Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner I don't get Taubman rotation

I've gotta tell ya...I have no idea what the heck you were trying to say for the first two sentences.
Lisitsa, is an example of what taken to an extreme? Do you mean she's an example of a good pianist with strong technique who's overrated to the extreme because of that technique?

Yes, but be a reflective practitioner (as we say in the trade).

I have also struggled with the concept of double rotations (I take lessons from a teacher in the Golansky faculty). My best understanding so far is as follows.

Say you just played a white key with the index finger, and now you are going to play the next highest note with the middle finger. Lift together (small lift) middle and small finger, drop them together (only the middle plays). When lifting, lift not just up but also very slightly to the left. If you do this you will have a double rotation, unless you are clenching your forearm very tightly. To play the ring finger on the next highest white key, lift both ring and small fingers. Same approach is used when playing from small finger to thumb: lift all fingers available in the direction of play, the fingers lift and drop together, there is no isolation.

Double rotation training emphasizes that fingers that are not actually going to play the next note do participate in the playing motion. It is actually less effort, I believe, to allow this movement than to try to keep non-playing fingers still. I get better control of each note's timing and loudness, and, as a result, crispier passage-work.

ocd

As I walked to work this morning I happened to think about surfing for some strange reason. Strange, because I'm nowhere near an ocean. Anyway it allowed me to come up with an analogy to help me better understand all this double rotation stuff.

How does a surfer maintain his balance on the surfboard? By making small, barely perceptible shifts in his center of gravity. After much practice he develops an intuition for which direction he needs to transfer his weight in order to maintain balance and to effect a turn.

I think a similar thing is going on with what Matthay calls rotatory stresses when playing at speed. Those rotatory stresses are simply small weight transfer motions that allow the forearm the freedom to fully support the particular finger that is depressing a key at that instant. It's all about balancing the forearm weight on the playing finger.

As in surfing you need to know the direction and timing of weight transfer in order to achieve the desired result. The large scale rotatory movements (single and double rotations) done at slow speed in the Taubman technique are best seen as (i) an exercise to free the forearm rotationally, and (ii) an exercise to develop an intuition for the direction and timing of the imperceptible weight transfer movements that occur at speed.

Sorry, terrible way of phrasing my thoughts. Not to mention the mistakes. Let me try this again.

In conclusion, it seems that the Talbman technique is taking a subconscious process and bringing it to the forefront of the conscious mind creating something that feels unnatural to someone who already plays freely.

Martha Argerich and Valentina Lisitsa are two prime examples of playing freely with Lisitsa's technique almost taking thing to an extreme level with the lifting of the hands and wrist after every phrase serving as a check for tension.

I have no idea how Lisitsa's ratings came into this picture. If anything Lisitsa's Underated if you ask me.

Hi ,

I have watched the taubman videos for a while and came to this webpage when started having questions about how double rotation works at speed.

Watched the taubman video volume 2 on rotation again today and found that when Edna plays C major scale fast, her 3rd,4th,5th fingers are in air even after she has played D by index finger. This means two things for me:
1) because finger 3 is already in air , she is not doing the double rotation in the video. The whole point of double rotation is to avoid isolated finger lifting as she explains if I understand correctly. Here when playing fast if 3 is already in the air, no need to lift it and she appears to just play it down. I do not see any double rotation.

2) after playing the note D, her 3,4,5 fingers should not be in the air in the first place because it causes dual muscular pull as she has explained and this is not like the natural hand position. This is when she is playing the scale fast. When she plays the scale at slow speed, 3,4,5 are touching keys when D is played which necessitates finger lifting hence double rotation.

of course, at fast speed, the fingers should be closer to the keys as they are in slow playing and should use double rotation for avoding tension.

I watched the volume 2 and also the above video in slow and these are my observations .;) so far. If anyone has any opinion, comment would appreciate them!



Just a question, when playing by 3,4 or 5, can we just play the key down by a downward action of forearm without any finger lifting. I think this is what I maybe doing when playing the scale fast and I haven't practiced the double rotation much.

-Sim

I don't know anything about Taubman but I am curious to know:

1. Is this method popular or used by teachers at the most important conservatories?

2. Would Taubman disciples/teachers say that the great pianists generally used Taubman's approach in their playing even if they weren't specifically trained that way? Would non Taubman teachers agree about this?

I don't know a lot about what goes on at the conservatories, but my impression is that they are generally not all that focused on teaching technique. That said, I know that Kaplinsky at Juilliard studied with Taubman.

Something seems to be missing from question 2? But certainly Taubman's idea was to develop a systematic way of teaching what the best pianists were already doing naturally.

I think, for your second question, I would be averse to using the term "disciple" (makes the Taubman approach sound like a religion). But if you were to look at any athletic endeavor, there are two ways to learn it:
1. Intuition
2. Be taught how to do it

I would think that any program designed to teach the motions that are not being learned through intuition would be a good program that is beneficial to the student.

But if most excellent pianists use these motions without specifically being taught Taubman technique, it seems like Taubman should only be used if there is a problem that needs correction.

Of course, it's possible that other teachers teach essentially the same thing as Taubman and just explain it with different terminology. For example, I wonder if the Russian piano school, which is known for its technical prowess, teaches any thing related to Taubman's approach?

I don't know about double rotation or Taubman, but for me, any scales work wonderfully, if I try to keep my fingers as close to the keys as possible. If, instead of holding them down, this comes from total relaxation, my fingers make very small movements based on impulse. So, I can play really fast without moving my arm, and the hand only makes little movements out of the wrist.
I think that if I'm concentrating on what my fingers do on the keyboard, my wrist/arm will follow naturally (if I'm relaxed, of course).

1. Used by some. Kaplinsky, Martin, and McDonald at Juilliard at Sharon Mann at SFCM are probably the most prolific examples.

2. I don't think so. Some Taubamn teachers have been extremely critical of great pianists' techqniue, saying that Gould, Horowitz, and Serkin have been completely "wrong" in their approach at the piano, and that their ways of playing are "anatomically incorrect".

'Taubman' just doesn't sound right to a musician's ears, well, Beethoven was one, what the heck, I don't believe in technical/religious/sexual/political/esthethic dogmas, I believe in personal/artistic freedom, gained by experience and tolerance, it may take a few years, but it'll pay off in the end, even playing scales (omg) may benefit.

1. Would you say that only a small percentage of teachers at major conservatories talk about Taubman's ideas?

2. If great pianists, like the ones you mention, were able to achieve their pianistic ideas and reach the level of greatness, I don't see how they can be open to criticism about their technical approach. I guess one could always argue they played well in spite of their incorrect technical approach or could have played even better/with less effort using Taubman's ideas, but for me that's a very empty sounding argument.

Of course there are also the great pianists who have hurt themselves, such as Fleischer, Graffman, etc., back to Schumann. Presumably most things about their technique were fabulous, but some things not.

I think anyone could benefit from more knowledge, however great their natural ability. I know Taubman was troubled that so many child prodigies ran into physical problems later (problems that she figured out how to fix).

While it's true some great pianists have injured themselves, I don't think that's the point. Schumann is irrelevant because his injury was due to using some mechanical device. The number of famous pianists who have injured themselves is very tiny, and I don't think it was necessarily due to faulty technique.

I am not at all saying I don't think Taubman is a good idea or useful(I don't know anything about it), but if it's true that the huge majority of good pianists either employ the Taubman principles naturally without being trained in them or that Taubman thinks many of the great pianists play with incorrect technique, then I remain skeptical.

It's true that the number of pianists who have managed to become very famous and then have their careers damaged by injury is not huge--maybe for obvious reasons. But the number who play with varying degrees of discomfort is large. Ilya Itin has some interesting things to say about this in a recent New York Times feature (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/arts/music/golandsky-institute-helps-musicians-avoid-pain.html). This is true not just for piano but for a wide range of instruments.

It's not just about injury, of course. Taubman's close analysis of movement is a powerful means of overcoming technical limitations, which almost everyone has.

That is certainly one way to think about it. I will not make any qualms, I trained with Bob Durso in Philly for a number of years, but I have never been able to train in Russia. Bob is a wonderful pianist, an amazingly and extremely dedicated and caring teacher, and a great person. I feel honored to know him and be able to call him a friend. Setting my personal feelings for Bob aside, and analyzing the Taubman method objectively, I would say this:

I am sure there are other methods and techniques designed to free the playing mechanism, to overcome tension, and to reduce errors in technique. They may all teach similar ideals through different methods, practice, and even language. The Taubman method is the most technical specific, and scientific method I have found for approaching technique (be there issues or not). It quantifies what movements are required to play notes/passages, and gives a sort of "checklist" to run through if anything is not feeling good or there is a problem with a particular passage. Being inclined to business and engineering, this sort of scientific approach really appeals to me.

I am also an accomplished martial artist. Accomplishments aside, I can tell you that one of the most important principles in the martial arts is to learn how your body moves, and to adapt principles to your body. I do believe this also applies to the piano. Bob is a master at this, but I could not tell you about any other Taubman teachers. (However, if you would like to inquire directly, I can probably put you in touch. Send me a PM.)

It is important to separate sales pitches from practical usability, but the Taubman approach is practical, and highly usable. Is it necessary for everyone to use it? No. Some people are lucky/gifted enough to develop a very relaxed, tension-free technique from the start. If you are playing at the level you want to be playing at, and are doing it naturally, then awesome. I'm very happy for you (honestly). If you have areas you just can't seem to address, or tension you just can't seem to get rid of, then I would fall back on Einstein's "definition of insanity" quote as a starting point.

1. Only a small percentage about Taubman per se, yes, but a lot of teachers talk about aspects of technique that have, over time, become intrinsically linked with what Taubman likes to claim as their own (rotation, Pivoting, alignment, etc)

2. I agree with you, and don't know what's going on in their heads.

"As a physicist/engineer..."

Me too, in fact my specialty was Vibration of Compressor and Turbine Blades in Jet Engines - I worked for Pratt & Whitney.

The "sports science" of piano technique is either lacking or highly guarded. (But maybe not - how much money is there in winning a piano competition? If the money is there like in pro sports, the tech will be there.)

I've just discovered Taubman (I'm 63, mostly self taught, ruined by the age of 10 by Finger-Method, yadda yadda...) and while it is so clear that rotation is important (I'm mesmerized by Lisitsa's hands), the explanation of it is very lacking in physics.

Yes, they are identifying the Rotation "Structural Mode" and illustrate its motion or Displacement. And it looks like a few are mentioning Stress which can be related to Force.

But what is really lacking is any mention of Inertia - especially of the forearm. I'll leave Inertia as a characteristic that needs much further investigation and explanation. And note that in slow speeds, inertia "terms" are negligible. But at high speeds, they dominate.

Any repetitive motion can be viewed as a Single Mass Oscillator: a Mass on the end of a Spring. (I think we can leave the Dampener out for now.)

At high speed we can have large inertial and restoring forces and yet they are invisible as far as displacement is concerned.

A high speed trill w/ and w/o rotation will look very similar, but if you could see the fraction of the force due to rotation, it would be a lot higher than what you can see (with the naked eye - slomo and precision mapping of motions would reveal what is actually going on.)
_________________________________

This part is OFF TOPIC, in that it is what lead me to think along these lines: fast octaves:

The very first question I asked myself for playing octaves is, What primary mode of the finger/wrist/forearm/arm is the fastest?

Obviously, the forearm up/down pivoting at elbow is not a fast one.

Nor is individual finger moving up and down either.

Wrist up/down is faster than the above. (So I thought this might be the basis of fast octaves.)

But wrist rotation is the fastest. (Can't see how this helps octaves though.)

But all of these motions are the various "Fundamental Modes" of portions of the complete arm system

But what about 2nd modes?

The forearm u/d is slow, but it's 2nd mode is much faster. In this mode when the arm goes down, the wrist goes up - it is a whip-like motion - something you would do if you were trying to shake something off your hand.

Could the forearm 2nd be faster than the wrist 1st for octaves? Beats me. But I'll bet you that mode shows up if you could measure the joint forces during fast play.

And yes, I also think Golandsky is hot(!)