I've never been convinced by that. If the muscles can instigate rotation at such a speed, I'd like to see it proven. As for a rational proof that it must still occur, rather than be reduced to literally nothing (or what benefit it might present to constnatly be contracting and releasing those muscles, rather than maintain a steady state)...

Some things simply you train you to release certain muscles or use them better. That doesn't mean the instigation of rotation itself is necessarily retained- not necessarily in even the slightest trace. I'd say it just teaches you how to avoid locking muscles. It's the control and awareness that is carried over- not necessarily the movement itself. I think kbk's flopping is similar. It shows you how to let go of the wrist. For some people this can present a real benefit. However, if you get so caught up in the flopping itself rather than merely use it to teach you certain sensations, well, you end up playing like kbk. Flopping is not merely reduced at speed, especially not in 3rds. Even the faintest collapse is harmful. However, some can get benefits from the experience- as long as they don't get totally lost, as if it were the end in itself.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but the notion of "rotation in scales" is simply absurd (no apologies to Matthay and Taubman), and the idea that you practice it at slow speed and then it get's minimized or "invisible" at speed is ludicrous - it defies all logic and common sense. Rotating the whole forearm and hand clockwise, anticlockwise, clockwise, anticlockwise - it would be difficult to dream up a more inefficient and completely unnecessary way to move. You want to play scales fast? Work on being able to articulate each of your fingers with great speed while minimizing tension in your wrist, arm, shoulders, etc. and simply move the arm where your fingers need to be. Rotation is good for turning the doorknob as you exit piano teachers' studios who are selling it to you as a basis for playing the piano. Yikes - what did I get myself into now...

[Nyiregyhazi - I didn't mean this as a response to your post - don't know why when you hit reply it shows up as replying to the last post]

You're right. All of this plus rotation works for me. My whole point though was that the rotation is so small that it is invisible. If you were to see me playing a scale you wouldn't see any rotation, but I would feel it.

For what purpose? Why should rapidly contracting muscles and releasing them to a neglible extent be of any benefit? People believe they do things all the time, but are proven not to. There's the famous example of all those who swore blind that they literally turn their thumb under at speed. Video proved otherwise. I don't believe for a second that it's even possible to rotate that fast. Many pianists can play 12 notes per second or faster. That's supposedly 24 changes of direction per second, for double rotation? Totally implausible. Even if it were possible, how is that rate of contraction/release any more productive that merely staying loose? I've never seen even a semi-credible explanation.

Sorry, the benefits might be real but there's no way you're actually doing it in practise. You're remembering what you learned from the process and then abandoning the rotation. What you're retaining must be something that the rotation inspired you to do at the same time but which can also be done independently of it, not the rotation itself. If it works it works, but the explanation is simply ludicrous.

You've misunderstood. There are only two rotations per octave. C major ascending for example: C to E is one, F to C is the other. The arm can stay completely relaxed doing this.

I think it boils down to Stanza's comment earlier - your body will find the best way. How can any of you know what that 'way' is? That once you've put your knowledge aside and don't interfere, rotation will or will not take place?

Our bodies may be capable of finding the best way, but by applying wrong thinking, end-gaming intentions and cultivating any number of bad habits unawares, the odds are certainly stacked against us. This is why I think it is dangerous to latch onto such blunt-edged, one-size-fits-all, macro advice like the wholesale application of the relaxed flop or the de rigeur rotation.

Yes, but when it happens it's worth being prepared to accept it. Kinda Book of the Dead thing?

Do you believe it just "happens"? Or do we have to know how to let it happen? How does that relate to practice?

I think it's more what than how. We have to accept it when it does happen. An open mind is not an ignorant one!

so when you willfully flop about with a willfully slack, hand, you are just letting it happen? Maybe you should actually apply what say? If you let it happen invisibly perhaps it would no longer hamper your progress?

There is no point reading your posts Mr N - you always have to have the last word...and the bile! (oh, and not to mention the hysterics!)

my words mean very little admiteddly , compared to what really matters. That is the fact that the irrational nonsense you preach about the benefits of flailing around and deliberately relaxing the simplest and most comfortable means will have the last word whenever you or your students sit at a piano. That is what really matters here...

THIS is the issue that's closest to my heart as a teacher. Where technique is concerned, there's a difference between knowing something, doing something, and teaching someone else how to do it.

Some people like and are aided by rigorous scientific description. Others are hampered by it. I have a basic understanding of how the playing mechanism works, but not a detailed one, and yet I like to think I can play and teach reasonably well.

Technique is one of those things where knowledge is not necessarily power. To use one of my usual analogies, it's like golf. Knowing how a golf swing works doesn't mean you can hit a golf ball. And lots of people can hit a golf ball very well without knowing the intricacies of the swing mechanism.

Going back to the OP, I think there definitely are invisible things working behind the scenes in piano technique. I also think Matthay had pretty good insight and knowledge into what some of them are. But I don't think his descriptions are infallible, useful for everyone, or comprehensive.

I agree entirely, that some people are doing things without knowing or understanding how. However, as a teacher, we have to be able to help those who DON'T just end up with a good swing. The more we understand what actually happens, the more we can formulate approaches to cater for individual needs- be they subjective ones or factually supportable ones. The more we simply remember what worked for us (or in some cases what didn't) the less we can deal with a range of problems. As an individual there are cases where people may not necessarily benefit from understanding, however, I do not believe that there are any cases where teachers do not benefit from deeper understanding. Deep understanding is both to know principles and to be able to put them into practise. Not simply to memorise them or copy what someone else said because they are quite popular. Merely to recite things without using any broad understanding or knowing how to put it ionto practise can lead to an awful lot of vagueness and misconstrued facts.

Incidenetally, there are an awful lot of myths about the golf swing. Few golfers learned an instinctive approach. Also, a great many of the finest professional had to make a number of exceedingly concious adjustments to their motions. Coaches like David Leadbetter work with some of the very finest players on the tour (often in the prime of their careers), not just young talents or amateurs. I'm certainly not levelling this at your Kreisler, but the "just do it" approach is generally either an illusion created by a very fine teacher (probably involving a lot of physical prodding to train the right motions) or the work of a very poor teacher. That applies equally to golf or the piano. It is the failure to actually understand what they do that means that some spectacular players do not teach well. Understanding is vital for teachers.

And I agree completely that the "just do it" approach fails far more often than it succeeds. My only caution is that rigorous scientific explanation is not necessarily the best approach.

I also agree that this is what prevents some very accomplished players from becoming very good teachers. A friend of mine who took lessons from a concert pianist was always frustrated with the fact that he would simply say "just do it like this" and demonstrate.

Another concert pianist (who was also an excellent teacher) told me once that she was completely lost with students who didn't already possess a fine technique. She wasn't able to take a mediocre pianist and make them great, but she was able to take a great pianist and make them even better. She was one of the smart ones. I've also met a few too many who don't know how to make a mediocre pianist better but try anyway.

Yeah, I think this is only serves to reinforce how vital it is to have a real understanding of what you are doing. Even if subjective experiences are beneficial, why not go on to explain it more rationally, after the subjective experience has sunk in? If the understanding is not passed on along with the skills, it's not much use for the future generations. You don't have to go so far as to explain all with recourse to advanced science, but you ought to have an idea as to the fundamentals of what is going on. If you are only told to do something, you cannot teach anyone with a different problem. If you are told WHY to do something, you may even be able to spot and cure totally opposing problems- rather than simply repeat what you were told and hence push them even further from the solution.

There's no better illustration than the "relaxed" hand at a keyboard. If someone believes they have a relaxed hand when playing chords, when they actually have a very supportive one (mistaking the world of difference that lies between "comfortable" and "relaxed", for a hand that is new to playing) they can do untold harm to students with lazy muscles. What harm could it possibly do that person to realise that their subjective experiences of completely "relaxing" their hand is not accurate and that the same advice of relaxation at all costs could push some people further away from a functional state of comfort? Subjective false impressions should only ever be the first stage of remedial learning- especially for those who might become teachers themselves. You don't have to make things overwhelmingly complex to understand the fundamentals of what actually goes on. Subjective impressions can be essential to some problems, but they should always be on the way to a greater understanding in the long-run, rather left as irrational factual misconceptions.

That sounds like very interesting data. Is that an official experiment that you are referencing? Are you saying that some people thought that they turn the thumb rotationally when crossing over or under, but the videos show that they merely cross the thumb over or under the previous fingers?

It used to be thought that confabulation was a psychological pathology, but now we know that to a lesser or greater degree it is just how our brains work and it is part of what and who we are. We are constantly inventing narratives (whether we are aware of it or not) to explain our (subconsciously) determined behavior and to try to make ourselves appear to ourselves and others to be cohesive and consistent. Given that so much of piano playing has to do with an impossible to monitor in detail barrage of multiple sensations combined with intellect and emotion and in particular proprioception and sound feedback mediated kinesthetic sensory processing for which we have often little conscious awareness and for which we also have next to no common shared language, it is no surprise the kind of inaccurate and simplistic but earnest porkies we tell ourselves and others...

I love it when you talk dirty!