Pianists’ hand spans measured at the MTNA Convention in 2004 (www.steinbuhler.com) 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... having particularly small hands for a male, had had a custom-made smaller keyboard made for his Steinway grand piano. His published papers (1998, 2000) on this subject elaborate on the significant technical and musical benefits for his own piano playing. In the early 1990s, Donison met up with Pennsylvanian textile manufacturer and engineer, David Steinbuhler. Together they created a second official keyboard size (the DS standardTM ), with the long term aim of it becoming universally available. During the two and a half years since that internet discovery, I have studied the literature relating to hand size and the piano keyboard, established contact with David Steinbuhler and ordered my own 7/8 keyboard. This was custom-made to fit my Bernstein grand piano and was installed in early April 2009. This paper covers a review of readily available data on hand size in humans and how this relates to keyboard size, a review of literature that links hand size with piano playing, results of a survey of pianists in North America who use reduced-size keyboards, and my initial perceptions of the benefits of the reduced-size keyboard for my own playing. Between 1998 and 2005, Steinbuhler & Company invited adult pianists to experiment with a complete range of piano keyboard sizes at their centre in Titusville, Pennsylvania. Participants were able to spend hours or days experimenting and swapping between the different size keyboards. It became clear there was a strong desire for at least two smaller keyboard sizes in addition to the conventional keyboard. To determine the most practical size keyboard for the smaller-handed pianists, a detailed study was conducted using five keyboards measuring between 38 and 42 inches in overall width. About 15 pianists experimented with these keyboards. Although there was a general desire to play the smallest keyboards, it was found that below 40 inches, the space between black keys became too cramped for all but those with the smallest hands with thin fingers. Hence, 41 inches was selected as the best available choice for the smallest hand-size. Three standards were subsequently defined as follows: 1 • Conventional keyboard – 6.5 inch octave , 48.29 inch total width • 15/16 Universal keyboard – 6.0 inch octave, 44.57 inch total width • 7/8 DS Standard TM keyboard – 5.54 inch octave, 41.14 inches total width In addition, at the US Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) 2004 National Conference, attendees were invited to play these keyboard sizes and have their hand spans measured. Of the 160 who agreed to participate, 90 were adult females, 66 were adult males and four were students still growing. The distribution of 2 their ‘active 1-5 hand spans’ is shown in Figure 1, a chart created by David Steinbuhler. A mix of left and right hands were measured. While not a random sample, the gender difference is obvious from the graph. Comparing earlier anthropometrical data on pianists’ hands (Wagner, 1988) with the MTNA data, the results are broadly consistent, although there were no females with hand spans of 9 inches and above measured at the MTNA Convention. Assuming hand span data for a sufficiently large sample would approximate a normal distribution, various summary measures can be derived. Table 1 summarises the differences between males and females for the two data sets. It is interesting to consider whether the size distribution of pianists’ hands reflects the human population as a whole, and the influence of ethnic origin. From measurements of many different features of the human hand in the US (Garrett, 1971), depending on the characteristic measured, differences between males and females generally range between 10% and 20%. However, for the active 1-5 span, he does not give gender differences; he gives an overall mean of 8.5 inches for males and females combined. Wagner (1988, p.117) notes that based on previous studies, musicians tend to have greater finger spans than non-musicians. It is commonly stated that people of Asian ethnicity have smaller hands than those of Caucasian origin (e.g. Sakai, 1992, Furuya et al., 2006). However, the only reviewed paper with original data is on the hand anthropometry of Indian women (Nag et al., 2001). Results of that study indicate that the hands of Indian women are significantly smaller than those of British, American and West Indian women. The mean active 1-5 span of the sample of Indian women was only 6.8 inches. A significant proportion of subjects (95% of males and 86.5% of females) measured by Wagner (1988) were of Caucasian origin. The ethnic background of MTNA pianists (Figure 1) is unknown, but is likely to be mixed. In the absence of other data, and recognising that the data do not come from scientifically-based random samples, from Table 1 one could postulate that: 1. Comparing the first quartile of males with the first quartile of females, approximately 75% of adult females have hand spans smaller than the 75% of adult males with the largest spans, and 2. Comparing the arithmetic means and medians, the average hand span of an adult male is approximately one inch greater than that of an adult female (representing almost the width of one key on the conventional keyboard). Figure 2 illustrates these findings. It is useful to relate hand span to the capacity to stretch a specified interval on the conventional keyboard. [Although ability to reach certain intervals is only one of the many suggested benefits of reduced-size keyboards, it is a fundamental constraint on the ability to perform certain repertoire.] To calibrate 1-5 active hand span against ability to play different intervals, in March 2009 we measured the hand spans of around 25 adult pianists and documented the largest white key interval they were able to play – either comfortably (ability to slide thumb and fifth finger in towards the black keys) or just reaching (‘on the edge’ of the white keys). The results are shown (without gender differences) in Table 2. Note that the total widths of these three intervals, as measured across a conventional keyboard, is approximately the same as the threshold hand span, e.g. width of a 9-note white key interval (covering 10 notes in total) is 8.4 inches. Relating these findings to the statistical summary measures shown in Table 1 and in Figure 2, it is postulated that a significant minority of females cannot play an octave comfortably on the conventional keyboard, and a significant majority cannot play a ninth comfortably, nor a tenth even ‘on the edge’. On the other hand, it seems that a significant majority of males can play an octave and a ninth comfortably and a tenth ‘on the edge’ using the conventional keyboard. (See Figure 3.) It is postulated that by transferring to a 7/8 keyboard, one extra white note is added to the maximum interval that can be played by any individual, i.e. in effect, their hand span becomes one inch larger, compared with playing the conventional keyboard. For example, someone with a 7-inch span becomes (on the 7/8), equivalent to a person with an 8-inch span on the conventional keyboard. The average 8-inch female hand span on the 7/8 is approximately equivalent to the average 9-inch male hand span on the conventional keyboard. The female hand distribution graph (Figure 2) effectively moves to the right to the position of the male hand span distribution. This means that the female hand is approximately in the same proportion to the 7/8 keyboard as the male hand is to the conventional keyboard. In the absence of comprehensive data on ethic differences, if the Indian data set is any guide, one can speculate that there may be a significant proportion of women of Asian origin with spans ...

Context 2

... having particularly small hands for a male, had had a custom-made smaller keyboard made for his Steinway grand piano. His published papers (1998, 2000) on this subject elaborate on the significant technical and musical benefits for his own piano playing. In the early 1990s, Donison met up with Pennsylvanian textile manufacturer and engineer, David Steinbuhler. Together they created a second official keyboard size (the DS standardTM ), with the long term aim of it becoming universally available. During the two and a half years since that internet discovery, I have studied the literature relating to hand size and the piano keyboard, established contact with David Steinbuhler and ordered my own 7/8 keyboard. This was custom-made to fit my Bernstein grand piano and was installed in early April 2009. This paper covers a review of readily available data on hand size in humans and how this relates to keyboard size, a review of literature that links hand size with piano playing, results of a survey of pianists in North America who use reduced-size keyboards, and my initial perceptions of the benefits of the reduced-size keyboard for my own playing. Between 1998 and 2005, Steinbuhler & Company invited adult pianists to experiment with a complete range of piano keyboard sizes at their centre in Titusville, Pennsylvania. Participants were able to spend hours or days experimenting and swapping between the different size keyboards. It became clear there was a strong desire for at least two smaller keyboard sizes in addition to the conventional keyboard. To determine the most practical size keyboard for the smaller-handed pianists, a detailed study was conducted using five keyboards measuring between 38 and 42 inches in overall width. About 15 pianists experimented with these keyboards. Although there was a general desire to play the smallest keyboards, it was found that below 40 inches, the space between black keys became too cramped for all but those with the smallest hands with thin fingers. Hence, 41 inches was selected as the best available choice for the smallest hand-size. Three standards were subsequently defined as follows: 1 • Conventional keyboard – 6.5 inch octave , 48.29 inch total width • 15/16 Universal keyboard – 6.0 inch octave, 44.57 inch total width • 7/8 DS Standard TM keyboard – 5.54 inch octave, 41.14 inches total width In addition, at the US Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) 2004 National Conference, attendees were invited to play these keyboard sizes and have their hand spans measured. Of the 160 who agreed to participate, 90 were adult females, 66 were adult males and four were students still growing. The distribution of 2 their ‘active 1-5 hand spans’ is shown in Figure 1, a chart created by David Steinbuhler. A mix of left and right hands were measured. While not a random sample, the gender difference is obvious from the graph. Comparing earlier anthropometrical data on pianists’ hands (Wagner, 1988) with the MTNA data, the results are broadly consistent, although there were no females with hand spans of 9 inches and above measured at the MTNA Convention. Assuming hand span data for a sufficiently large sample would approximate a normal distribution, various summary measures can be derived. Table 1 summarises the differences between males and females for the two data sets. It is interesting to consider whether the size distribution of pianists’ hands reflects the human population as a whole, and the influence of ethnic origin. From measurements of many different features of the human hand in the US (Garrett, 1971), depending on the characteristic measured, differences between males and females generally range between 10% and 20%. However, for the active 1-5 span, he does not give gender differences; he gives an overall mean of 8.5 inches for males and females combined. Wagner (1988, p.117) notes that based on previous studies, musicians tend to have greater finger spans than non-musicians. It is commonly stated that people of Asian ethnicity have smaller hands than those of Caucasian origin (e.g. Sakai, 1992, Furuya et al., 2006). However, the only reviewed paper with original data is on the hand anthropometry of Indian women (Nag et al., 2001). Results of that study indicate that the hands of Indian women are significantly smaller than those of British, American and West Indian women. The mean active 1-5 span of the sample of Indian women was only 6.8 inches. A significant proportion of subjects (95% of males and 86.5% of females) measured by Wagner (1988) were of Caucasian origin. The ethnic background of MTNA pianists (Figure 1) is unknown, but is likely to be mixed. In the absence of other data, and recognising that the data do not come from scientifically-based random samples, from Table 1 one could postulate that: 1. Comparing the first quartile of males with the first quartile of females, approximately 75% of adult females have hand spans smaller than the 75% of adult males with the largest spans, and 2. Comparing the arithmetic means and medians, the average hand span of an adult male is approximately one inch greater than that of an adult female (representing almost the width of one key on the conventional keyboard). Figure 2 illustrates these findings. It is useful to relate hand span to the capacity to stretch a specified interval on the conventional keyboard. [Although ability to reach certain intervals is only one of the many suggested benefits of reduced-size keyboards, it is a fundamental constraint on the ability to perform certain repertoire.] To calibrate 1-5 active hand span against ability to play different intervals, in March 2009 we measured the hand spans of around 25 adult pianists and documented the largest white key interval they were able to play – either comfortably (ability to slide thumb and fifth finger in towards the black keys) or just reaching (‘on the edge’ of the white keys). The results are shown (without gender differences) in Table 2. Note that the total widths of these three intervals, as measured across a conventional keyboard, is approximately the same as the threshold hand span, e.g. width of a 9-note white key interval (covering 10 notes in total) is 8.4 inches. Relating these findings to the statistical summary measures shown in Table 1 and in Figure 2, it is postulated that a significant minority of females cannot play an octave comfortably on the conventional keyboard, and a significant majority cannot play a ninth comfortably, nor a tenth even ‘on the edge’. On the other hand, it seems that a significant majority of males can play an octave and a ninth comfortably and a tenth ‘on the edge’ using the conventional keyboard. (See Figure 3.) It is postulated that by transferring to a 7/8 keyboard, one extra white note is added to the maximum interval that can be played by any individual, i.e. in effect, their hand span becomes one inch larger, compared with playing the conventional keyboard. For example, someone with a 7-inch span becomes (on the 7/8), equivalent to a person with an 8-inch span on the conventional keyboard. The average 8-inch female hand span on the 7/8 is approximately equivalent to the average 9-inch male hand span on the conventional keyboard. The female hand distribution graph (Figure 2) effectively moves to the right to the position of the male hand span distribution. This means that the female hand is approximately in the same proportion to the 7/8 keyboard as the male hand is to the conventional keyboard. In the absence of comprehensive data on ethic differences, if the Indian data set is any guide, one can speculate that there may be a significant proportion of women of Asian origin with spans smaller than 7 inches. Below this threshold, it would not seem possible to play classical piano repertoire at any more than an elementary level. Piano keyboards have not always been the size they are today. In the 18 century they were not only smaller than today (similar in size to current day harpsichords) but at that time, repertoire rarely contained intervals larger then an th octave. At the beginning of the 19 century the piano keyboard was gradually extended in range and size (Deahl & Wristen, 2003) and the use of cast iron frames led to an increase in string tension, resulting in heavier and deeper action. During the th 19 century, a Czech company designed a smaller keyboard ‘for ladies’. The great pianist Josef Hofmann used a reduced-size keyboard designed for him by the Steinway Company early last century. As the piano evolved, the need for standardisation increased as pianists (professional or amateur) started to travel outside their own communities, hence the ‘one size fits all’ approach that has prevailed over the last century. Much of the literature linking hand size with piano playing is in the field of performing arts medicine, with the focus on hand size as a possible risk factor in piano-related pain and injury based on epidemiological studies. Many such studies published during the 1980s and 1990s covered a mix of instrumentalists rather than just pianists. These included clinical studies (Fry 1987, Manchester & Flieder, 1991; Cayea & Manchester, 1988), a survey of teachers (Quarrier, 1995) and a detailed case-controlled study of risk factors (Zaza & Farewell, 1997). Likely causes of pain or injury were identified as being technique, time and intensity of practice, posture and genetically based factors. Females were found to be disproportionately affected and keyboard players among those most at risk. Zaza & Farewell’s landmark case-controlled ...