pipers grip vs. normal

[Nanohedron]

...it might be easier just to go with "different strokes for different folks" and leave it at that.

Yep. There are advantages and drawbacks to both. What has to be taken into account is that some advantages or drawbacks will be entirely personal and beyond the scope of theory. If a very real hand problem, for example, is alleviated by modifying one's grip or switching altogether to another, or if dexterity improves for whatever change one makes, why, there you have it. Discussing experiences and details can be very helpful and is one thing, but constructing us-vs.-them camps based on one's choices is another.

Personally, I think all avenues should be investigated if possible. I spent some time for a while at grip variations, and found what works best for me. As for the drawbacks, you work around them. There are always drawbacks whatever you do. It's a transverse flute, after all. How mis-ergonomic from the start can you get?

[jim stone]

I've was told by an orthopaedic hand specialist and prof at the
Center for Advanced Medicine at Washington University
Medical School here in St. Louis, whom I told I
was about to shift from piper's to classical grip,
that the physiology
of fingers and hands favors the curved
finger. My expressed interest was in speed and precision.
This physician has been helpful
to me on several occasions about instrument
related problems; he seems to know
a lot about hands. I don't think his statement 'proves'
anything, certainly. But I do think it suggests this:

If there are empirical considerations that favor one
grip over another, they are likely found in the orthopaedic
and Occupational Therapy literature on hands/fingers.
I think a lot is known on how hand/fingers/arms
work. Empirical info relevant to this discussion is likely
found there.

[Nanohedron]

That which physiology appears to favor, based on extending the findings of scientific empirical evidence, is in the end the promoting of a theory until it's tested case-by-case. In my world, real empirical evidence is in the doing of the thing itself, and can validly be found in one's experience, too. If it matches pevailing wisdom, that's nice. Sometimes it doesn't. That doesn't make the evidence of one's particular circumstances wrong.

[cocusflute]

So is anyone able to provide an energetic/structural/biomechanical argument for why the piper's grip and normal grip are close enough to equivalent?

Oh my God... a call for yet more words on this topic....

If not, it might be easier just to go with "different strokes for different folks" and leave it at that.

I thought you'd suggested that 3,000 words ago?

So who here has suffered injury from using a piper's grip
or something other than the normal ("normal?") hold?
Obviously Catherine McEvoy, Garry Shannon, Cathal
McConnell (who holds it backwards fer chrissakes) never
read Larsen or McGee (or some of our own more
experienced posters) and haven't a clue how to hold,
much less play, the flute.

[jim stone]

That which physiology appears to favor, based on extending the findings of scientific empirical evidence, is in the end the promoting of a theory until it's tested case-by-case. In my world, real empirical evidence is in the doing of the thing itself, and can validly be found in one's experience, too. If it matches pevailing wisdom, that's nice. Sometimes it doesn't. That doesn't make the evidence of one's particular circumstances wrong.

Scientific theories are tested case by case. That's part of scientific
method. A lot of this stuff is very practical and very one-on-one.
Note my mention of Occupational Therapy.

I agree entirely, as
do these people,
that empirical evidence can be found in the doing of the thing
itself. It isn't theoreticians on the one side and empiricists
like you and me on the other. Obviously that doesn't
mean that one MUST comply with the theory, even
if it hurts like hell, or seems dysfunctional!

The point was just this: if there is empirical evidence
that favors one grip over another, it's likely to be found
in the OT and orthopaedic literature. As we're talking
about a practical art, applied to a large number of human
bodies, of course the results won't apply to everybody. Also the 'favor'
may be slight.

Science can be illuminating about such things.

[cocusflute]

Jim, you do a lot of hedging your bet, backtracking and fudging.
Your reference to the medical community falls on deaf ears.
As an ex-academician myself I distrust both the verbosity
of academicians and the word of authority.
As a certified trainer I certainly distrust doctors.
Your assertion "...if there is scientific, empirical sort of evidence,
that favors one grip over another, it's likely to be found
in the OT and orthopaedic literature..."
really doesn't mean much.
Can you cite a reference to the literature?
All you've said so far is that one (1) doctor told you "normal" grip was
less likely to cause injury. Is that enough to convince you?
It isn't enough for me, even if a doctor says so.
I mean, c'mon-- says who?

[Nanohedron]

Science can be illuminating about such things.

Yes, it can. I realise we're not so much debating the point here as preaching to each other's choir from slightly different angles. I just caution - it's a habit - against placing blind faith in what evidence suggests over personal applied experience, so science, while helpful, is a starting-off point for me, no more. I very much wanted the so-called "standard" grip to work for me for a number of reasons, including that it seems the more natural of the two, but in my case the weight of evidence based on my circumstances and results alone, no one else's, found me working best with the so-called "piper's" grip. C'est la vie. What's left is to play.

[Rob Sharer]

To hell with science. The fact that a substantial number of top-drawer players in Ireland manage to play beautifully and suffer no negative consequences despite a "non-standard" (whose standard?) grip should be all the empirical evidence anyone needs. No one here is about to prove otherwise, certainly not by simply repeating the same assertions ad nauseum (gently fold in the nauseum...).

Rob

[flutefry]

As a working scientist, I bore people most often with the quip that "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are different".

I still think we are agreeing more than disagreeing, and that Nanohedron has put it well.

Cocus, sorry for more words (the academic disease....). It's the academic turn of mind that makes me interested to know what we know. It's the practical turn of mind that says it can't matter much what grip one uses since many variations work, so let's move on.

Hugh

[rama]

Can't help noticing that some of the discussants are resorting to "proof by assertion (I'm right, you are wrong...). I also notice that these discussants are asking for proof from others that they aren't providing themselves. One can't really prove by example either, since there is no way to know what the player with the idiosyncratic grip or posture would be like if they played with some other grip or posture for the same length of time.

I've made a rudimentary argument why the normal grip should be more energy efficient than the piper's grip. This argument ignores biomechanical possibilities (like the elastic properties of tendons, or the possibilities for rebound being better on finger joints with less flesh compare to finger pads with more) that might (for all I know) be more important than energetic ones. Or maybe there are is data somewhere showing that using one grip or another is more or less prone to injury.

So is anyone able to provide an energetic/structural/biomechanical argument for why the piper's grip and normal grip are close enough to equivalent? If not, it might be easier just to go with "different strokes for different folks" and leave it at that.


Best,
Hugh

hugh, i am not asserting anything is better, just dismantling false claims - like yours. your twisting words and making up stuff. stop being idiotic about it.

[peeplj]

Folks, if you're having trouble holding your flute, get a lesson, or find a teacher, or find someone who's a bit further along down the road, and get them to help you find a way to hold your flute that works for you.

If you're not having trouble, then go play your flute!

Because it seems to me we've just about talked this subject to death already.

--James

[Guinness]

To hell with science. The fact that a substantial number of top-drawer players in Ireland manage to play beautifully and suffer no negative consequences despite a "non-standard" (whose standard?) grip should be all the empirical evidence anyone needs. No one here is about to prove otherwise, certainly not by simply repeating the same assertions ad nauseum (gently fold in the nauseum...).

Rob

Your first two statements are remarkably paradoxical. The fact that some top players use piper's grip is not correlative of anything since they may simply be statistically anomalous. Lest we forget the importance of proper statistical sampling. Furthermore, no evidence has been established that such folks indeed have not suffered or WILL not suffer "negative consequences". You're asserting "fact" and empiricism, which ironically is the basis for all science.

I'm rather neutral about the de/merits of either grip type given my inclination to play both. It's not clear to me that any real science has been tabled thus far so I fail to understand why science gets a bad rap.

[michael c]

Maybe a good idea to learn to play with the toes with fingers too busy typing to hold a flute in any fashion.

[Aanvil]

Maybe a good idea to learn to play with the toes with fingers too busy typing to hold a flute in any fashion.

But how would one blow it from down there?

[michael c]

Maybe a good idea to learn to play with the toes with fingers too busy typing to hold a flute in any fashion.

But how would one blow it from down there?

Your Avatar may have the answer.