEREXTENSION 2- U4KN- J2‘-12‘- UTU1 g H
lq. THUMB SPREADi

15, SPBEAQZ-3 flS_ _ _ __ _19- §PREA1> 335-- __20. SPREAD 2-5

L
__
"

K

4

Ulﬂ
i

15- SPREAD 31,.

17. SPREAD ll-5
18. SPREAD 2-ll g p

-

_

_

1

_CS
or

_

_

_

_

_

_

Figure 1 1
Hand proﬁle of a violin student. Description in text.

Christoph Wagner

p p_

__

..

' l

AI:.nlrpqgqm.i.Ir.

‘__ I"J7

ilI‘»ND~PROFiLE PIANISTS. HALE

1

FEMALE El

mm: :_Z1._Z,._8Q_I;AME :,_H_.l5 .___DATE OF s1Rm:2916-_59‘FF " ' i
HANDEDNESS2_ll__lNSTRUM/PROFESSlON:0(ssrerzauce eRouP:'3inALEPmgl$T5 .45-}1lEAR5 L-H-9 _ lB-Hso.

PROPERTY

W”

C lid

H

r ill S
HAND LENGTH

H

l'\3_

HAND BREADTHD

Cl illD._

C *2 CL) S1

9n1n;21|sr13f|°s'ﬁ§|s|7ri8i
PIC H A N nnls H A PDE
ll
S
,g_
W

Ii

khl
1_

L712‘

1..

O‘)
\l 00|

7

_'

?'.?I

_ _

r

"I

1

i

i

'

’*-

M

T

_L

;

______

P-—'l.O%

Sh
I__|-I |i|.-1 l\)(D

Q.

-I-Tkhl

.—

|~
I U1

_‘L’

_L

‘I_’

uséﬂ

___

I

__

‘FA

F’

“J H

l\J |'\J

112“;
SPREAD -l_3

sPREADSPREADI‘\Jf\J .l2'\J~li_

SPREADI\3 O3SPREAD

‘I1

(D

Ch

l\J LO

I j

MN Z
I_

MN ;_;
KN I\J
kid UNIIII==L =i Q.1
ii:. . <1 |-11‘.

1-1|

3 o < ITI IzlllH1 Z

T
I‘

m

-1

_ T

I

wi

—b-I-Tili-

u_as._

l

_L_~
.iq

M

4

*""

T '

Ii

7

‘I

'

1*‘,

'

‘ﬁ'_

l

1;

. -_

1|

~4

Jﬂ_ _

';hTtT;p

l

g_

ziu

I

-__.g,__I

Iv-—-l--_Jt'IiI

F

2&3

k

I71

>.

- _

PREAD 1|-5'.
SPREAD 2*?

SPREAD

"I

';'_

U)
f\Jl\J OO\|

l

ll

_

SPREAD 1-sit"|\J U1

i

l \

‘I
‘I l

__

D

_

‘F

>4; A

'

!E!l THUMB FLEXION;7. HRISTDLNARABDDCTION WRIST RADIAL ABDUCTION
19. .$UPlN5Tl°§ 1. __.20. ERONAT ION
‘O

1

i

ii

7

l

l

pi

4;

SPAN 4 -s
SPAN 2 -u
SPAN $75 gg
SPAN 2 -5_

1J

FIQGERTIP QISTANCE l7§L
‘ __FlNGE§Tlf DISTA§§E5-3
S '“oiF 3 O < rn 3 m 2 -4
A c T 1 v E R 5 N s
SPAN 1- f\')S”
SPAN 1:: Ill 2lIsssp 1; -IZUQSPAN 1-5
SPAN 2-3'

rmtg: '

l

1

D

r

1; i

l

l

1.,

F

1 .4

*_i"'ii.i . Y__I___i

1:.
;

I

i

..

1

I

l

4-an

3-5 "

as

1

i

4.

4?

I... .

SPREAD 245
HYPEREXTENSICN 2-3-ﬂ55p1
HYPERExT£NsioN_2-3-Q—511
PRONATION ig 11 _ g

IV

I

I

j_[_l
Hgme12

Hand proﬁle of a piano student. Description in text.

Success and Failure in Musical Performance

ii
‘W

I

Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the support of the "Stiftung Volkswagenverk," Hannover which enabled him to undertake this study.

References
Barnett, C.H., and Cobbold, A.F., "Muscle tension and joint mobility," Annalsof the Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 28, 1969, pp.652- 654.
Bernstein, N.A., Bewegungsphysiologie, Barth: Leipzig, 1975, pp.59-62.
Fleishman, E.A., "An analysis of positioning movements and static reactions,"
Journal ofExperimental Psychology, Vol. 55, 1958, pp.13-24.
Guilford, J.P., "A system of the psychomotor abilities," American Journal of
Psych0l0gy, Vol. 71, 1958, pp.164-174.
Hamilton, G.F., and Lachenbruch, P.A., "Reliability of goniometers in assessing ﬁnger joint angle," Physical Therapy, Vol.49, 1969, pp.465-469.
Hasselkus, B.R., Kshepakavan, KK, Houge, J.C., and Plautz, KA.
"Rheumatoid arthritis: A two-axis goniometer to measure metacarpophalangeal laxity," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol.62, 1981,
pp.137-139.
Henry, F.M. "Speciﬁcity vs. generality in learning motor skills," 61st Annual,
Proceedings of the College of Physical Education, Washington, D.C., 1958.
Hertzberg, H.T.E., "Engineering anthropology," In Human Engineering Guide,to Equipment Design (revised edition), H.P. Van Cott, R.G. Kinkade (Eds.),
U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington,D.C., 1972 p.471.
Kochevitsky, G., The Art of Piano Playing: A Scientific Approach, Summy-Birchard, Evanston, IL, 1967, p.17.
Neuhaus, H., Die Kunst des Klavierspiels, Gerig: Koeln, 1967, p.98.
Ortmann, 0., The Physiological Mechanics of Piano Technique, 2nd Edition,
Dutton, New York, 1962, p.311.
i
Sachs, L., Statistische Auswertungsmethoden, 2nd Edition, Springer, Berlin,
1969.

Schneider, B., Personal communication, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover,
1981.

178

Christoph Wagner

Trendelenburg, W., Die natuerlichen Grundlagen der Kunst desStreichinstrumentenspiels, Berlin 1925, Reprint Hamecher: Kassel, 1974,
p.84f.
Wagner, Christoph, "Determination of ﬁnger ﬂexibility, " European Journal ofApplied Physiology, Vol.32, 1974, pp. 259-278.
Wagner, Christoph, "Physiologische Voraussetzungen fuer das Geigenspeil,"
In V. Schwarz (Ed.), Violspiel und Violinmusik in Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Universal Edition, Vienna, 1975, pp.196-210.
Wagner, Christoph, "Determination of the rotary ﬂexibility of the elbow joint,"
European Journal ofApplied Physi0l0gJ/, Vol.37, 1977, pp.47-59.
Wagner, C., and Drescher, D., "Measuring mobility of the metacarpophalangeal joints II, III, IV, and V in the dorso-volar plane," Engineering in
Medicine, Vol.13, 1984, pp.15-20.

Success and Failure in Musical Performance179