Studying Taubman Technique

[sheraz]

I am making this post because I"m learning Taubman technique and looking for those who went through the training for at least 1 year.
I chose Taubman because scientifically it made a lot of sence to me. By no means am I saying that other approaches are wrong. I'm sure they are all valuable. But since I'm learning Taubman, I"m constantly in search of those who have gone through same experiece for a period of at least 1 year. My concerns about it is related to applying it in fast speed like playing Chopin Etudes. Reading different posts, it seems like those who can, have had many years of experience before they adopted Taubman and even though they can play fast pieces, it can very easily be said that they can do it because they have had training before they adapted Taubman.
So my question is "Is there anyone who learned Taubman from beginning and now can play advance pieces like Chopin Etudes??

[awesom_o]

I learned Taubman from the beginning (well, not quite-I started at age 5, and began working with a Taubman teacher at . I continued with this teacher until I was 12-at this time, I had just begun work on advanced etudes.

My family moved cities at this point in my studies, and I began working with a non-Taubman teacher.

I am now 24 and have recorded all of the studies. The technique required to play Chopin's music  as he intended it goes well beyond the Taubman principles. You need Chopin's technique to play Chopin's music.

Taubman was certainly a solid foundation for me, especially as a child. At a certain point, however, I had to study more advanced ideas about motion than the Taubman philosophy allowed.

I hope this sheds some light on your query.

[sheraz]

thanks for your reply but I am looking for those who started as an adult. When someone starts as a child, its a totally different experience. But thanks for your post. Anybody else out there?

[ajspiano]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that the motion required to play the chopin studies falls that far outside what taubman teaches..  though my experience is limited to the video set.

I tend to generalise taubman to movement principles, rather than strict movements.. all of which I use in the chopin studies, my perspective was more a long the lines of an increased understanding of what was meant by the instruction than there being anything that different altogether.

If you don't mind my asking, who was your teacher awesome_o?

[ajspiano]

Here's a totally debatable and easily shrugged off  theory for you..

below is an excerpt from the revolutionary.


under taubman, the red marked notes would be double rotations and the blue singles. Its pretty easy to fail to do this when performed HS.

interestingly though, the whole arm type action of the RH, which with the exception of the first double is timed with these off beat notes where there is a tendency to fail to support the playing with a well positioned arm. When played HT, the tendency to synchronize makes it a lot less likely to leave that rotational action (however small) out of it.. it becomes kind of deliberate, giving those notes more significance subconsciously because that are timed with that offbeat musical line in the RH.

Not that I think chopin wrote it that what consciously thinking of it how dorothy might have, but its and interesting example.. and thinking about it that way was one aspect (among other movement thought) that helped me clean up this passage, which I found quite problematic for the LH.. it is feasible that chopin constructed some of his lines to create such developments of the technique, where essentially a thoroughly musical execution is what forces the student to make the technical development... so in this case, a focus on the melody and driving the passage with the offbeat accents makes the problematic LH fall into place, at least to a degree.

I didn't mark them but the same thing is in effect at the end of the 2nd bar with the sequence of doubles in the 1 and 5 fingers in time with the RH quavers.

[awesom_o]

My teacher those many many years ago was this lady:

https://rebeccabogart.musicteachershelper.com/

At a certain point, once you have mastered basic skills, studying a musical instrument becomes about learning how to get more music out of your instrument with less of your own energy.
The more skilled we become at this, the closer and closer we come to being able to play the piano entirely with our mind. This is the level where the pianist is thinking like a conductor-his physical mechanism of playing is merely the players in the orchestra. At this level, the physical ease of playing is so great that the pianist can really focus on the music. Very few pianists reach this level. I'm thinking Horowitz, Michelangeli, or Gould.

At this level, the physical actions are so small and yet so musically powerful that they boggle the mind.

Watch closely as Horowitz, Michelangeli, or Gould play a scale. Do they really use all of those single/double rotations?

Or does their hand magically, smoothly seem to glide up the keyboard effortlessly, as the scale comes out sounding just they way they intended it to?

[awesom_o]

Watch my technique closely as I play this Chopin Etude, op. 10/5. You'll see that I use forearm rotation to great effect. I don't think anyone could play it without rotation.

But you'll also see a great deal of other stuff that Taubman just doesn't deal with. The flat-fingers, high-knuckle bridge, and support within the hand.

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's a totally debatable and easily shrugged off   theory for you..

below is an excerpt from the revolutionary.


under taubman, the red marked notes would be double rotations and the blue singles. Its pretty easy to fail to do this when performed HS.

interestingly though, the whole arm type action of the RH, which with the exception of the first double is timed with these off beat notes where there is a tendency to fail to support the playing with a well positioned arm. When played HT, the tendency to synchronize makes it a lot less likely to leave that rotational action (however small) out of it.. it becomes kind of deliberate, giving those notes more significance subconsciously because that are timed with that offbeat musical line in the RH.

Not that I think chopin wrote it that what consciously thinking of it how dorothy might have, but its and interesting example.. and thinking about it that way was one aspect (among other movement thought) that helped me clean up this passage, which I found quite problematic for the LH.. it is feasible that chopin constructed some of his lines to create such developments of the technique, where essentially a thoroughly musical execution is what forces the student to make the technical development... so in this case, a focus on the melody and driving the passage with the offbeat accents makes the problematic LH fall into place, at least to a degree.

I didn't mark them but the same thing is in effect at the end of the 2nd bar with the sequence of doubles in the 1 and 5 fingers in time with the RH quavers.

I usually agree with most of your ideas, but I have to say you've lost me altogether on this one. How can you take the dogmatic concepts of rotation and double rotation as separate acts for each note literally? These are simply learning tools. they have virtually nothing to do with a final execution. For the first group of three notes I'd use only ONE steady rotation to encompass all three, with finger action being the primary source of key movement and the rotation just being a steady unravelling to help each finger get ready. The concept of reversing direction twice before playing the C flat is madness to me, except as a preliminary exercise.


It applies all the more on the way back. I'd feel one fluid arm gesture from top to bottom. I wouldn't want any form of reversal into the C flat or another reversal into second b flat. For me that would give too much prominence to the C flat, which I'd regard as a kind of deliberate blur next to the, b flat, like a kind of a moan. I wouldn't wish for a pronounced articulation but would wish for the harmonic tones to take precedence, with the C flat and extra b flat existing merely as a muted prolongation of the overriding harmonic tone based descent. When the arm avoids extra reversals, you can get the eerie murmuring effect more easily, rather than have every note punched out the same.


I generally have phenomenal respect for your ideas and individuality, but I have to say that by applying these terms literally in this context it comes across as an extremely dogmatic application of a totally synthetic rulebook. there's absolutely no question that we could assume that chopin had such a huge number of about turns in mind, simply because taubman concocted a formula. Once we're speaking at tempo, surely it's simple common sense that we're going to throw out supposed double rotations in favour of integrating more successive notes into a longer gesture and that we're no longer going to reverse the arm direction for literally every change of direction in the line? The faster the tempo and the more complex the line, the more likely it is that a suitable arm movement follows the prevailing direction of the line in a bigger smoother progression- rather than be getting bogged down in an impossibly large of number of direct reversals of direction.

[nyiregyhazi]

My teacher those many many years ago was this lady:

https://rebeccabogart.musicteachershelper.com/

At a certain point, once you have mastered basic skills, studying a musical instrument becomes about learning how to get more music out of your instrument with less of your own energy.
The more skilled we become at this, the closer and closer we come to being able to play the piano entirely with our mind. This is the level where the pianist is thinking like a conductor-his physical mechanism of playing is merely the players in the orchestra. At this level, the physical ease of playing is so great that the pianist can really focus on the music. Very few pianists reach this level. I'm thinking Horowitz, Michelangeli, or Gould.

At this level, the physical actions are so small and yet so musically powerful that they boggle the mind.

Watch closely as Horowitz, Michelangeli, or Gould play a scale. Do they really use all of those single/double rotations?

Or does their hand magically, smoothly seem to glide up the keyboard effortlessly, as the scale comes out sounding just they way they intended it to?

Exactly. for me the chopin example given perfectly sums up what taubman doesn't tell you- ie that all the rotation work simply trains you to know what it's like to be able to get the arm middled behind each finger. once that's in place, the real thing involves the minimum number of direct reversals of direction possible- ie total avoidance of double rotation and throwing out the idea that you MUST reverse the arm by rotating for all reversals of direction in the musical line. in this case, simplicity of motion means treating the left hand almost as if you only have one b flat in the middle and no c flat at all. no virtuoso would play this passage with so many complex and cumbersome reversals for this minor detail. instead, their arm traces the simpler path from low notes to high ones and the fingers take care of passing reversals in the line on the route - in order to stop the arm having to engage in the needless complexity of extra reversals of direction.

[dima_76557]

I usually agree with most of your ideas, but I have to say you've lost me altogether on this one. How can you take the dogmatic concepts of rotation and double rotation as separate acts for each note literally? These are simply learning tools. they have virtually nothing to do with a final execution.

I think ajspiano was talking about the learning process of slow movement training, not about final execution. In that context, he just made an interesting observation.

Also: "double rotation" in the Taubman terminology is a misnomer for lack of another good expression for what is happening in slow movement training. Since the forearm has already finished the rotation, the pianist must turn his forearm back first as a PREPARATION for the next rotation in the same direction as the previous note. Of course, three "double rotations" in slow motion become one movement in the same direction at speed.

EDIT: Forearm rotation does not cause tone. It is used to bring the fingers in position and to feel the game of angles, directions, and positions on the keyboard. The actual sound is created with the fingertips, which I am sure ajspiano knows very well, judging from his other posts on this forum.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think ajspiano was talking about the learning process of slow movement training, not about final execution. In that context, he just made an interesting observation.

but in the final product, far from being a harmonious natural thing, the very difficulty becomes to NOT do the thing he speaks of as being desirable. If you think of the right hand it makes the left hand want to perform the reversal of direction - whereas the musically natural execution requires the pianist to AVOID associating to the right hand and instead continue in the more natural singular path of the arm from high to low. it's essential to learn a completely independent coordination for the left arm in which you avoid getting bogged down in the details that occur mid descent. I


although it's worth doing taubman style rotation once, in the end product there's absolutely no harmoniousness between left hand and right. if anything chopin is actively challenging you to learn how to separate the roles of each hand, when they are likely to cause conflict with each other. the right hand is urging you to do something that contradicts with the most simple smooth arm motion with two quick reversals of direction, not helping you to find a simple path.

[brogers70]

Here's a totally debatable and easily shrugged off  theory for you..

below is an excerpt from the revolutionary.


under taubman, the red marked notes would be double rotations and the blue singles. Its pretty easy to fail to do this when performed HS.

interestingly though, the whole arm type action of the RH, which with the exception of the first double is timed with these off beat notes where there is a tendency to fail to support the playing with a well positioned arm. When played HT, the tendency to synchronize makes it a lot less likely to leave that rotational action (however small) out of it.. it becomes kind of deliberate, giving those notes more significance subconsciously because that are timed with that offbeat musical line in the RH.

Not that I think chopin wrote it that what consciously thinking of it how dorothy might have, but its and interesting example.. and thinking about it that way was one aspect (among other movement thought) that helped me clean up this passage, which I found quite problematic for the LH.. it is feasible that chopin constructed some of his lines to create such developments of the technique, where essentially a thoroughly musical execution is what forces the student to make the technical development... so in this case, a focus on the melody and driving the passage with the offbeat accents makes the problematic LH fall into place, at least to a degree.

I didn't mark them but the same thing is in effect at the end of the 2nd bar with the sequence of doubles in the 1 and 5 fingers in time with the RH quavers.

I like it. If I've understood you correctly I do the LH in that passage just as you describe. And I do think that Chopin wrote that sort of thing into the etudes on purpose. The music almost forces you to use the right technique. My teacher just started me on 10/12 and 10/2 and I love them. They are certainly difficult, but there always seems to be a way to play any passage in them so that they feel, if not easy, at least quite comfortable.

[sheraz]

dima_ogorodnikov

Also: "double rotation" in the Taubman terminology is a misnomer for lack of another good expression for what is happening in slow movement training. Since the forearm has already finished the rotation, the pianist must turn his forearm back first as a PREPARATION for the next rotation in the same direction as the previous note. Of course, three "double rotations" in slow motion become one movement in the same direction at speed

I'm confused. Are you saying that in slow motion you rotate twice but in speed you don't. Or that in speed it seems like as if you are rotating once but in fact, you are rotation for each node?

[ajspiano]

..your assuming I give more weight to the concept than I actually do N. As if its a all conciously thought about in the end.  The parts obviously have to have a musical independence so can't be physically linked so dependantly.

As dima mentioned the rotation isn't a playing motion its a supportive one..  there is an angle of rotation that changes with every note, its extremely subtle in most circumstances.. if you don't do it you will over exert the fingers.. this is further confused by the fact that a very large ammount of situations can also be successfully performed with out it.. it also flat at always matches the directions that taubmans version of instruction suggests it should.. and practice of a slow single double rotation execution is remarkably effective at building this "balance" in subconsciously. I simply noticed that a temporary focus on a physical dependence on those notes would potentially fix that element without having to go through thinking about it at all in dorothy's way.

in addition,  under taubman, the sense of overall direction of line which is obviously either going up or down here, not switching in the middle, is controlled by "shaping". And it is in effect at the same time as rotation, creating an overall movement.

and for the record, if you read my first sentence from the previous post you may figure out that this is much more an observation I made and thought about a bit than something I consider to be at all near a gospel truth.

sheraz..

at speed, when you get rotation right, there is an obvious sense of support that feels very similar to parts of the slowed down version.. I can very easily "switch it off" and feel a distinct  lack of support,  and it's definitely related to rotational movements. Whether or not its actually "double" rotation is debatable but its what i gather the taubman school calls double rotation, and trains you to execute through that practice.

[nyiregyhazi]

..your assuming I give more weight to the concept than I actually do N. As if its a all conciously thought about in the end.  The parts obviously have to have a musical independence so can't be physically linked so dependantly.

I can see that there is desire to let go in the end. however, the more consciously you programme something into your habit, the less easy it is to eliminate it in a final product. While I see value in the slow extreme rotation, I would expect any student to overdo it in the final product if I left them to just feel it after. I'd first give the antidote- by first getting them to practise only going up and down the three harmonic notes in a single fluid lateral arm gesture, with the keys being moved by the fingers. then I'd get them to strive consciously for the same fluid motion when putting the other notes back, without being tempted to reverse the arm direction on the way, simply because of the added details. I'd personally expect the final product to involve excessive complexity unless there's a step where you take the time to deliberately integrate the notes into the smoothest and simplest arm path, before going onto pure feel. the right hand makes it extremely difficult for the left hand not to get held up by desire to echo what the right is doing, which I feel makes it important to consciously perceive the continuity of action before just trusting anything- especially if the preparatory work was not based on a bigger unified movement but on constant deliberate changes of direction.

"As dima mentioned the rotation isn't a playing motion its a supportive one..  there is an angle of rotation that changes with every note, its extremely subtle in most circumstances.. if you don't do it you will over exert the fingers.."

I really don't agree it's so simple and definitive. too much individual rotation focus can actively strain the forearm unless there's a follow up of integrating all those constant reversals of direction into a more global and slow arm action- that may involve slow rotation through many notes but which may involve none. I once had an interesting lesson with Alan Fraser where he showed me how in bach's d major Prelude, the arm best moves laterally between 1 and 5. Interestingly, this actively moves in the OPPOSITE direction to that in which most the shorter notes are going. when you organise such movements well,there's no need to actively rotate a jot in the end product. you just need rotation as an initial exercise to learn freedom and good alignment to each finger. afterwards, the lateral arm movements are actually a much less effortful approach than trying to actively engage in constant reversals of direction. The example you give is a classic example for me of one where you need to think globally- not in terms of reversing the arm for a mere detail in the line. no active rotation is needed into C flat (going back down) as long as you have freedom. to get it light an unobtrusive, I'd actually be rotating AWAY from the finger, if anything. I don't believe taubman makes a single mention of this style of rotation - where it lightens rather than puts arm pressure through the finger.


"at speed, when you get rotation right, there is an obvious sense of support that feels very similar to parts of the slowed down version.. I can very easily "switch it off" and feel a distinct  lack of support,  and it's definitely related to rotational movements. Whether or not its actually "double" rotation is debatable. "


why not just to call it what it is- ie a singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement, during a slow simple movement that doesn't involve the strain of rapid reversals of direction? it's the fact that they cannot make this simple clarification between what happens in preparation and what you build up to really doing, that baffles me so much about them.

[ajspiano]

Watch my technique closely as I play this Chopin Etude, op. 10/5. You'll see that I use forearm rotation to great effect. I don't think anyone could play it without rotation.

But you'll also see a great deal of other stuff that Taubman just doesn't deal with. The flat-fingers, high-knuckle bridge, and support within the hand.

I don't disagree, that stuff isnt discussed in the videos.. but I fail to understand why anyone is bold enough to think that the taubman school teachers arent equally aware of this.. why does everyone seem to think that taubman technique must end with what they've seen in the videos?

obviously you did take some taubman lessons in person, but 4 years of lessons as a child is a different kind of thing to what processes can be understood if you had stayed with that teacher until a later time.

you asserted that the technique required for the etudes goes beyond taubman..  so either no taubman teacher ever has been capable of playing a chopin study, or they know very well that information and likely do talk about that with students at the appropriate time.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't disagree, that stuff isnt discussed in the videos.. but I fail to understand why anyone is bold enough to think that the taubman school teachers arent equally aware of this.. why does everyone seem to think that taubman technique must end with what they've seen in the videos?

obviously you did take some taubman lessons in person, but 4 years of lessons as a child is a different kind of thing to what processes can be understood if you had stayed with that teacher until a later time.

you asserted that the technique required for the etudes goes beyond taubman..  so either no taubman teacher ever has been capable of playing a chopin study, or they know very well that information and likely do talk about that with students at the appropriate time.

Why assume that there's other stuff that they keep secret in the videos though? even if there is, if they're not putting it out there as part of their method, that's the failing of the method- not the failing of anyone who investigated it and discovered that there's plenty of vital stuff that they have never witnessed being taught within it. personally, it concerns me rather greatly that they only speak of rotation to create downward pressure and not to alleviate it whilst using a finger to move a key. this is a key part of being able to move fingers with confidence but without compression or strain. I've never seen anything that suggests that they train both sides of the picture. I personally regard it is vital to see the issue from both ends if you are to avoid falling into severe limitations.



just the same as many great pianists play studies well but teach the technique poorly, it's perfectly possible that a taubman teacher can play a decent chopin study yet neither know nor be able to convey some of the key elements that enable them to do so.

[ajspiano]

I don't have time to reply properly - hopefully later today

You have a real insistence to think that I think interpret taubman rotation the same way that you interpret it. That's not the case. Mine is not based on what I recieved from the video, so much as the video plus MOUNTAINS of repertoire based experimentation.

Every problem you present I consider to be fair, I remember first watching the videos and attempting and dealing with all the problems that you bring up and thinking that it just didn't work at all. My perspective changed because I refined my understanding, and I believe (i could be wrong) that I got at what was actually intended from the instruction, rather than the instruction was wrong and that I found something that works and is completely different.

...

I really don't agree it's so simple and definitive. too much individual rotation focus can actively strain the forearm unless there's a follow up of integrating all those constant reversals of direction into a more global and slow arm action-

I believe I mentioned this in the previous post - they call in "shaping". The motion involves a floating arm type under or over wave type action that encompasses entire phrases.

....

at speed, when you get rotation right, there is an obvious sense of support that feels very similar to parts of the slowed down version.. I can very easily "switch it off" and feel a distinct  lack of support,  and it's definitely related to rotational movements. Whether or not its actually "double" rotation is debatable.

why not just to call it what it is- ie a singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement, during a slow simple movement that doesn't involve the strain of rapid reversals of direction? it's the fact that they cannot make this simple clarification between what happens in preparation and what you build up to really doing, that baffles me so much about them.

You could easily be right, but for me its just not that simple - there are more possible ways to execute the movement. I don't like answering it definitively because I don't feel that I can with any genuine accuracy.

There is a pattern that works like this (your description) "a singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement". If I conceive the movement that way it doesn't work. Either its wrong, or just my own mental perception is clouded by over thinking. When I execute what does work, there is something else creating a freedom in my technique and I can't honestly describe it in that way that you do. I have a strong sense of leaving information out. I can't say for sure that its double rotation, BUT, I have been able to successfully use rotation exercises to demonstrate a "feel" to people other than myself and in turn have them successfully replicate the musical result at speed in a way that they were not able to with the simpler "singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement".

[ajspiano]

Why assume that there's other stuff that they keep secret in the videos though? even if there is, if they're not putting it out there as part of their method, that's the failing of the method- not the failing of anyone who investigated it and discovered that there's plenty of vital stuff that they have never witnessed being taught within it. personally, it concerns me rather greatly that they only speak of rotation to create downward pressure and not to alleviate it whilst using a finger to move a key. this is a key part of being able to move fingers with confidence but without compression or strain. I've never seen anything that suggests that they train both sides of the picture. I personally regard it is vital to see the issue from both ends if you are to avoid falling into severe limitations.



just the same as many great pianists play studies well but teach the technique poorly, it's perfectly possible that a taubman teacher can play a decent chopin study yet neither know nor be able to convey some of the key elements that enable them to do so.

The videos are films of the summer symposium. There were done on 2 separate occasions..  each year the symposium contains different elements, different speakers etc. Some years certain content is simply not discussed.

I'm not vouching for the "virtuosity in a box" title. I just don't agree even slightly that because they have elected not to make footage of EVERYTHING relevant, that they must in fact not know relevant information.

Do you think edna has never read any pedagogical text or received any other instruction bar dorothy's? I rather believe she's has spent time discussing elements of hand function in person with alan fraser so it seems a bit bold to assume that she or others know nothing about such things.. infact she discusses her own technical problem of a collapsed MP joint that remained unfixed despite a masters degree until she studied with dorothy, so one must assume that she atleast addresses problems relating to fingers.

and the videos are how old now? how much better must their understanding of everything piano be?

We aren't in a field where our opinions are fixed, or where there is one right answer.

[nyiregyhazi]

I believe I mentioned this in the previous post - they call in "shaping". The motion involves a floating arm type under or over wave type action that encompasses entire phrases.

Sure, I didn't deny that. my point was regarding the assertion that you MUST have some degree of rotation o the every note. sometimes that's useful, sometimes it's not. sometimes lateral movement is overwhelming more important than the synthetic premise that if I'm not making rapid rotations then I must be going wrong. even with slower rotation, I'm often far happier to let that occur passively in response to lateral arm movement and freedoms. the idea of double rotation never comes onto my radar at tempo- only a feeling of the balance that I learn from occasionally practising it.

There is a pattern that works like this (your description) "a singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement". If I conceive the movement that way it doesn't work. Either its wrong, or just my own mental perception is clouded by over thinking. When I execute what does work, there is something else creating a freedom in my technique and I can't honestly describe it in that way that you do. I have a strong sense of leaving information out. I can't say for sure that its double rotation, BUT, I have been able to successfully use rotation exercises to demonstrate a "feel" to people other than myself and in turn have them successfully replicate the musical result at speed in a way that they were not able to with the simpler "singular slow rotation that involves many notes played via finger movement".

I'm all for sensation based learning. my problem with taubman is actually the distraction of the premise. the description I give there need not always be used as prescriptive. it can simply be used to clarify the discrepancy between literal double rotation and all common sense. my problem is taubman says that double rotation IS literal. They don't merely give the exercise and leave you to make your own experiments with what you feel but say that you are supposed to feel this mystical and implausible double rotation in real playing. for me this is meaningless and a distraction from the things that do work. I recognise a quality of balance that comes from slow double rotation and I feel this in fast playing. the rotation itself ranges from being nowhere whatsoever, mildly present but passive or deliberate. however, the idea that you should feel double rotation rather than a quality that is perceived from the work is entirely at odds with sensory learning, in my opinion. fine for those that it works for, but really not good as a one size fits all premise. rotation is only one of the tools I use to develop good balance, not a goal in itself. there should be many options. I don't even strive to feel rotation at all in most of the places where I believe a slow rotation subtly runs across many notes. all I'm doing is moving my arm laterally, as far as I'm concerned. the feel I learn from double rotation practise is literally all that interests me about rotation. I never make it a goal that I'm" supposed" to feel constant reversals of forearm rotation in the end. it only interferes with issues that are more important to flow and physical freedom than rotation itself.

if you're feeling something that works, that's great. but are you sure that thinking of literal double rotation at speedactually helps at all- as opposed to simply remembering a purer sensation from the time spent on it? Surely that's the important part of the equation? I find it very hard to believe that it's the act of instigating abrupt reversals of direction in any literal respect whatsoever, but rather the balance learned between finger and arm. When I play fast, I have no concerns at all other than feeling this simple quality of connection.

[nyiregyhazi]

regarding your second post, the problem is how much taubman excludes. teachers are not encouraged to find their own ways. I use near vertical fingers regularly like rubinstein. it's done wonders for my technique to develop that. where in the taubman method would I have in any way been helped to do that rather than pushed into exclusion of that idea?


on the one hand your saying that there's more than one right answer, but on other you seem to be suggesting that anything you need can probably be found within taubman? Nobody else has any original ideas of worth that they have missed (or quite possibly even put down on the lengthy list of banned pianistic approaches)? it's one thing to respect what they do, but it makes no sense to me to want to view them as comprehensive. they are quite deeply exclusionary of various alternative ideas, by nature. I don't believe any method has it all- which is why I'm always wary about things that tell you they have all the answers and that you should not gain anything from outside of their ways.

[ajspiano]

the videos are exclusionary,  I don't think taubman itself is. Or at least I consider it very unlikely to be..  and I'm not interested in branding them dogmatic or wrong on the assumption that that's how they operate without really questioning someone in person over a decent time period.

as an extra clarification, when I personally refer to the rotation that applies to every note, i'm not talking about an actively focused on playing technique. I'm saying there is a degree of rotation of the forearm that places it in the optimal supportive position for each given note/finger(s). The nature of the hand and the piano is such that this always changes, every single note..

failure to get that right creates an unnecessary over exertion of the finger and a sense of a lack of support when playing.

I find that the taubman rotation exercise helps find the 'feel' associated with this, which is then 'minimised' (to use there term) - so rather than an over sized hindering movement there is instead a balanced 'shift' to the next key. Doing this accurately with double rotation seems to result in a much more even result than just rolling across the notes, just rolling seems to create an inaccurate never actually that well supported passage, though usually also far better than before the instruction to use the arm at all.

overholding is quite good at demonstrating this too.

[nyiregyhazi]

the videos are exclusionary,  I don't think taubman itself is. Or at least I consider it very unlikely to be..  and I'm not interested in branding them dogmatic or wrong on the assumption that that's how they operate without really questioning someone in person over a decent time period.

This is where it's human nature to use Occam's razor though. Given how much evidence there is that they are narrow-minded, what reason is there to assume individual Taubman teachers are actually very liberal minded and free thinking? They create their own reputation and it's nobody's fault but their own if they aren't actively striving to counter their reputation for dogma. It's unreasonable to blame people for responding to image that they have created for themself. I'm open minded, but Occam's razor makes me side more with expectation of a lot of dogma and a lot of omissions. I'll change my mind if evidence crops up to suggest otherwise. The internet's big enough that it shouldn't be so hard to find some surely?

as an extra clarification, when I personally refer to the rotation that applies to every note, i'm not talking about an actively focused on playing technique. I'm saying there is a degree of rotation of the forearm that places it in the optimal supportive position for each given note/finger(s). The nature of the hand and the piano is such that this always changes, every single note..

Fine, but it will neither correspond with double rotation unless instigated nor require active input. Freedom alone looks after that much. Why should I need to strive to do something as bizarre as double rotation in a fast scale, when simply getting a feel for freedom from the exercise of slow double-rotation is already enough? The irrationality actively distracts from the abstract feel for what is useful, for me. They should stop trying to explain with that which is implausible and instead ask people to zone in on the abstract sensations of balance without trying to understand it via implausible ideas.

Doing this accurately with double rotation seems to result in a much more even result than just rolling across the notes, just rolling seems to create an inaccurate never actually that well supported passage, though usually also far better than before the instruction to use the arm at all.

But I never merely roll across the notes. My fingers are expected to move them. Rotation is slight and relatively incidental- not ever part of a desire to "roll" out notes. Such misunderstanding need never arise, if the language is clear. This does not require anything but the slow exercise. Nobody needs to be told to carry intending to do double rotation at high speed. I suspect that virtually all of the best results occur when such a dubious premise is forgotten about and the abstract feel acquired from the exercise is what takes precedence. Good results are simple as asking them to zone in on the feeling of balance and continuing to look for that. I find this specific description far more inclined to train the useful part than dwelling purely on the double rotation that instigates it in slow tempo (but which would actually cause massive co-contraction if literally done at high speed).

[dima_76557]

Why assume that there's other stuff that they keep secret in the videos though? even if there is, if they're not putting it out there as part of their method, that's the failing of the method- not the failing of anyone who investigated it and discovered that there's plenty of vital stuff that they have never witnessed being taught within it. personally, it concerns me rather greatly that they only speak of rotation to create downward pressure and not to alleviate it whilst using a finger to move a key. this is a key part of being able to move fingers with confidence but without compression or strain. I've never seen anything that suggests that they train both sides of the picture. I personally regard it is vital to see the issue from both ends if you are to avoid falling into severe limitations.

I think that we should be very, very careful with our judgement about something we haven't been through ourselves systematically for say at least 3 months/half a year. The Taubman system is first of all a method to cure people who used to overexert their fingers, and not a "scientific" approach to piano playing. "Methods" necessarilly involve dogmas; they are an OVERREACTION to something that was there before and is perceived as the main cause for all the problems. In this case, and especially for new "victims/patients", virtually anything done with the fingers alone is a sin, so let's forbid it all just to make sure. That is the idea we get from the Taubman commercials on YouTube. I trust that the things you talk about solve themselves gradually in advanced "Taubmanites" and do not need to be told explicitly within the context of that method, the more so in YouTube teasers. Just saying.

[stanleyy]

Very interesting discussion. I am still learning a little bit of Thaubman technique through my teacher who had 2 years 2 hours lesson with Dorothy Thaubman after graduates from Juilliard. He mentioned in the lesson today. Most of people who adopt Thaubman method without any combination of other sensible approach sound rather mushy and wooly like, in some case lack of clarity. I assume may be at the end of the day there is no absolute general technique in playing different passages and repertoire???

I am not sure my self as I am still learning and trying to improve my technique. But my teacher confess even after graduates from Juilliard, he was still finding something is still missing until he learn from Dorothy Thaubman. Hearing and looking at myteacher's playing. I would love to learn more about this method and also my teacher's personal suggestions. I have so much admiration towards his piano playing and his teaching approach with so much logic and thorough explanation. If only I can have 2 hours session 2 times a week with him.... I wish....

[dima_76557]

@ stanleyy

You may want to watch the following film (4 clips) in a series called "Choreography of the Hands - The Work of Dorothy Taubman:
1:

2:

3:

4:

which gives a clear picture of what it is all about.

The final stage we all strive for, whatever method we use, is a technique, where the sound image we hear in our heads automatically creates the movement without us having to think about how to do it. This means that besides the mechanics, we also need to work a lot on the artistic image and on high-quality sound production, which should actually be our main focus. I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the work on those two elements is not given much attention in the Taubman method. It seems to be mostly about moving without hurting yourself.

[ajspiano]

I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the work on those two elements is not given much attention in the Taubman method. It seems to be mostly about moving without hurting yourself.

the videos address very much how to move without hurting yourself - however, in the later half there is a video dedicated to "a lesson with dorothy" where she barely touches on technique at all it is primarily developing the students sound image. She addresses technique when a technical problem occurs and gets back onto the music as the primary goal very quickly.

[dima_76557]

the videos address very much how to move without hurting yourself - however, in the later half there is a video dedicated to "a lesson with dorothy" where she barely touches on technique at all it is primarily developing the students sound image. She addresses technique when a technical problem occurs and gets back onto the music as the primary goal very quickly.

I did not say they don't pay attention to music and "interpretation" at all. I just find the sound results rather shallow, also in the stuff Golandsky shows us on her channels (she has more than one). Noise and sound are not the same thing. A beautiful touch is not just a gift. Neither is sound something the piano manufacturer put into the instrument, the quality of which you cannot change. A beautiful touch is something you earn by hard work, but you should at least focus on it while dealing with "technique".

[ajspiano]

there's also a technique video (2 hours) on the topic of 'tone production which contains content that address that kind of thing at least in part (its a pretty big topic to fit into a 2 hour lecture)

[awesom_o]

. A beautiful touch is not just a gift........................ A beautiful touch is something you earn by hard work, but you should at least focus on it while dealing with "technique".

Absolutely! Acquiring a beautiful touch should be one of the main goals of any technical regimen of study that any pupil undertakes.

I hate when people tell me that I have a beautiful touch as though they're implying it is some sort of innate gift! I've spent years developing that touch.

I have yet to see a Taubman player with anything approaching what I would call a good touch. 

[sheraz]

I have yet to see a Taubman player with anything approaching what I would call a good touch. 

You mean someone who started from Taubman with no prior experience? In that case I'm looking for one as well and I created this post to find one (ore more).

If you mean anyone regardless of what their background is then ILYA ITIN would be a perfect example. Please keep in mind that he already had won many awards before he started Taubman.
This also raises a good point that "Why would someone with such experties and accomplishments would learn Taubman"? It shows that Taubman does have good ideas to offer.

[dima_76557]

"Why would someone with such experties and accomplishments would learn Taubman"? It shows that Taubman does have good ideas to offer.

Without wanting to bash the Taubman method: this can hardly be the reason, since Ilya Itin received a background with Lev Naumov here in Moscow that is FAR BEYOND any existing "methods" of key-pressing. I think the Taubman/Golandsky Institute simply offered him a good teaching position to support his concert career.

[awesom_o]

Without wanting to bash the Taubman method: this can hardly be the reason, since Ilya Itin received a background with Lev Naumov here in Moscow that is FAR BEYOND any existing "methods" of key-pressing. I think the Taubman/Golandsky Institute simply offered him a good teaching position to support his concert career.

I think this is more than likely correct....

[cometear]

I usually agree with most of your ideas, but I have to say you've lost me altogether on this one. How can you take the dogmatic concepts of rotation and double rotation as separate acts for each note literally? These are simply learning tools. they have virtually nothing to do with a final execution. For the first group of three notes I'd use only ONE steady rotation to encompass all three, with finger action being the primary source of key movement and the rotation just being a steady unravelling to help each finger get ready. The concept of reversing direction twice before playing the C flat is madness to me, except as a preliminary exercise.


It applies all the more on the way back. I'd feel one fluid arm gesture from top to bottom. I wouldn't want any form of reversal into the C flat or another reversal into second b flat. For me that would give too much prominence to the C flat, which I'd regard as a kind of deliberate blur next to the, b flat, like a kind of a moan. I wouldn't wish for a pronounced articulation but would wish for the harmonic tones to take precedence, with the C flat and extra b flat existing merely as a muted prolongation of the overriding harmonic tone based descent. When the arm avoids extra reversals, you can get the eerie murmuring effect more easily, rather than have every note punched out the same.


I generally have phenomenal respect for your ideas and individuality, but I have to say that by applying these terms literally in this context it comes across as an extremely dogmatic application of a totally synthetic rulebook. there's absolutely no question that we could assume that chopin had such a huge number of about turns in mind, simply because taubman concocted a formula. Once we're speaking at tempo, surely it's simple common sense that we're going to throw out supposed double rotations in favour of integrating more successive notes into a longer gesture and that we're no longer going to reverse the arm direction for literally every change of direction in the line? The faster the tempo and the more complex the line, the more likely it is that a suitable arm movement follows the prevailing direction of the line in a bigger smoother progression- rather than be getting bogged down in an impossibly large of number of direct reversals of direction.

I believe what your saying as "ONE steady rotation" would be a physical shape. There is most certainly a separate rotation for every single note it just is not as obvious as it is when you are first starting the piece. The rotation in the forearm remains. You can even feel it with the opposite hand if you feel the forearm muscles while you play.

As I begin speeding up a piece I most definitely do not think of each and every rotation if I do think of it at all. At this point I tend to practice the arm going "straight across" but with shaping.

Have you been educated in the approach?

[cometear]

Also: "double rotation" in the Taubman terminology is a misnomer for lack of another good expression for what is happening in slow movement training. Since the forearm has already finished the rotation, the pianist must turn his forearm back first as a PREPARATION for the next rotation in the same direction as the previous note.

Exactly!

[nyiregyhazi]

I believe what your saying as "ONE steady rotation" would be a physical shape. There is most certainly a separate rotation for every single note it just is not as obvious as it is when you are first starting the piece. The rotation in the forearm remains. You can even feel it with the opposite hand if you feel the forearm muscles while you play.

As I begin speeding up a piece I most definitely do not think of each and every rotation if I do think of it at all. At this point I tend to practice the arm going "straight across" but with shaping.

Have you been educated in the approach?

I've practised it widely in slow tempos and find it useful for educating finger and arm about their best alignment. There's simply no way you can be double rotating when firing out 12 notes per second. At the point is has to go altogether for success to be possible. That would be an alternation between two opposing muscles groups at a rate of 24 times per second. The faintest error in timing would mean instant cocontraction and thus seizure. Any rotation comes as a reaction, not from muscular instigation of the rotational muscles. If they do act, it can only be a gradual single rotation that spans more than one note. Slower tempos are another issue, but it's limiting to depend on actively instigating double rotation once you start moving forwards.

[cometear]

I've practised it widely in slow tempos and find it useful for educating finger and arm about their best alignment. There's simply no way you can be double rotating when firing out 12 notes per second. At the point is has to go altogether for success to be possible. That would be an alternation between two opposing muscles groups at a rate of 24 times per second. The faintest error in timing would mean instant cocontraction and thus seizure. Any rotation comes as a reaction, not from muscular instigation of the rotational muscles. If they do act, it can only be a gradual single rotation that spans more than one note. Slower tempos are another issue, but it's limiting to depend on actively instigating double rotation once you start moving forwards.

I am positive that rotation exists on every note.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am positive that rotation exists on every note.

You're sincerely willing to put faith in the notion of supposedly executing 24 ( or potentially more in some works) reversals of direction per second (the faintest mistiming of which will see opposing muscles jamming into cocontraction)? How fast can you rotate in thin air? Can you raise and lower your thumb 12 times per second, by rocking? Most people would be lucky to push anywhere near half of that, based on rotational movements. A concert pianist might add a couple of extra per second compared to average dexterity, but even they will come closer to half of the speed required than to the full 12. Try to go really fast and you'll soon feel tightness in the forearm and sluggishness - as inevitable mistiming causes the opposing muscles to start contracting at the same time as each other.

Is rotating at evidently impossible speeds seriously more credible to you than the idea that maybe you don't actually need to burden those muscles with the role of instigating double rotations at full speed (and I should add that I've never once seen anything approaching a justification for the premise from Taubmanites-they only ever assert that you need it, without explaining why it would be necessary to force all of these abrupt reversals in a high speed)? And you wonder why people tend to view Taubman as being akin to a religious cult? It's all about putting absolute faith in whatever they say is true and avoiding any burning questions about anything that is quite transparently implausible. You don't have to swallow literally everything they tell you to be able to learn from them.

What metronome mark are you actually playing scales at?

[arungargstl]

Without wanting to bash the Taubman method: this can hardly be the reason, since Ilya Itin received a background with Lev Naumov here in Moscow that is FAR BEYOND any existing "methods" of key-pressing. I think the Taubman/Golandsky Institute simply offered him a good teaching position to support his concert career.

As a former student of Itin, I can say he suppports himself by teaching privately and touring in Asia. He only teaches for the Institute during 1 week in the summer.

This entire forum is discussing Taubman, when very few of the contributors have seen or had a lesson in anything Taubman outside the DVD's.

It's easy to assume without all the knowledge. Edna herself will say that Taubman is not the solution to all problems. Furthermore, only a little knowledge of Taubman can ruin one's technique. It requires a more dedicated and intensive conversion to the method in order to see results (both in tone and technique).

If one isn't willing to truly investigate for themselves (i.e. going for consistent lessons over multiple years with a Taubman teacher) all the facets of rotation and shaping and the other physical aspects of the approach, then he or she certainly has NO authority to discredit the approach as a scam, false, or misleading.

[cometear]

This entire forum is discussing Taubman, when very few of the contributors have seen or had a lesson in anything Taubman outside the DVD's.

It's easy to assume without all the knowledge. Edna herself will say that Taubman is not the solution to all problems. Furthermore, only a little knowledge of Taubman can ruin one's technique. It requires a more dedicated and intensive conversion to the method in order to see results (both in tone and technique).

If one isn't willing to truly investigate for themselves (i.e. going for consistent lessons over multiple years with a Taubman teacher) all the facets of rotation and shaping and the other physical aspects of the approach, then he or she certainly has NO authority to discredit the approach as a scam, false, or misleading.

Mind you, I study only the Taubman Approach and I do not base my knowledge off of the DVD's. I study with a certified teacher and I have had numerous lessons with Mr. Durso and Mrs. Moran.

I agree also that you need more than a little of the approach. Many people attempt to add to their technique, convert and are discouraged by the clunky sound you naturally get in the beginning, or dismiss it completely. I believe if you study it with dedication and absolute focus you can become great. I find myself unfocused often though. Especially when trying to add to my technique. I have to really think about how great this work can really turn out to be.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Too many people call the approach a cult, or dogmatic, not knowing more than the basics about it. I'm happy to see another person who is knowledgeable about  the approach. I love how you really never stop improving your technique in this method.

[nyiregyhazi]

As a former student of Itin, I can say he suppports himself by teaching privately and touring in Asia. He only teaches for the Institute during 1 week in the summer.

This entire forum is discussing Taubman, when very few of the contributors have seen or had a lesson in anything Taubman outside the DVD's.

It's easy to assume without all the knowledge. Edna herself will say that Taubman is not the solution to all problems. Furthermore, only a little knowledge of Taubman can ruin one's technique. It requires a more dedicated and intensive conversion to the method in order to see results (both in tone and technique).

If one isn't willing to truly investigate for themselves (i.e. going for consistent lessons over multiple years with a Taubman teacher) all the facets of rotation and shaping and the other physical aspects of the approach, then he or she certainly has NO authority to discredit the approach as a scam, false, or misleading.

If whatever is not on the DVDs is the important part but is not to be found anywhere, quite simply- why? What are they keeping a secret? How do we know that all the Taubman teachers teach this mysterious extra bit, whatever it is, if they can't put it on the DVDs or even offer any form of explanation of it? How can all these teachers possibly be teaching this one single methodology that cannot be conveyed through the DVDs if it's not possible to convey what it actually is through hours and hours of video footage? At this point, it no longer even sounds like a "method" but a case of either getting a good teacher or a bad one. By definition, a method is something that can be described and encapsulated. If this cannot, it's just a case of the individual teachers being good or bad, not a case of a single methodology.
 

[nyiregyhazi]

As a former student of Itin, I can say he suppports himself by teaching privately and touring in Asia. He only teaches for the Institute during 1 week in the summer.

This entire forum is discussing Taubman, when very few of the contributors have seen or had a lesson in anything Taubman outside the DVD's.

It's easy to assume without all the knowledge. Edna herself will say that Taubman is not the solution to all problems. Furthermore, only a little knowledge of Taubman can ruin one's technique. It requires a more dedicated and intensive conversion to the method in order to see results (both in tone and technique).

If one isn't willing to truly investigate for themselves (i.e. going for consistent lessons over multiple years with a Taubman teacher) all the facets of rotation and shaping and the other physical aspects of the approach, then he or she certainly has NO authority to discredit the approach as a scam, false, or misleading.

PS. The basis for dismissing the approach as a scam is the fallacious nonsense that fingers supposedly only support rotation. This is geometrically impossible in fast playing. It's like reaching only half a metre to grab something that is a whole metre away from you. It's plain impossible. Attempting this attitude summarises everything about what had been wrong in my technique and what just about all amateurs get badly wrong. They don't create length between knuckles and fingertip but instead squash down into compression/tense up to fight against that squashing.

I recently got a lot of out their double rotation concept- when I realised that for every rotation performed, the fingers need to be generating vastly more movement than the rotation itself. This is what enables the freedoms acquired from this style of practise to be translated into playing in which the arm is not performing the hugely pronounced double rotations on every note (rotation simply CANNOT rationally account for key movement unless the rotation remains extremely pronounced in size). Until I appreciated the aspect that they fail to incorporate or promote, rotation was completely useless to me. It actively encouraged both a collapsing hand and stiffness and immobile fingers. They give part of the picture but they do not give any proper guidance on the really big issue behind piano technique. Rotation is simply worthless unless you succeed in generating at least as much true movement from the fingers themselves. Couple the rotation with finger lengthening, and it's something totally different.

[awesom_o]

So my question is "Is there anyone who learned Taubman from beginning and now can play advance pieces like Chopin Etudes??

I learned Taubman from the beginning. Well, almost the beginning. I started piano at age 5, and from ages eight to twelve I studied with a Taubman teacher. At age 12, I began learning my first Chopin Etude under her guidance.

Fast-forward another 12 years, and at age 24 I have just finished recording all 24 of the Chopin Etudes!
The technique that I developed to be able to play all 24 is not exactly Taubman. I do use rotation, and I'm glad that I studied Taubman all those years ago.

However, rotation is not the power source behind the tone. Rotation helps in an auxiliary sense, but in such small quantities, it is more or less imperceptible.

Support in the hand itself is the key to producing a sound at the piano that is capable of both great lyricism and electricity of sound.

[cometear]

So my question is "Is there anyone who learned Taubman from beginning and now can play advance pieces like Chopin Etudes??

I'm beginning the first Chopin etude and I have studied the approach since I began playing about 4 years ago. I'll get back to you once I can play it all. Hopefully it will help you

[awesom_o]

I'm looking forward to seeing the 'rotation-style' op. 10/1, cometear!

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm looking forward to seeing the 'rotation-style' op. 10/1, cometear!

Yes, double rotation is a great exercise for properly aligning behind every finger, but there's no hope in hell of literally playing the piece via rotation, rather than by moving those fingers.

I'm curious- did your Taubman teacher ever talk about generating true finger movement or was it purely left for you to figure that part out? Anytime Taubman is criticised people jump forward to say that you can't write it off from the videos and that there's more. Seeing as you've been through it, did they actually talk through any of these glaring omissions or was it much as they describe on the videos-with active discouragement of true finger action?

[cometear]

If whatever is not on the DVDs is the important part but is not to be found anywhere, quite simply- why? What are they keeping a secret? How do we know that all the Taubman teachers teach this mysterious extra bit, whatever it is, if they can't put it on the DVDs or even offer any form of explanation of it? How can all these teachers possibly be teaching this one single methodology that cannot be conveyed through the DVDs if it's not possible to convey what it actually is through hours and hours of video footage? At this point, it no longer even sounds like a "method" but a case of either getting a good teacher or a bad one. By definition, a method is something that can be described and encapsulated. If this cannot, it's just a case of the individual teachers being good or bad, not a case of a single methodology.
 

You seem to be missing the point. How can a DVD solve the problem of a certain passage? The DVDs are not personalized for you, but they are generalized for everyone. Go and use the DVDs, but they will only bring you so far. They can't demonstrate how to shape a specific phrase in a specific piece. They can show you what shaping is and how it's done but it can only be explained so far. A teacher can explain and demonstrate it in a way that you understand. There is no secret. It's just a very delicate method and if you misinterpret the DVDs then you will probably create an extremely incapable technique.

Yes, double rotation is a great exercise for properly aligning behind every finger, but there's no hope in hell of literally playing the piece via rotation, rather than by moving those fingers.

I'm curious- did your Taubman teacher ever talk about generating true finger movement or was it purely left for you to figure that part out? Anytime Taubman is criticised people jump forward to say that you can't write it off from the videos and that there's more. Seeing as you've been through it, did they actually talk through any of these glaring omissions or was it much as they describe on the videos-with active discouragement of true finger action?

Do you think that rotation stays large? Advanced rotation should only be a shift in arm weight. Of course there are inner movements that are invisible to the eye that make rotation what it is, but that's precisely what it should be: invisible. The DVDs teach you how to make this glaringly big rotational movement, which is great in the beginning, but the hard part has yet to come. You will probably start out with an ugly clunky sound. You have not begun shaping which helps express the music. The teachers job is to effectively minimize the rotation to this invisible stage. It's different for every student and no DVD could ever substitute one on one study. If you attempt to minimize the rotation on your own with the DVDs you will probably fail. It becomes too advanced to fathom. We people who study the Taubman Approach know that it's impossible to use the DVDs to become an advanced pianist. It's too vague. These omissions are not things that we cover in a curriculum, but things that come gradually.

[nyiregyhazi]

You seem to be missing the point. How can a DVD solve the problem of a certain passage? The DVDs are not personalized for you, but they are generalized for everyone. Go and use the DVDs, but they will only bring you so far. They can't demonstrate how to shape a specific phrase in a specific piece. They can show you what shaping is and how it's done but it can only be explained so far. A teacher can explain and demonstrate it in a way that you understand. There is no secret. It's just a very delicate method and if you misinterpret the DVDs then you will probably create an extremely incapable technique

That each situation is individual goes without saying. But unless the principles in question can be actively referenced to part of the method, they are based on the teacher's expertise, not on the method. You can't  cite the method as either the source of success or failure, if the teacher is simply doing as they see fit  (with no concept behind it that can be defined)  it is down to their individual qualities as a teacher The method cannot be given credit for the individual teacher's subjective ideas.

Do you think that rotation stays large? Advanced rotation should only be a shift in arm weight. Of course there are inner movements that are invisible to the eye that make rotation what it is, but that's precisely what it should be: invisible. The DVDs teach you how to make this glaringly big rotational movement, which is great in the beginning, but the hard part has yet to come. You will probably start out with an ugly clunky sound. You have not begun shaping which helps express the music. The teachers job is to effectively minimize the rotation to this invisible stage. It's different for every student and no DVD could ever substitute one on one study. If you attempt to minimize the rotation on your own with the DVDs you will probably fail. It becomes too advanced to fathom. We people who study the Taubman Approach know that it's impossible to use the DVDs to become an advanced pianist. It's too vague. These omissions are not things that we cover in a curriculum, but things that come gradually.

You hadn't followed my point. Based on irrefutable geometry the rotation MUST  stay large unless there is an alternative means of creating key movement. Either large up and down arm movements must replace it (which are equally unfeasible at high speeds)  or the fingers must be creating the movement by either scratching back or expanding outwards in length. They both advise the impossible and actively mislead about the important role of finger MOVEMENT as the explanation for what gets the key going.

It's really tiresome when taubmanites leap forward to accuse everyone of misunderstanding the method, in order to protect their idol. There is no misunderstanding. They say the fingers should merely support rotation. That gives no means of reducing it. When I interpreted them at face value, the rotation did me no good. When I made my own reinterpretation of what they insist on, it actually worked- in a way that bears objective scrutiny and which does not require blind faith in something that is clearly impossible.

When the Taubman method makes an unequivocal assertion, they are responsible for every person who follows their assertion. There is no misunderstanding except in terms of what they fallaciously assert as if it were fact.

[awesom_o]

We people who study the Taubman Approach know that it's impossible to use the DVDs to become an advanced pianist. It's too vague.

Pity they cost so much money! You'd think for over $50 per DVD they'd be anything but vague.... 

[awesom_o]

I'm curious- did your Taubman teacher ever talk about generating true finger movement or was it purely left for you to figure that part out? Anytime Taubman is criticised people jump forward to say that you can't write it off from the videos and that there's more. Seeing as you've been through it, did they actually talk through any of these glaring omissions or was it much as they describe on the videos-with active discouragement of true finger action?

Actually, my Taubman teacher is a member here! Her username is RAB.

She didn't teach me the proper harpsichord plucking technique which I learned later on... but she did often talk about the natural curve of the finger. I don't think it's good to get into too much technical/biomechanical detail with a 9 or 10 year old student.

That needs to come later.... when the student's body is more developed, as is their will to play the instrument at a professional standard...