Rotation of arm

[ajspiano]

Would feather-weight keys be one part of the answer?

Only if magic fingers is the other part.

In any case, that idea obviously ignores the fact that the rest of us modern day musicians are playing our baroque period music on the modern piano. Even of it is possible, what makes no rotation a better option? If it's something to do with who first talked about it and authenticity feel free to also remove the engine from your car because the guy who came up with the wheel wasnt talking about the combustion engine.

Feel free to link us to a video of a good performance of a pre Chopin work with the performer clearly visible and that has absolutely no forearm rotation at any point.

[pianoman53]

Would feather-weight keys be one part of the answer?  And I'll repeat - when is pronation first mentioned in the literature?

As Asj mentioned: How are Beethoven's light keys any help to us, when playing his music on modern heavy-as-hell grands?

[pts1]

how do you suppose beethoven himself did it? or any preceding composer with any similar figure..

Though the early pianos have changed considerably into today's concert grand piano, the human anatomy has not.

It simply is not possible to play the tremolo and its cousins such as broken octaves, Alberti-type
figures, and such without a rotation movement that begins at the shoulder and involves the rotation of both the upper arm and forearm transmitted down through the wrist, hand and finally "executed" by the fingers into the key.

One can prove it to one's self by simply playing broken octaves up and down the piano as scales.
If you are trying to play it with just fingers or forearm, it won't be long before you employ the upper arm instinctively.

And you will get tired, if you've never really practiced these in the correct way.

Beethoven Sonatas are chocked full of tremolo type movements as well as Hayden and Bach as well.

You can get quite a bit of power, endurance and speed in tremolo type movements by transmitting the large muscle power of the upper arm as it assists the forearm, wrist, hand and finally fingers in the playing.

[nyiregyhazi]

Though the early pianos have changed considerably into today's concert grand piano, the human anatomy has not.

It simply is not possible to play the tremolo and its cousins such as broken octaves, Alberti-type
figures, and such without a rotation movement that begins at the shoulder and involves the rotation of both the upper arm and forearm transmitted down through the wrist, hand and finally "executed" by the fingers into the key.

That is totally untrue. It's entirely possible. In fact, my tremolos inproved beyond recognition since I dropped the attitude that fingers only transmit- and instead started actively moving the keys with rapid finger vibrations. In things like the Wagner/Liszt Liebestod, the less rotation I generally employ in the pianissimo tremolos the better. In many cases, the only trace of rotation comes purely as a passive response to movement from the fingers. Even when I choose to add some level of forearm rotation, it's entirely possible to do so without the shoulder rotating at all. Indeed, I cannot imagine a fast tremolo with notable shoulder rotations. Try touching your shoulder while doing one in the air. The upper arm does not move unless you start doing a seriously big arc, that is not remotely feasible for high speeds.

I am not necessarily anti-rotation, but I am very much opposed to one-sided descriptions that portray only a tiny element of the big picture and indulge in major hyperbole. The assumptions that you make above were quite literally the source of how poor my tremolos and trills etc. were for very many years.  Fingers need to move- not merely transmit rotation. Rotation is too cumbersome to do anything more than assist. Excessive dependence on it imposes major limitations. Frequently, it is not even needed in a role of assisting. You just need to be free in the muscles- rather than clenched.

[ajspiano]

the only trace of rotation comes purely as a passive response to movement from the fingers.

That's a significant aspect of my argument that rotation occurs always. Its not necessarily a conscious driving factor - but without it there are problems, and there are students that fail to make that subconscious shift and need to be shown how to do it. I think this is a result of being overly focused on too many other things while learning.

rotation of the forearm happens all the time, not just at the piano, in life generally - it one of the movements that puts the fingers in the optimal position/angle for any given task. Which leads to the issue of underdone (or overdone) rotation causing tension at the instrument, because the finger didnt get into the best possible strike position and was left unbalanced and overworked.

My fingers are all different lengths and different angles, if I don't adjust the forearms position with each key strike I place a very significant undue stress on my whole playing apparatus because not only is the finger over worked, the whole thing goes slightly off balance. As I said above, this is for the most part totally subconsious, but the piano requires such a precise motion at times that we run into situations where it has to be conciously refined.

At this stage I firmly believe that any capable pianist makes these adjustments on every single note, including the ones that argue that rotation does not happen on every single note.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's a significant aspect of my argument that rotation occurs always. Its not necessarily a conscious driving factor - but without it there are problems.

True. But there's a big difference between methods that claim you are supposed to transmit rotation through the fingers and realising that practising rotation can lead to a state of freedom in which active rotations are no longer needed, nor even desirable. Trying to only transmit rotation can be a recipe for ruin, if a student does not understand that it's frequently just a method of loosening muscles- in order to give the fingers a chance to move the keys better (without the forearm tightening against the reactions). Even in Alberti bass, too much focus on rotation and too little on the fingers moving the keys can again be disatrous (and can even be a source of severe tensions). Rotation can never replace the finger movement.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's great that she can play again, but the above film shows what happens to the sound and agility when you underplay the role of actually moving the fingers. The sound is dull and square. There's no tonal individuation from the fingers, but just lumps- as they transmit thudding arm pressures. It couldn't illustrate much better what Golandsky and Taubman neglect to mention- that you need to move your fingers if you want to have controlled sound and agility.

[ajspiano]

Golandsky/taubman are plainly "for" the role of active fingers. They do not however give it focus in the taubman technique videos. This is why I say the videos get misunderstood. You have not picked up on what they are doing overall

And they do not forget to mention it. It is littered throughout the videos, but these are lectures on a topic, and the topic is not active fingers so it is brushed over.

[nyiregyhazi]

Golandsky/taubman are plainly "for" the role of active fingers. They do not however give it focus in the taubman technique videos. This is why I say the videos get misunderstood. You have not picked up on what they are doing overall

But that's the problem- they don't talk about it. They actively suggest that the fingers are merely passive in their role. They shouldn't allow this aspect to be misunderstood, with such polarised explanations and glaring omissions. It's as clear as day to me that they're actually using plenty of finger movement in the videos- but I wouldn't have had the first clue about how to have added that, if I had only seen their films. I think many take their explanation entirely at face value.

[pts1]

Hmmmm....

You guys are too literal.

I never said you don't use your fingers!

We play with ALL of the mechanism, and its a balance.

The upper arm is always at least "free", and in the case of tremolos, it is part of the action, which links  or transmits down to the finger which of course also move.

Its a coordination of the parts, not only fingers, or only arm.

I wish I could find the Scumann G Minor Sonata played by Argerich in which she wear an armless dress, in which you can quite clearly see the engagement of the upper arm in all the tremolos and trills, loud and small, narrow and wide. It is powerful and fast as hell, and if you could see it, you would realize in a second how engaged and coordinated the upper arm is with the forearm, wrist, hand and fingers.

Learning a tremolo for the first time, IMO, one must exaggerate the upper arm and forearm to get the "feeling" of having the whole mechanism free and participatory and coordinated.

Later, one can reduce and refine the movement.

Maybe I can find something else to post.

[nyiregyhazi]

The upper arm is always at least "free", and in the case of tremolos, it is part of the action, which links  or transmits down to the finger which of course also move.

Its a coordination of the parts, not only fingers, or only arm.

You state this as if incontrovertible fact, but it certainly isn't. This is just one very specific way of playing. When I play quiet tremolos, I scarcely move anything other than my fingers. Anything else is completely passive and just responds. Sometimes I may involve the forearm more, but it's optional. I rarely involve the upper arm in creating rotation at all. How the hell could you even do that- without having the arm outstretched at full length? Without doing so, it cannot pass on the rotation. To do a tremolo with an outstretched arm would be a rare exception. In virtually any normal tremolo the upper arm just responds. There's a big difference between lightly oscilating in response to reaction forces and willfully moving, or passing down energy. One is active, the other passive. Scarcely any tremolos are founded upon rotations of the upper arm.

[ajspiano]

But that's the problem- they don't talk about it. They actively suggest that the fingers are merely passive in their role. They shouldn't allow this aspect to be misunderstood, with such polarised explanations and glaring omissions. It's as clear as day to me that they're actually using plenty of finger movement in the videos- but I wouldn't have had the first clue about how to have added that, if I had only seen their films. I think many take their explanation entirely at face value.

I agree that they do not discuss the how, but they actively say that finger motion is necessary and that passive fingers results in sluggish sloppy playing.

However, as I said, it is brushed over as the lectures are not about this aspect, most of the series is about physiologically sound arm movement, but they are just masterclass lectures on arm motion. They are not an "everything you need to know" package - and while the "virtuosity in a box" tag is a little misleading they do constantly advise taking actual lessons so that individual issues can be addressed properly, because they expect you to get it wrong if you do it on your own, with the videos of single lecture as the only reference.

I've been meaning to watch that video properly for a while, I've only watched her motions without the sound, and havent listened to anything she said. But from that I can only say she is clearly far from a finished product, and that since she was recovering from a severe injury she has probably spent a long time in an exaggerated movement phase of learning to properly instill their rotational method. Its not doubt intended to recieve significant further work and adjustment.

Her performance looks severely rotation focused, with no work on the other elements to date - but i think you'll find that's deliberate because of her inury and will have been rectified with further study.

[ajspiano]

One is active, the other passive.

Interestingly enough, active vs passive rotations are a whole topic within the taubman method, again one that is not covered extensively in the videos..

[pts1]

You state this as if incontrovertible fact, but it certainly isn't. This is just one very specific way of playing. When I play quiet tremolos, I scarcely move anything other than my fingers

Hmmm.... I think the problem here is semantics.

The fingers are the "prime" movers, assisted with very small movements, by the forearm and upper arm.

There's a big difference between lightly oscilating in response to reaction forces and willfully moving, or passing down energy. One is active, the other passive. Scarcely any tremolos are founded upon rotations of the upper arm.

I think this is a good way of putting it, ie, lightly (or better) gently oscillating.
Though it may feel passive, I don't really think it is. Once we really learn a technique and master it, it becomes precise, efficient and no longer seems "willful".

When I was young, and learning the Waldstein Sonata, I had a devil of a time with the LH tremolos because I was ONLY trying to use the fingers, which did not work. My upper arm was not even loose, much less minutely involved or "lightly oscillating" as part of a feedback loop of force and reaction (action and reaction, really). With my right hand, I could trill, tremolo, you name it, very fast and fluidly without tiring for a good while (and still can, as well now with the left) -- but I really had to work at freeing up my left upper arm and learn the "shake" as they sometimes referred to trills, tremolos and such.)

If I can find them, Veda Kaplinsky (Julliard) has some comments on this, which further explain what I'm trying to say.

But be that as it may, if I can play good tremolos (which I can) and you say you can play them, then likely we're doing the same thing, and its the explanantions that are the problem.

[ajspiano]

Though it may feel passive, I don't really think it is. Once we really learn a technique and master it, it becomes precise, efficient and no longer seems "willful"

I'm inclined to agree with this. When its "passive" it may rather have simply become intuitive.

[keyboardclass]

Though it may feel passive, I don't really think it is. Once we really learn a technique and master it, it becomes precise, efficient and no longer seems "willful".

No.  That's the cart before the horse.  If rotation is to happen it will happen - if you allow it.  There's no will involved - it's a withdrawing of will that's required.

[keyboardclass]

In any case, that idea obviously ignores the fact that the rest of us modern day musicians are playing our baroque period music on the modern piano.

As Asj mentioned: How are Beethoven's light keys any help to us, when playing his music on modern heavy-as-hell grands?

That's another issue.

Feel free to link us to a video of a good performance of a pre Chopin work with the performer clearly visible and that has absolutely no forearm rotation at any point.

Pronating needs to take place but only on a 'when required' basis - I know I'm quite 'out there' on that one - but why innervate a muscle (esp. such a powerful one) before it's absolutely essential?

[keyboardclass]

Beethoven Sonatas are chocked full of tremolo type movements as well as Hayden and Bach as well.

Bach!?

[j_menz]

Bach!?

Presumably CPE, JC, PDQ or one of the almost innumerable lesser known ones.

[pts1]

JS Bach Prelude 15 in G maj

[nyiregyhazi]

I think this is a good way of putting it, ie, lightly (or better) gently oscillating.
Though it may feel passive, I don't really think it is. Once we really learn a technique and master it, it becomes precise, efficient and no longer seems "willful".

That suggests active instigation of something that becomes unconscious. I tried some tremolos today- while touching my upper arm. There was no active instigation of anything- even when using the most notable level of rocking of the hand and forearm I ever use (and I frequently use very substantially less). The upper arm was moving very slightly- but purely in passive response to reaction forces. It was not instigating anything whatsoever. It was neither moving enough to transmit anything through the hand, nor was it moving remotely quickly. It Its "involvement" is to be uninvolved and not clenched against reactions. This is where I find explanations that say you "need" rotation so dangerous- when they imply that the fingers are only there to transmit it. Most of it is a matter of using it to learn to STOP involving needless muscular contractions. When this is not understood (and the explanation claims that rotation is the direct source of movement), it is truly ruinous. It did me way more harm than good. Rotation is a means to an end. In a finished product, it's a very slight element compared to how fingers move through keys.

When I was young, and learning the Waldstein Sonata, I had a devil of a time with the LH tremolos because I was ONLY trying to use the fingers, which did not work.

You were probably clenching the arm. The irony with so-called "isolation" is that it almost unfailingly involves clenching the arm. It's really the very antithesis of isolation. When the arm becomes genuinely passive, the fingers can do tremolos just fine. When I tried to replace their role with rotation, I was hopeless at those passages. These days, I can execute those rapid alternations comfortably with very little movement at all, other than from the fingers. True isolation of the fingers is actually rather effective- when the arm is loose. It's when the arm clenches too much that the fingers struggle. Rotation can help with learning to let go. However, it's simply not necessary in the final product. It's an option, not a requirement.

[nyiregyhazi]

Try this exercise:

practise rotating in mid air between two fingers, say 1 and 4. Do it all with the forearm. Then try just moving the same fingers. I can do the latter WAY faster- and with massively less effort. The latter involves very small rotation but I am not instigating it. My arm just isn't preventing it. Even without contacting piano keys, reactions are sent up your arm. The rotation is a by-product of truly isolating the fingers- rather than adding a whole load of tensions to lock the forearm in place (and then labelling that with a term so bizarre as "isolation").

This is frequently the only rotation that occurs- especially in passages like the Waldstein. You don't need to spend hours rocking pedantically onto braced fingers. All you need to do is spend a little time loosening your forearm by rocking it around away from a piano. Once the muscles are loose, you just need to be sensitive to the responses that are caused by moving the fingers. Taubman's route may help some, but it's a hell of a long way to figure out something so simple. When I watch the way Golandsky forces rotations between braced fingers, I really do cringe.  

The irony of all these arm explanations is that they always portray active involvement. The reality is that when these approaches work, it's because they disinvolve muscles- and let the arm simply loosen up enough to respond to reactions, rather than keep trying to do so much unnecessarily. It's the absolute opposite of what most explanations portray.

[pianoman53]

That is totally untrue. It's entirely possible. In fact, my tremolos inproved beyond recognition since I dropped the attitude that fingers only transmit- and instead started actively moving the keys with rapid finger vibrations. In things like the Wagner/Liszt Liebestod, the less rotation I generally employ in the pianissimo tremolos the better. In many cases, the only trace of rotation comes purely as a passive response to movement from the fingers. Even when I choose to add some level of forearm rotation, it's entirely possible to do so without the shoulder rotating at all. Indeed, I cannot imagine a fast tremolo with notable shoulder rotations. Try touching your shoulder while doing one in the air. The upper arm does not move unless you start doing a seriously big arc, that is not remotely feasible for high speeds.

I am not necessarily anti-rotation, but I am very much opposed to one-sided descriptions that portray only a tiny element of the big picture and indulge in major hyperbole. The assumptions that you make above were quite literally the source of how poor my tremolos and trills etc. were for very many years.  Fingers need to move- not merely transmit rotation. Rotation is too cumbersome to do anything more than assist. Excessive dependence on it imposes major limitations. Frequently, it is not even needed in a role of assisting. You just need to be free in the muscles- rather than clenched.

Since you obviously know everything there is to know about technique, why aren't you a wold famous pianist and/or teacher... Or maybe you just thought 'renowned douchebag' was a more appropriate profession for someone like you, eh?

[nyiregyhazi]

Since you obviously know everything there is to know about technique, why aren't you a wold famous pianist and/or teacher... Or maybe you just thought 'renowned douchebag' was a more appropriate profession for someone like you, eh?

If you have a basis for disagreement, you are welcome to to return to the topic and divulge it. Did you try the exercise I provided? Could you move faster by instigating rotation further back than by moving your fingers from a free arm?

Incidentally, I take a defininite tone because feeling my upper arm while playing a tremolo tells me that the idea the upper arm must instigate movement is nonsense- because what I do proves otherwise. I took the tone I did, because of false claims about the supposed limits of possibility.

It simply is not possible to play the tremolo and its cousins such as broken octaves, Alberti-type
figures, and such without a rotation movement that begins at the shoulder and involves the rotation of both the upper arm and forearm transmitted down through the wrist, hand and finally "executed" by the fingers into the key.

 It is simply untrue that active rotation is the only way to do these things- especially if begins in the shoulder (which is dubious even as a possibility).

[pts1]

Perhaps I can help bring this debate to an end.

It is correct that stationary tremolos such as in the 1st Mvmt of the Waldstein Sonata require the fingers and forearm as the primary movers. The upper arm MUST be free and responsive to the rotations, however, so it can react in a gentle coordinated response, or the tremolo will fail.

However, when rotations are not stationary, or are "outsized", the forearm must engage in lateral movement which requires axial rotation of the upper arm which initiates at the shoulder and transmits to the other parts, i.e. forearm and hand/fingers. Also, volume increases during rotations which are beyond the scope of the forearm, require assistance from the stronger upper arm muscles.

Here is a perfect example of rotations which require axial movement initiated at the shoulder and upper arm, which are easily seen when the pianist plays. They occur in the opening bars, and can also be seen throughout the piece.

It did not seem correct to me that this rotation business was an "either or" issue, and in fact it is not. It depends what is being played (and maybe by whom based on individual physicality) whether or not the upper arm plays an active role in rotation, and the answer is that at times it does and at times it does not

[keyboardclass]

JS Bach Prelude 15 in G maj

tremolo type movements???  You're 'aving me on!

[pianoman53]

Maybe we could create a new School of piano technique here... It could be called "The extreme way to become a know-it-all half good pianists with keyboardclass and n-something". How's that for everybody? I would never in my life buy that book, but that's kind of the point, I think.


N-something, FYI, my teacher is a price winner of the Tchaikovsky-competition, and as soon as you do anything like that without rotation, he tells you to think about rotation... But yeah, a long haired dude in his bathrobe, who's practicing piano in his mum's basement is probably a better pianist that him.

[keyboardclass]

But yeah, a long haired dude in his bathrobe, who's practicing piano in his mum's basement is probably a better pianist that him.

[johnmar78]

My 2 cents, I liked the way Valentina played. No rotation. If not only axial movment. Personally, back to basics, if you are physically strong, I think moving whrist up or down vertically, but if you are less strong and need to put other parts into your palying, please do it. We are only human, we do what God has given.

[p2u_]

my teacher is a price winner of the Tchaikovsky-competition, and as soon as you do anything like that without rotation, he tells you to think about rotation...

If he changed the student's technique like this even when the sound image is OK, that would make him a fool, which I'm sure he isn't. Any movement at the piano should have an artistic purpose, or better even: should be born out of artistic necessity, otherwise it becomes useless and just a goal in itself. I'm quite confident your teacher will agree with such a statement. It is indeed possible to create miracles with finger movements alone (without the help of rotation) provided a free arm/body is behind each finger.
P.S.: I don't want to react to the low level of insults you directed at N., but if you looked a bit further than his bathrobe, you might have noticed that N. has made remarkable progress since he started changing his technique about 2 years ago. This is ample proof that what N. has to say cannot readily be discarded as useless. Could you please lose the personal attacks, stick to the topic and give factual arguments? Thank you.

Paul,
Moscow, Russia

[nyiregyhazi]

However, when rotations are not stationary, or are "outsized", the forearm must engage in lateral movement which requires axial rotation of the upper arm which initiates at the shoulder and transmits to the other parts, i.e. forearm and hand/fingers. Also, volume increases during rotations which are beyond the scope of the forearm, require assistance from the stronger upper arm muscles.

I'm not convinced that the assistance is rotational. I tried some tremolos, sourcing the hand rotation from the upper arm. It is possible at a moderate speed- although it's very hard not to lock the elbow (which becomes highly unstable) However, as soon as I need to go fast, the upper arm stops instigating and the forearm becomes the lone instigator of active rocking. Even with an outstretched arm (a bent forearm makes it seriously difficult to transmit rotations of the upper arm with anything resembling precision) I found this to be the case. The upper arm could perhaps apply some form of stabilising pressure, but I remain highly skeptical about the idea of it as an instigator of rapid rotations.

Here is a perfect example of rotations which require axial movement initiated at the shoulder and upper arm, which are easily seen when the pianist plays. They occur in the opening bars, and can also be seen throughout the piece.

There are movements of course- but these are about spanning distance on the keyboard. I'd put that in a rather different category to claims that the upper arm supposedly "must" instigate rotation as a means of sounding the keys for tremolos etc. I'm not arguing that the upper arm never rotates in piano playing, but specifically against a claim that it is necessary for it to do so in trills and tremolos etc. I think it's missing the point to believe that standard rotations would initiate from there. Even when rotation is active in producing sound, I think it rarely goes beyond the forearm (and even there, the exercise I listed earlier shows how slow this is without genuine movement from the fingers themselves). However, in very many cases, passive rotation runs from the fingers backwards. The fingers move and the forearm responds and the upper arm also responds slightly. Those who obsess with rotation rarely seem to approach it from both ends.

[nyiregyhazi]

N-something, FYI, my teacher is a price winner of the Tchaikovsky-competition, and as soon as you do anything like that without rotation, he tells you to think about rotation... But yeah, a long haired dude in his bathrobe, who's practicing piano in his mum's basement is probably a better pianist that him.

Appeal to authority is a poor argument, because there will always be bigger and better authorities. Look at Horowitz- who did loads of stuff without rotation. Is your teacher a greater authority than Horowitz?

That's why discussion is usually founded on objective arguments- not assertions that things are right because of the reputation that the person suggesting them has. If that's your yardstick, there is always some equal or "better" who will say the opposite.

Incidentally, I did not argue against rotation in general. I argued against excessive attribution of its role and the specific idea that active rocking movements must initiate at the shoulder for tremolos and alberti etc. I find it totally implausible an assertion and even doubtful as a feasible option for many things.

[pianoman53]

Oh, I'm so sorry, I really didn't mean to make you believe that I actually entered a discussion with you! I've read a few of your posts, and uhm... Ya.. Conclusion: I'm not discussion with you... I probably never will.

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh, I'm so sorry, I really didn't mean to make you believe that I actually entered a discussion with you! I've read a few of your posts, and uhm... Ya.. Conclusion: I'm not discussion with you... I probably never will.

If you are not interested in dialogue, is there any reason to post? These threads are for discussion- which means listening to other people's points and responding (whether in agreement or in reasoned disagreement). Perhaps you feel refusing to enter discussion is something to be proud of, but it's by considering different views that people learn (sometimes by coming out in agreement, sometimes by coming out in disagreement).

[pts1]

Nyiregyhazi

I don't think anything will settle this debate but personal experience.

Do you play the Schumann G Minor Sonata?

With the exception of the slow movement (2nd), this thing is almost entirely made up or rotations of one sort or another.

Its almost like Schumann came down with a "rotation obsession" and decided he was going to write an extremely difficult piece almost entirely built out of rotations. The "Pagannini" variation in Carnival, is a warm up exercise for the G Minor Sonata.

So you might look at it (1st and 3rd movements) and start going through it, and I'll bet it won't take you long to figure out that rotations do indeed involve the upper arm.

And part of it IS the tempo requirement. In a slow speed, one can fool one's self into any conclusion about technique, but to play it as its supposed to be played, I don't see that its possible without considerable upper arm assistance in the rotational movements.

Famously, the first movement is the one where the tempo marking is "as fast as possible" and then later Schumann marks: "Faster". LOL

[nyiregyhazi]

Nyiregyhazi

I don't think anything will settle this debate but personal experience.

Do you play the Schumann G Minor Sonata?

With the exception of the slow movement (2nd), this thing is almost entirely made up or rotations of one sort or another.

Its almost like Schumann came down with a "rotation obsession" and decided he was going to write an extremely difficult piece almost entirely built out of rotations. The "Pagannini" variation in Carnival, is a warm up exercise for the G Minor Sonata.

So you might look at it (1st and 3rd movements) and start going through it, and I'll bet it won't take you long to figure out that rotations do indeed involve the upper arm.

And part of it IS the tempo requirement. In a slow speed, one can fool one's self into any conclusion about technique, but to play it as its supposed to be played, I don't see that its possible without considerable upper arm assistance in the rotational movements.

Famously, the first movement is the one where the tempo marking is "as fast as possible" and then later Schumann marks: "Faster". LOL

I think you've missed my point. Such motions as are required in these passages primarily serve to span distance between wide intervals. The idea that these rotations can be transmitted into a rocking of the hand that creates sufficient movement to produce every tone is dubious, to put it mildly. Above all, the idea that such movements MUST occur for far simpler alberti bass, trills and tremolos is just indefensible.

If you're reading my posts as anti-rotation, you're missing my point. I'm pointing how far off the mark some typically excessive attributions (of its role in directly causing movement of keys) were. I have never said that there is no role whatsoever for rotational movements of the upper arm in any circumstance within piano playing and I never would. Such movements also occur within one variation in the Bach Busoni Chaconne (with very wide intervals in both hands). However, they guide the movement. Each tone cannot be produced by an individual rocking movement of the upper arm that (supposedly) transmits enough rotation into the hand to make each sound. The rate of rotation is nowhere near the rate of notes played and the rotation primarily serves to align- not to press through each individual key. If that were taken at face value, it would slow things down and be too cumbersome. The only way to execute those passages with fine control is to use bigger and slower arm movements, but to create key movement via the fingers. It's just not possible to do rotations fast enough to instigate each separate sound.

[nyiregyhazi]

To summarise that briefly- if a person does not understood that upper arm rotations cannot possibly be used to create downward forces that can account for each individual note, they can get into all kinds of bother. Pointing out how harmful a literal interpretation of what was described can be does not mean being in denial about value of upper arm rotation. Upper arm rotation is required to keep the hand aligned when spanning big distance. It might also help out with intermittent stronger notes However, it cannot create sufficient impulse (or change direction quickly enough) to actively instigate each individual note in a series. The fingers do that.

[pts1]

OK, here is a link to professional research article on the very topic with which we're engaged.
I have exerpted a bit of it below which is in lay language (mostly) which I was able to understand.
The entire paper is "heavy sledding" -- at least for me -- backed up by all sorts of scientific findings, graphs, statistics, etc.

If this doesn't do it for you then, I guess we'll simply have to drop it.

The gist of the paper is how novice pianists accomplish movements at the piano versus trained professionals.

The remainder of my post is the excerpted material.

Here's the link if you're interested in wading through the paper.

 https://music.unt.edu/pianoresearch/reference/Furuya2.pdf


Organization of the upper limb movement for piano
key-depression differs between expert pianists
and novice players

The effective use of shoulder flexion when the experts
depress the keys

One interesting finding of the present study concerning the
kinematics of the arm during key depression was the distinct
expert-novice difference in the use of upper arm
rotation. From the onset to the end of key depression, the
experts used marked shoulder flexion. Because the shoulder
flexion in the experts was proceeded by a greater burst
of the AD and Biceps muscular activity, this shoulder joint
motion appeared to be caused predominately by volitional
active muscle contraction rather than by passive movement
action. We also found that this shoulder flexion in the
experts was coupled with a forward rotation of the finger at
the MP and wrist joints as the fingertip depressed the key,
thus indicating that the shoulder flexion was aimed to
facilitate depression of the key by the finger. For the
novices, on the other hand, small amount of shoulder
extension predominated to generate a downward movement
of the hand till the end of key depression. The novices
mainly relied on shoulder and elbow extension for the
downward movement of the forearm and hand. Interestingly,
the characteristics of upper limb’s joint kinematics
for key-depression by the present novice players were quite
similar to those observed during striking a computer key by
ordinary people (Dennerlein et al. 2007). These findings
suggest that the novices have used a fundamental keystroke
synergy that is developed through everyday experience of
key hitting and pressing tasks. The experts, on the other
hand, have used a key-depression synergy that should be
specifically acquired with a long-term training as a most
efficient way to produce a target sound on the piano. These
synergies could include the formation of attack angle as
well as the posture of the limb at the end of key depression
movement.

[keyboardclass]

Kwool.

[p2u_]

OK, here is a link to professional research article on the very topic with which we're engaged.
[...]
If this doesn't do it for you then, I guess we'll simply have to drop it.

No, I'm afraid this doesn't do it. Nice reading if you like it, but science is never going to solve the problem we are discussing here. It's all about cause and result. It's also about body-mapping - a movement may be perceived in a location where it is not actually caused, etc. It may also be present not as the cause, but as the by-product of a certain technique (active fingers with completely released upper body, for example).

Professionals always move more efficiently than novices, no matter what part of their bodies you wish to highlight. I remember seeing a Russian paper about the Lumbricals and Interosseous Muscles in the Hand (supposedly the muscles responsible for speed in finger passages). The gist was that those muscles are very well developed in professional pianists and that they use them more efficiently than novices do. Just look at the mighty hands of great pianists like Richter, Gilels, etc. Seems like their daily work consisted more of carrying around bricks than of anything related to the fine arts. Unfortunately, the link to piano methodology (what we were supposed to do with that information) was lacking, as is the case in your paper. Those muscles certainly don't develop from wiggling your hand on every note in a Taubman/Golandsky fashion. Does that information deny that there is rotation present in EVERYTHING we do? No. I thought we already agreed on that.

Paul
Moscow, Russia

[keyboardclass]

What the paper is really saying is that experts have looser wrists so that when playing octaves, on key depression they give a little (go up) - even if visually imperceptible - which makes the shoulder go forward.  Novices lock the wrist so the shoulder keeps going backward as the hand/key descends.  Nothing about rotation here.

[p2u_]

Novices lock the wrist

Locked wrist + forearm rotation => tennis elbow. Not as painful as golf balls [big grin], but I have cured more than one patient from this. If the patient wants to continue piano playing, then part of the treatment consists of the development of the finer motor skills (intrinsic muscles in the hands). It is never a good idea to try to drive a car with the hand brakes on because this causes friction.

Paul

[thalbergmad]

Professionals always move more efficiently than novices, no matter what part of their bodies you wish to highlight.

In my experience, this is undoubtedly true.

Thal

[costicina]

 
Thal, I'm crazy for you!!!!

[nyiregyhazi]

OK, here is a link to professional research article on the very topic with which we're engaged.
I have exerpted a bit of it below which is in lay language (mostly) which I was able to understand.
The entire paper is "heavy sledding" -- at least for me -- backed up by all sorts of scientific findings, graphs, statistics, etc.

If this doesn't do it for you then, I guess we'll simply have to drop it.

I don't understand what this is supposed to signify, in relation to where this thread has gone. As I said, what I disputed was the notion that the upper arm can be responsible for causing a rapid rocking movement that is transmitted through the hand. This paper has nothing to do with that type of rotation. The side-on diagram shows what they refer to in the upper arm. Considering that it refers to striking of a lone octave from a height, it's hardly a surprise that the upper arm would move as displayed- for shock absorption. Equally, it's unsurprising that poorly trained players would simply jam down into the piano, with a stiff upper arm.

It would be far more interesting to see something that relates to rapid and loud passage work. In this case, we'd likely find that bad pianists tend to move the upper arm far too much- likely attempting one individual act of pressure for each note. Conversely, accomplished pianists would likely have a smoother and slower upper arm movement, that traces a broad shape- without trying to instigate a separate pressure per note- through a series of braced joints.

[nyiregyhazi]

What the paper is really saying is that experts have looser wrists so that when playing octaves, on key depression they give a little (go up) - even if visually imperceptible - which makes the shoulder go forward.  Novices lock the wrist so the shoulder keeps going backward as the hand/key descends.  Nothing about rotation here.

That's not what it's "really" saying at all. It's just one element. A loose wrist would collapse downwards- unless the upper arm were to instigate a forward pressure, or the hand were to instigate notable movement upon contacting the key (or quite possibly both). The loose wrist is just one element of a healthy landing. The problem with bad pianists is far broader- ie. the whole mindset for movement is based around tightening the arm into a single structure, to prevent collapses. A stiff wrist is but a single symptom of this flawed concept.

Novices lock the wrist so the shoulder keeps going backward as the hand/key descends.

This is especially untrue. You can start with a high wrist and flop it down as relaxed as you like. That will do nothing to prevent the shoulder inevitably going backwards. It's all down to whether any spare momentum is redirected upwards and over the top. Failure to do so can directly cause the necessity of a locked wrist- as it would otherwise droop down and break the alignment.

Locked wrists are usually symptomatic of a bigger problem in the overall concept- which leaves them little choice but to lock. The cure rarely lies in the wrist itself- but in important activities that the wrist is being forced to compensate for an absence of. Otherwise it would sag downwards through depression and causes a flaccid, uncontrolled contact.

[pianoman53]

You wont stop until this whole forum is dead, will you?

[nyiregyhazi]

You wont stop until this whole forum is dead, will you?

My post contained both topical substance and rational support for all assertions- that you are more than welcome to express any reasoned disagreement with. Your post contributed nothing. If you care about this forum, why not include some substance in your posts- rather than contribute topically empty posts?

[keyboardclass]

That's not what it's "really" saying at all. It's just one element.

If you were capable of reading it you'd know that's what it says - and don't expect me to read your crazy diatribe either.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you were capable of reading it you'd know that's what it says - and don't expect me to read your crazy diatribe either.

I read it. It says what it says- not what you claim it "really" says. The problem is that a relaxed wrist contributes nothing workable unless there are other elements. If it is really specific to the wrist (rather than to a wider global issue), then how is it that a relaxed wrist just slumps downwards- in a completely different path to what they specifically outline? The relaxed wrist is just one component. For it to be feasible, you need hand action/upper arm action or both. People who have locked wrists are typically missing these- meaning that isolating it to intent to loosen their wrists up will not provide anything remotely resembling the product described. Without the other key elements, a loose wrist is a dysfunctionally sagging wrist. The easiest fix for a tight wrist is to deal with the underlying cause- not the mere symptom. Unless the suitable activation of both hand and arm is present, as soon as you play octaves fast, the relaxed wrist is forced to turn into a stiff wrist- no matter how much you might strive to relax it.

Once again, this film springs to mind: