Letter to the Editor: Art in Science: The "Pygmy" Chair and the Tenodesis Effect

To the Editor, We read with great interest the article, “Art in Science: The ‘Pygmy’ Chair and the Tenodesis Effect” [3], in which Dr. Nelson proposes how the low-seated posture of the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould (1932 to 1982) afforded a distinct biomechanical advantage to produce dazzling performances of Baroque-era music. We agree with the author’s observation that Gould’s flexed-wrist posture promoted the maximal tenodesis effect and isolated the lumbricals to produce the speed and clarity characteristic of his playing. In our view, this technique is well-fitted to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach and other Baroque composers because of the percussive descent of the keys at the expense of ROM. This approach mimics the mechanics of the harpsichord, the instrument Bach had originally composed for. While the modern piano produces sound using hammers to strike the strings, depressing a key on a harpsichord causes the string to be plucked. The piano’s hammers and dampers permit a rich range of sounds that allows the pianist full, sustained access to its 88 keys. The virtuoso styles of the Romantic composer Franz Liszt and modern-day pianist Lang Lang bear witness to the athletic, full-body involvement made possible with the modern piano. Thus, one reason Gould’s technique was so suited to playing Bach was that his percussive piano style more closely reproduced the sounds of the harpsichord and the constraints of its mechanics, akin to the original style that Bach had imagined. At the same time, our view is that Gould’s expert technique was not just a result of deliberate intent, but rather a constant tradeoff between astute insights and unfortunate hindrances. Gould was known to have suffered from a variety of difficulties with his playing throughout his career, and he chronicled his experimentation with new techniques to cope with these struggles in meticulously kept diaries [4, 5]. Three possibilities may explain his challenges at the keyboard. First, in 1959, Gould received a firm slap on the back as a jovial greeting by the chief piano technician at Steinway [1, 4]. Although Gould claimed he suffered lasting injury from this incident that adversely affected his playing, evaluations by multiple physicians at the time failed to reveal an organic cause of the injury. Nonetheless, Gould pursued multiple treatments for this perceived injury, culminating in a month-long cast of his upper body that held his left arm above his head (Fig. 1) [1, 4]. Gould’s perseveration on this injury, as well as residual stiffness from the cast, could have contributed to his subsequent complaint of difficulty controlling his fingers. Second, throughout his life, Gould remained intensely focused on his mental health, taking a variety of barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics to treat insomnia, anxiety, and depression [2]. Each of these medications could have limited the high degree of dexterity that Gould demanded of his hands. Lastly, a posthumous review of Gould’s diaries suggests he may have suffered from a task-specific hand dystonia that frustrated the clarity he attempted to achieve in his playing [5]. To address the challenges he experienced with his hands, Gould changed his technique at the keyboard multiple times during his career. Consequently, we feel it important to complement Dr. Nelson’s [3] keen characterization of Gould’s technique with the recognition that Gould’s adeptness at the keyboard represented an uneasy compromise between artistic mastery and physical limitations. In light of these challenges, Gould’s genius appears all the more astounding.Fig. 1: Glenn Gould in shoulder spica cast in 1960. Photograph provided courtesy of Primary Wave/Estate of Glenn Gould. We appreciate Dr. Nelson’s discerning insight into the biomechanics of the late pianist’s playing and hope that the additional context may provide further perspective to understand this great performer’s artistry and skill.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.