Explain "double rotation" to me

[faulty_damper]

What the hell is she doing!?

;

I feel that if I did that, I would:
1. play C
2. fly to China
3. fly back
4. play E
5. fly to Japan
6. fly back
7. play G
8. fly around the world
9. play C
...

[dima_76557]

Explain "double rotation" to me

This is not typically Taubman - it's Matthay.

The principle is simple: forearm rotation lifts the finger that has to play. In trills, alberti figuration and tremolos, we get single and natural rotations from note to note (left-right-left-right, etc.)

However, when two or more notes in a passage go into THE SAME direction, an additional swing is required to lift the following finger because the movement in the direction of the music has been completed already. This additional preparatory swing is called a "double rotation". Although it looks weird, these additonal swings of the forearm give the body a sublime feeling and memory for the direction of the notes in a passage. With increasing tempo, these exaggerated movements ultimately disappear from sight, resulting in a smooth execution, provided the hands and fingertips are "active", "alive" enough.

[falala]

With increasing tempo, these exaggerated movements ultimately disappear from sight, resulting in a smooth execution, provided the hands and fingertips are "active", "alive" enough.

But I thought the Taubman people try to pretend that the movements are still there even when playing fast - they're just so small that you can't see them.

[Bob]

Not really that impressive.  I saw the computer help video too.  

I'm wondering if I own a book by her.  And... something about hearing these things explained (or not) vs. actually doing them.  I can't really imagine explaining things like that to a student.  I'm thinking, just do it, relax, and practice a lot so it's comfortable.  Your body adjusts and then you won't miss those notes.

[awesom_o]

Looks to me like she would have grave difficulty playing arpeggios with two hands in Formula Pattern in all keys.

[cometear]

But I thought the Taubman people try to pretend that the movements are still there even when playing fast - they're just so small that you can't see them.

It's not pretending. It is there, and there is no doubt.

[falala]

Evidence?

[faulty_damper]

I do not use "double rotation" when playing arpeggios.  My arpeggios are very smooth and effortless.  "Double rotation" appears to be snake oil.

[falala]

I do not use "double rotation" when playing arpeggios.  My arpeggios are very smooth and effortless.  "Double rotation" appears to be snake oil.

It's like the musical version of homeopathy. "It was there once, so it must have some mystical effect even when it's not there any more". 

[cometear]

Evidence?

I am not an expert, or certified instructor. Provide evidence it isn't there.

[falala]

I am not an expert, or certified instructor. Provide evidence it isn't there.

The onus is not on me to do that, any more than I have to provide evidence that the impulse for depressing the piano keys isn't actually coming from my toes. That's how burden of proof works: if you make a claim for something that lacks immediate empirical evidence, you have to justify the claim. When there is no evidence for something, we are justified in taking a default position of not believing it.

Someone somewhere mentioned slowing down some of these videos and finding that there was no trace of forearm movement to be seen. Of course movements might be too small to be seen, but remember the claim is not just that there's a movement; it's that the movement is responsible for depressing the piano key. It must then at least be large enough to achieve that end.

Even without slowing it down, if you watch the video in the OP from about 6.05, where she plays moderate speed downward arpeggios, you can physically see her third finger moving, in relation to her hand, onto the key. That's evidence that there is finger movement involved. If there's similar evidence of forearm rotation involved, I'd be happy to see it.

Although I note that there's about a thousand of these Edna Golandsky videos on Youtube, and from what I've seen she barely ever plays anything up to speed in them, must less shows how it works in substantial musical context. Funny, that.

[dima_76557]

But I thought the Taubman people try to pretend that the movements are still there even when playing fast - they're just so small that you can't see them.

I think they are talking rather about a residue of positive SENSATIONS than about actual movements. It would be a mistake, though, to assume that what cannot be seen in the end result is not actually part of the components of movement. Sportspeople also train elements of movement that cannot really be seen in the end result but that still boost their performance.

[lostinidlewonder]

This is why trying to teach with videos is useless. What a waste of bandwidth.

[m1469]

I completely reworked my entire technique with forearm rotations right before I started lessons with Marik (Fall of 2008).  He might not be in love with having to have straightened that out, but at the time I learned it, it was invaluable to me and I still utilize some knowledge from it.  I think the video is really interesting ... but I didn't watch all of it (b/c I got a little bored  ).  I think that one of the main problems with the concept of forearm rotations, as far as I would venture to say, is to think of it -or a certain form of it- as the only necessity for technique and to let it be the limit to what one can/will do.  

[falala]

Sure. There are some times when using forearm rotation is obvious and easy, like in a tremolo. I'm sure there are plenty of others where it's a real and valuable component of the total complex of movements. If focusing on it in practising helps to make that total complex work as efficiently as possible, then all well and good.

The problem occurs when people get so attached to one particular thing like this that they insist on seeing it as the primary focus, even when it can't actually be there at all. The idea that someone playing a very fast run of notes IN THE SAME DIRECTION is doing it by making imperceptible arm rotations in the OPPOSITE direction before each note is just ridiculous. People can talk about how small the movements are, and how they might just be "sensations" all they like. But the fact remains we're talking about something we see no evidence of, which requires postulating a whole ton of movements (or even sensations) that seem very unlikely to be able to occur at such speed, and which is far more parsimoniously explained by something far more obvious: THE FACT THAT THE PIANIST'S FINGERS ARE GOING UP AND DOWN. 

[m1469]

No, it's actually always there in some form  .  Shhhhh ... don't tell Marik, I've worked really hard to hide it from him all these years  


Anyhoo, are people truly suggesting that if a person can't put into words or explain to everybody else on earth the minutiae of pianistic motions or if they can't see it with their eyes (maybe it's a matter of knowing what you're looking for  :-), in a way that allows anybody reading it to instantly be able to physically/kinesthetically understand, that it automatically means the idea is bogus?  Hmmm?  Somehow I doubt it

[dima_76557]

But the fact remains we're talking about something we see no evidence of, which requires postulating a whole ton of movements (or even sensations) that seem very unlikely to be able to occur at such speed, and which is far more parsimoniously explained by something far more obvious: THE FACT THAT THE PIANIST'S FINGERS ARE GOING UP AND DOWN.  

The fingers go up and down because that's what we play with. This does not actually prove or explain the underlying biomechanics/body coordination. In Matthay/Taubman, forearm rotation is nothing but a PREPARATORY movement to bring the fingers in place, give them support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Taubman

In many methods for movement training required in golf, tennis, running, tai chi, piano playing, etc.), it is custom to exaggerate the range of NEW movements or elements of movements in slow practice (whole-arm drop into the keys in piano teaching, high-knee drills in running, etc.) to make the brain and the body understand what's going on. Although we will generally not see any excessive whole-arm dropping in good concert performances or high knee-lifting in actual track races, many trainers deem those exercises indispensable.

[faulty_damper]

To say that double rotation is a preparatory movement asserts that it's there.  However, that wouldn't explain how many pianists seem to be able to do arpeggios just fine without these prep movements.

[dima_76557]

To say that double rotation is a preparatory movement asserts that it's there.  However, that wouldn't explain how many pianists seem to be able to do arpeggios just fine without these prep movements.

That is not the function of the Taubman method. (They mostly cure injured people, remember?) One could only reasonably conclude that many pianists don't seem to need any specialized training because they do what is required intuitively. This does not necessarily prove that the Taubman doctrine in itself is faulty.

Actually, I think they are correct in that part of their many assertions. Without forearm rotation, nobody would even be able to put their hands on the keyboard in playing position; it is a crucial element in virtually anything we do in life with our hands and fingers.

I have been through similar drills extensively, and although I admit that this is not the end of the story (it is merely good enough to learn the notes of a piece thoroughly), I have always found it a very effective learning tool (one of many), especially combined with the other Taubman principles described in the article I linked. If only they were clear about the activity and function of the fingers.

[anamnesis]

I do not use "double rotation" when playing arpeggios.  My arpeggios are very smooth and effortless.  "Double rotation" appears to be snake oil.

I do believe it's there, but trying to willingly cause it, is not the way to go about it at all, it's something that happens naturally if you are doing everything else right.  

I've never trained for it, but when I slowed my playing down, it's almost a reflex that I can't inhibit.

  

[nyiregyhazi]

I do believe it's there, but trying to willingly cause it, is not the way to go about it at all, it's something that happens naturally if you are doing everything else right.  

I've never trained for it, but when I slowed my playing down, it's almost a reflex that I can't inhibit.

  

If you're saying you can't inhibit double rotation (as opposed to the natural type of longer and slower rotation that pianists really use) you should urgently learn some alternatives. I suspect you're actually talking of something more natural, but the specific idea of double rotation is nowhere at speed and would be an extremely odd thing for anyone to be unable to inhibit in slow speeds, unless they've been programmed to the point of limitation by the Taubman cult.

Two examples- pick a series of ascending r.h. notes. Lean towards the thumb (so the fifth is right up over the top of it) and progressively lean back towards the fifth as you play through. Note that you will now be leaning AWAY from the thumb as it plays and not rotating down into it. And there is no reversal as per double rotation, but instead one continuous movement down into each finger. Secondly lean towards the fifth in advance, so it's on its side. This time time lean slowly towards the thumb as you rotate through the series (still the same ascending notes!). This time, the thumb is rotated into while it plays. But the arm continues to rotates slowly in the same direction, thus going AWAY from putting force through the other fingers - making room for them to move from a place of freedom without any enforced burden of weight.

Both options are vital. I use both techniques in things as diverse as the Bach c major Prelude and Chopin's first etude. Getting stuck in one all the time produces bad results without both options- for meaningful and naturally integrated rotation. Not only is double rotation nowhere in either, but each involves an important situation of moving a key while making room for it to do so. Double rotation offers literally no experience of that whatsoever but only teaches how to shove into a finger that is probably very lazy. You'll get horribly bogged down if double rotation is the only tool in your rotation box- especially if you do it with no finger movement like they advise.

[lateromantic]

I think the video is really interesting ... but I didn't watch all of it (b/c I got a little bored  ).

Seems to me that you just executed a double rotation right there.

[anamnesis]

If you're saying you can't inhibit double rotation (as opposed to the natural type of longer and slower rotation that pianists really use) you should urgently learn some alternatives. I suspect you're actually talking of something more natural, but the specific idea of double rotation is nowhere at speed and would be an extremely odd thing for anyone to be unable to inhibit in slow speeds, unless they've been programmed to the point of limitation by the Taubman cult.

Two examples- pick a series of ascending r.h. notes. Lean towards the thumb (so the fifth is right up over the top of it) and progressively lean back towards the fifth as you play through. Note that you will now be leaning AWAY from the thumb as it plays and not rotating down into it. And there is no reversal as per double rotation, but instead one continuous movement down into each finger. Secondly lean towards the fifth in advance, so it's on its side. This time time lean slowly towards the thumb as you rotate through the series (still the same ascending notes!). This time, the thumb is rotated into while it plays. But the arm continues to rotates slowly in the same direction, thus going AWAY from putting force through the other fingers - making room for them to move from a place of freedom without any enforced burden of weight.

Both options are vital. I use both techniques in things as diverse as the Bach c major Prelude and Chopin's first etude. Getting stuck in one all the time produces bad results without both options- for meaningful and naturally integrated rotation. Not only is double rotation nowhere in either, but each involves an important situation of moving a key while making room for it to do so. Double rotation offers literally no experience of that whatsoever but only teaches how to shove into a finger that is probably very lazy. You'll get horribly bogged down if double rotation is the only tool in your rotation box- especially if you do it with no finger movement like they advise.

The "double rotation" I'm speaking of is not a long, exaggerated motion. Like, I said, it almost seems to be reflex or rather a natural setup, and even playing slow it is quite small, and I'm pretty sure it involves the entire playing mechanism rather than any isolated part because it only works well if everything is coming together.

It's the only possible way you can get Whiteside's idea of a ripped five finger chord to work at all while having clarity and evenness between the notes. There's a simultaneous feeling one gesture (one direction) from the upper arm while at the level of the forearm/hand/fingers multiple gestures that feel very minuscule but there.  

In order to get this clarity, there has to be some kind of lift as you are moving in the same direction (C->D->E->F->G) the split second right before you hit the next note. The two extremes options are pure rotation from the forearm or extension of the fingers, neither will work in isolation if you want the combination of high speed and comfort as well as clarity. In fact, instead of thinking just a double rotation, maybe it should be called preparatory action that involves double rotation and finger extension (at least at the IP joints).

------  

The rotary work is best sensed through the the sensation of arm weight. I use the sensation of arm weight to shift the balance in the structure from hand as I move from finger to finger.  As you balance or shift your weight on each finger, there is a very minuscule rotation that is involved in the preparation of the next finger, but you don't actually think about causing that rotation, it just happens.

To put it in another way:
LH on CDEFG, starting from a position where all fingers are in contact with the keyboard.  Let's say we are going from the 4/D to the 3/E after having played 5/C.

So basically there's the obvious rotation in the direction of the note progression that no one denies. As you play the 4/D, the moment you make contact with the key and depress it, your shift in hand balance toward the played finger creates a tiny rotation toward the direction of the shift in balance/the note just played BUT opposite the direction the notes are progressing (C->G).

------
Now for the finger extension. You can use the misguided Hanon approach of lifting the fingers high while keeping the wrist still, but by now we all know that leads to injury if you overuse this motion.  However there is a way we can use extension to help out in this preparatory action.  You don't actually want to use full finger extension to lift the fingers, you just want extension from the IP joints.

Luckily there are muscles in the hand that allows this type of action: the lumbricals (as well as the interossei which are probably more involved with the MP flexion portion while the lumbricals the IP extension).  They simultaneously cause flexion at the MP joint while extending at the IP joints.  You basically, want to use the lumbricals as if you were grasping, coordinating their use together.  

As you play the 4/D via the lumbricals, the flexion action makes that finger go down at the MP joint, but you also have the simultaneous extension from the IP joints that maintain the structure of your hand/fingers as you play, prevent curling. This simultaneous flexion/extension allows you to think "up" while simultaneously playing down because your phalanges are going down via extension to play while maintaining a dynamic arch structure with the metacarpals through flexion  that helps you think "up" allowing you to avoid keybedding without actually stopping yourself (at least directly).  

But because you are using all your lumbricals together, it also works on the other fingers.  As you play the previous note, it prepares the next note due to the lifting action by the extension at the IP joints at the next finger, but again this doesn't work very well by itself without the aid in setup via rotation that is accomplished through weight/balance transferal.

(There also seems to be a slight axial rotary at the MP joint itself which would involve the fingers.  It is most present when you are grasping a large, round object, which requires the simultaneous flexion at the MP, extension at the IP joints, and abbduction. It might be minuscule, but I can see how it can enhance the forearm rotation component if everything is aligned.)

[thalbergmad]

Gawd, I never knew I had lumbricals

Thal

[nyiregyhazi]

The "double rotation" I'm speaking of is not a long, exaggerated motion. Like, I said, it almost seems to be reflex or rather a natural setup, and even playing slow it is quite small, and I'm pretty sure it involves the entire playing mechanism rather than any isolated part because it only works well if everything is coming together.

It's the only possible way you can get Whiteside's idea of a ripped five finger chord to work at all while having clarity and evenness between the notes.

Did you read the post you're replying to? I detailed exactly how you can do so without double rotation, in no less than two different ways. Each contains a slow progressive rotation plus finger action. Neither contains a single reversal of direction and any such reversal would do nothing but interfere with the smoothness and simplicity. Not to mention the fact it's physiologically impossible to reverse between opposing muscle groups at a rate of 32 reversals per second, if you are playing 16 notes per second. Nobody can coordinate such timing without ending up merely cocontracting the muscles against their opposing counterpart and thus locking up. Neither the speed nor the coordination is physically possible at such tempos. The only time you need to use double rotation to reset the hand position for every finger is when you have a large amplitude of rotation, to replace finger movement. Seeing as we're not talking about a large amplitude, it's a given both that the fingers are now looking after the movement of keys and that the need to reset the position for every key, via double rotation, is no longer any issue.

Could you please address those directly, if you feel that integrating notes into a longer and slower rotation is supposedly impossible when ripping five notes? Because a slow progressive rotation (plus finger motion as the source of key movement) sure as hell sounds like a more probable explanation for five rapid notes to me, than numerous rapid reversals of direction- that biology suggests to be impossible and which are supported by no evidence other than the circular logic of taubmanites. You use a lot of anatomical terms but can you please use some straight up logic instead- both to clarify why the simple methods I outlined are impossible and why rapid coordination of opposing muscle groups would be in any way either necessary or desirable over a simpler progressive movement. Beneath all the anatomy, neither issue was actually addressed.

[anamnesis]

Did you read the post you're replying to? I detailed exactly how you can do so without double rotation, in no less than two different ways. Each contains a slow progressive rotation plus finger action. Neither contains a single reversal of direction and any such reversal would do nothing but interfere with the smoothness and simplicity. Not to mention the fact it's physiologically impossible to reverse between opposing muscle groups at a rate of 32 reversals per second, if you are playing 16 notes per second. Nobody can coordinate such timing without ending up merely cocontracting the muscles against their opposing counterpart and thus locking up. Neither the speed nor the coordination is physically possible at such tempos. The only time you need to use double rotation to reset the hand position for every finger is when you have a large amplitude of rotation, to replace finger movement. Seeing as we're not talking about a large amplitude, it's a given both that the fingers are now looking after the movement of keys and that the need to reset the position for every key, via double rotation, is no longer any issue.

Could you please address those directly, if you feel that integrating notes into a longer and slower rotation is supposedly impossible when ripping five notes? Because a slow progressive rotation (plus finger motion as the source of key movement) sure as hell sounds like a more probable explanation for five rapid notes to me, than numerous rapid reversals of direction- that biology suggests to be impossible and which are supported by no evidence other than the circular logic of taubmanites. You use a lot of anatomical terms but can you please use some straight up logic instead- both to clarify why the simple methods I outlined are impossible and why rapid coordination of opposing muscle groups would be in any way either necessary or desirable over a simpler progressive movement. Beneath all the anatomy, neither issue was actually addressed.

Why would you be using opposing muscles?  You're supposed to be using the circular motion to change directions without really changing directions.

You're not supposed to be going back and forth on an arc where you are literally changing directions.

I also never denied the use of finger action if you looked at my post.

You're not supposed to be doing this:


You're supposed to be doing this:

[nyiregyhazi]

Why would you be using opposing muscles?  You're supposed to be using the circular motion to change directions without really changing directions.

You're not supposed to be going back and forth on an arc where you are literally changing directions.

I also never denied the use of finger action if you looked at my post.

You're not supposed to be doing this:


You're supposed to be doing this:

Double rotation is specifically a reversal of direction, in the rotation of the forearm. I'm afraid I don't follow what your diagram is representing. But double rotation as defined by the method is based on constant reversal of rotational direction, at a rate of two about turns per note. That is abundantly clear from their video. There is no means of actually doing so without switching between opposing muscle groups.

I have no idea either what changing direction without changing direction actually means or why it's necessary to do something without doing it. In the examples I gave, I DON'T change direction without doing it. There is no purpose to fast double rotation when a slow continuous rotational movement can begin to take its place during many notes. It would be a gross hindrance to continuity to try to load a simple continuous arm motion with 32 reversals of rotational direction per second.


Edit- I think I have some kind of idea of what you mean from the diagram now, although I'm not totally clear still. But if forearm rotation  is involved it still demands alternation between opposing muscle groups- at no less of a speed. Making a longer circular path cannot eliminate the need to reverse direction within the relevant muscles- if it's actually double rotation. It's not double rotation without complete reversal of direction in the rotational muscles. Your diagram suggests circles instigated by the upper arm rather than the rotation they demonstrate? Either way you haven't established any reason as to why any bobbing is needed or as to why what I outlined (without any need for bobbing at all) would not be viable. Why would anyone want to plop their arm down even a little on every note, when playing 16 notes per second? It's unfeasible and there's no reason to think it might be necessary. Given that a gradual rotational movement plus finger actions works just fine.

[flashyfingers]

That is not the function of the Taubman method. (They mostly cure injured people, remember?) One could only reasonably conclude that many pianists don't seem to need any specialized training because they do what is required intuitively. This does not necessarily prove that the Taubman doctrine in itself is faulty.

Actually, I think they are correct in that part of their many assertions. Without forearm rotation, nobody would even be able to put their hands on the keyboard in playing position; it is a crucial element in virtually anything we do in life with our hands and fingers.

I have been through similar drills extensively, and although I admit that this is not the end of the story (it is merely good enough to learn the notes of a piece thoroughly), I have always found it a very effective learning tool (one of many), especially combined with the other Taubman principles described in the article I linked. If only they were clear about the activity and function of the fingers.

I would like to add that feeling good, and getting positive things happening, triggered just by a rotation is good. We never want to hurt when or after we play piano. This destroys muscle memory, remember? You can't build muscle memory without developing a connected way of playing on the keyboard, where the mind, the hands, and the piano are all connected, it makes your hands feel warm and cozy, and movements are natural and easy. I believe this is holistic piano playing, as well.

[anamnesis]

Well there's a reason I'm not calling it a strict double rotation at least by how you or Golandsky might be defining it. As long as the notes are moving in the same direction, you are still ultimately pronating OR supinating in one direction in one rotary cycle of the arm. 

The double rotation is in the position of the fingers and not the actual rotary action of the forearm, but to get the "double rotation" to appear efficiently you need to use arm weight/rotation as well as active/responsive fingers.

I'm saying what "appears" to be double rotation is a phenomena arising from the coordination of active fingers and a freely moving, aligned hand/wrist/arm using balance shifting.

I didn't even say bobbing was needed at all, which is why I was emphasizing the sensation of weight shifting. 

I'm also not saying your examples were wrong at all.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well there's a reason I'm not calling it a strict double rotation at least by how you or Golandsky might be defining it. As long as the notes are moving in the same direction, you are still ultimately pronating OR supinating in one direction in one rotary cycle of the arm.  

The double rotation is in the position of the fingers and not the actual rotary action of the forearm, but to get the "double rotation" to appear efficiently you need to use arm weight/rotation as well as active/responsive fingers.

I'm saying what "appears" to be double rotation is a phenomena arising from the coordination of active fingers and a freely moving, aligned hand/wrist/arm using balance shifting.

I didn't even say bobbing was needed at all, which is why I was emphasizing the sensation of weight shifting.  

I'm also not saying your examples were wrong at all.

What are you describing is probably not double rotation, but an upper arm based circle. Using the term confuses what you are saying- because it's referring to changes in direction of forearm rotation in the method. And what you are saying is certainly not the only way to connect fingers and arm. It's still impossible to do what you say, even, at 16 notes per second. You can use it in a slower tempo, but to go faster fingers create the join by moving and the arm stops. An arm follows reactions. It need merely move in the direction of fingers to get connected to each. There is no rational reason to think circles are necessary for fingers and arm to joint- especially not at speeds where they are implausible. The upper arm can't make 16 circles per second to match the notes any more than the forearm can reverse 32 times per second. It would be insane to think that would either be a necessary issue within a rational explanation or even feasible in itself.

I presumed that you dispute what I wrote in the post you quoted- for the simple reason that directly underneath you stated that you cannot see any explanation for ripping five fingers except double rotation. Double rotation is nowhere in the explanation for doing precisely that, which you quoted for me and you didn't accredit it as an alternative explanation when you said that you can't see how it would be possible without double rotation. I was presuming you'd read it, given that you quoted it- but perhaps you simply didn't attempt what I described before replying? It fulfills the ripping idea with no double rotation at all.


Seeing as you said,

"It's the only possible way you can get Whiteside's idea of a ripped five finger chord to work at all while having clarity and evenness between the notes."


either what I said doesn't work or you didn't actually try it before responding directly to it. Could you try it and give an explanation of either where double rotation is in any way present or why, as the above quote would suggest, it isn't possible for it to work?

[nyiregyhazi]

I would like to add that feeling good, and getting positive things happening, triggered just by a rotation is good. We never want to hurt when or after we play piano. This destroys muscle memory, remember? You can't build muscle memory without developing a connected way of playing on the keyboard, where the mind, the hands, and the piano are all connected, it makes your hands feel warm and cozy, and movements are natural and easy. I believe this is holistic piano playing, as well.

That's exactly what I don't see here:

It keeps stopping into a tight position. It's a jerk then a stop then and jerk then a stop etc.

I didn't learn a thing from rotation until I learned a slower and more gradual evolutionary movement, plus a slightly quicker one that "throws" the finger into progressive openness rather than the dead stop as the key goes down. In the near future I'm going to write a detailed post all about the flaws in this manner of rotation, plus an explanation of what the fingers must do to make it truly natural and organic.

By the way, I just saw a video where Taubman herself spoke of how opposing muscles cannot alternate too fast against each other without jamming up against each other. She then wrongly suggested that the reason Horowitz can do fast octaves without jamming up is because gravity takes him down and he thus only uses the upward action of muscles. Utter garbage if you stop to consider quite what a slow force gravity is. Hardly quick enough to explain Horowitz octaves If anything, the reality is that upward forces are achieve by reactions to the fingers on the keys and it's the forces that move the keys which are muscular, whereas the forces that send the arm back up are done by reactions.

Anyway, I was stunned to hear the woman behind a method in which double rotation is supposedly present at high speeds outlining the very reason why it's such transparent claptrap. The hypocrisy astonished me. Amazing really that someone can preach something so vital and then overlook it in the place where it most obviously applies. Is it so hard to appreciate that double rotation only teaches freedoms that apply to fast playing and that it doesn't actually happen any more?

[jaxcard]

If you don't have injuries, don't experience any pain when you play, and don't otherwise have problems playing, then don't worry about double rotation.

The short video posted at the beginning of this thread doesn't begin to do justice to the Taubman/Golansky method. Based on reviews by other Pianostreet members, I bought the 10-volume DVD set offered by the Golansky Institute in which forearm rotation, among other techniques, is discussed. The set is expensive (approximately $600), but probably a very good value considering how much private lessons cost. My playing has improved profoundly as a result of watching the DVDs. The concept of forearm rotation (single rotation and double rotation, depending on which finger you are playing and in which direction) has helped me tremendously with evenness of play, e.g., in scale-type runs. Forearm rotation is intended to compensate for the fact that not all fingers are equally strong, and no amount of exercising can make them strong. Rotation also makes leaps much easier.

There are numerous other gems on the tapes, many of which run counter to conventional piano teacher wisdom, e.g, they recommend not practicing hands separately too much because coordination between the two hands is important.

[nyiregyhazi]

Forearm rotation is intended to compensate for the fact that not all fingers are equally strong, and no amount of exercising can make them strong.

Although they have many positives, this is exactly where they miss the mark. The fifth can be extremely powerful without any active forearm pressure- even when the arm is drifting up and away. All they teach is to plop down into the fifth, which is utterly impractical for a lot of rapid passges. If you learn to make room for the fifth instead, it can be extremely powerful indeed. This error in the method is a big limiter. You can only augment the fifth finger usefully with rotation if the finger first creates at least a little more movement than the rotation. If it does not, the rotation will actively perpetuate weakness in the finger and it won't give any sophisticated control over tone.  

The only way for rotation to become truly effective is if it complements rather than replaces true finger movement. I was grossly misled by their factual error on this. Everything they say encourages you to think of the finger doing less- which prevents that basic foundation which is necessary for rotation to start working. I'm just completing a post that gives a solid proof of exactly why rotation cannot work properly without finger individuation and why it can even encourage greater impact and strain, when the fingers are not deliberately involved in the process.

See here just how much Taubman's only truly notable student , Natan Brand, articulates from the fingers themselves- while the arm primarily follows and makes room for the fingers, with minimal signs that rotation account for notable energy input (if any at all)..

=14m5s

Nothing in the method will assist those who don't already have that with this key element of a balanced technique, unless the student instinctively contradicts many of the "rules". It's lucky that Brand already had finger articulation before studying with Taubman, or he may never have achived that sound. He has the excellent arm alignment and freedom expected from any Taubman student, but it's in his hand action that the special and unique tonal control originates. Small wonder that Taubman said herself that she never had any success in teaching a single student his quality of tone. She threw out the baby with the bath water, by telling students not to do the most important ingredient.

just compare Golandsy's "star" student, with his lifeless floppy fingers, heavy sound and imprecise articulation

The hand which weakly and limply transfers arm pressure sounds a lot weaker to me than the one that generates plenty of structure and movement of its own. Rotation practise without truly engaged fingers does not compensate for a weak hand. It perpetuates one.

[dima_76557]

If you learn to make room for the fifth instead, it can be extremely powerful indeed.

I am now at a point where I feel that the pinky is actually the strongest finger. The thumb is the weakest (more or less advanced learners who complain about their fifth and about pain in the wrist area there should check their thumbs!). The middle finger is only a little stronger than the thumb, and my index finger, while strong enough, is simply plain lazy if I don't pay enough attention to it.

[lelle]

I am now at a point where I feel that the pinky is actually the strongest finger. The thumb is the weakest (more or less advanced learners who complain about their fifth and about pain in the wrist area there should check their thumbs!). The middle finger is only a little stronger than the thumb, and my index finger, while strong enough, is simply plain lazy if I don't pay enough attention to it.

Very interesting, I've had similar thoughts recently. I started noticing tension in scales seem to originate from a thumb that was too lazy and didn't support the hand. This tension then spreads to the index finger, it can even look like it is visibly pulling towards the thumb, and it also seems flat out lazy at times. In Walter Giesekings book on technique he also talks about how most sutdents have a weak thumb when playing scales. It seems to me the thumb has to strike the key very precisely, leading the movement with its tip, and then lightly shift the hand over it like a lever or a pole when somebody does a pole-vault, would you agree with this if you get my explanation?

[nyiregyhazi]

Very interesting, I've had similar thoughts recently. I started noticing tension in scales seem to originate from a thumb that was too lazy and didn't support the hand. This tension then spreads to the index finger, it can even look like it is visibly pulling towards the thumb, and it also seems flat out lazy at times. In Walter Giesekings book on technique he also talks about how most sutdents have a weak thumb when playing scales. It seems to me the thumb has to strike the key very precisely, leading the movement with its tip, and then lightly shift the hand over it like a lever or a pole when somebody does a pole-vault, would you agree with this if you get my explanation?

Absolutely. I use an exercise based on extreme lifting of the fingers on each thumb note, so the thumb is properly felt to transport them over and around, without more fiddly localised movement. The hand realigns itself in the end, simply by moving the thumb positively. It's towards the end of this post (but much easier to understand if you've already done the preceeding exercises).

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/action-and-reaction-in-practise-part-i.html

[iumonito]

To the folks in the thread who argue this is inefficient, fictitious or bogus, try to play tennis, golf, ping-pong or to hit a ball with a bat without applying this simple movement principle.  Going in the opposite direction in order to get a good swing at something is an absolutely basic mechanical principle.

In this, and in life, it makes a mess to criticize that which your are unfamiliar with.  Not to say you should believe everything you hear and abandon your own observations, but denying something simply because one doesn't know it or believe is a less-than-ideal approach to learning. 

 

[nyiregyhazi]

To the folks in the thread who argue this is inefficient, fictitious or bogus, try to play tennis, golf, ping-pong or to hit a ball with a bat without applying this simple movement principle.  Going in the opposite direction in order to get a good swing at something is an absolutely basic mechanical principle.

In this, and in life, it makes a mess to criticize that which your are unfamiliar with.  Not to say you should believe everything you hear and abandon your own observations, but denying something simply because one doesn't know it or believe is a less-than-ideal approach to learning.  

Nice try, but not one of those sports involves speeds of 12 or even more individual swipes per second. So it's a very poor analogy. Tell me, do you know of any sports where you both swing and swing back twelve times per second with 24 reversals of direction in the arm per second?

Assuming not, maybe it's you who shouldn't believe everything you hear?

[awesom_o]

To the folks in the thread who argue this is inefficient, fictitious or bogus, try to play tennis, golf, ping-pong or to hit a ball with a bat without applying this simple movement principle.  Going in the opposite direction in order to get a good swing at something is an absolutely basic mechanical principle.

In this, and in life, it makes a mess to criticize that which your are unfamiliar with. 

1. Making music at the keyboard and hitting a ball with a club or racquet are not related in any way. I play golf, several racquet sports, and multiple keyboard instruments. One does not 'take a swing at' the piano keys in skilled playing.

2. Just because I criticize Taubman does NOT mean that I am unfamiliar with it. I studied with a Taubman teacher for four years, and was once, like you, a very vocal proponent of the Taubman approach.

[mjames]

All this talk is about how we're supposed to hit a bunch of keys with our fingers? Jesus

[lelle]

All this talk is about how we're supposed to hit a bunch of keys with our fingers? Jesus

Well there are many ways to do it the wrong way and if you want to reach your full potential there is no room for anything but the best way. It's agreeing upon and describing the best way that is the tricky part...