Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Thoughts on Golandsky ?

"You hardly feel it and you hardly see it, but you know by the result it is there."

And if you have the same "result" without "it" being there ....?

I think the general idea within the pedagogy is that you can't get the same "result" without "it" being there. Whether that is true in reality is open to debate, because what you can't see or feel can't really be proven one way or the other.

From what I do know, having studied with Bob Durso in Philly, is that it does work. I have never met a pianist who trained in this technique and did not see at least some benefit. Will you hear me try to sell it as an over-the-top miracle? Nope. But it does work.

"Dr. John Mortensen, Professor of Piano at Cedarville University, explains the principle of rotation. It solves lots of problems and sets pianists free, but the majority of students do not understand it. Here's how and why."

This Mortensen guy is really articulate and clear. That's the best description of rotation I've ever heard!

That was, indeed, extraordinarily clear.

I found Mortensen's point in the last five minutes interesting, and many people will probably disagree with it, because he makes a particularly strong claim: not just that single and double rotation is very important, but that the great pianists all use it, and playing comes so naturally to them that they're not aware of it and don't even think in those terms.

I'm a fan of single rotations when appropriate (Alberti bass, Beethoven op.26 mv.4). Studied Taubman a few years; not sure how I feel about double rotations; I'm not even sure if I'm currently doing them now very slightly. (I never think about them.) Certainly not sure about Mortensen's big claim, though I find it intriguing.

-J

He's also very wrong. The muscles in the forearm that operate your fingers are not weak, they are very strong! They are able to hold your body weight and more! The important muscles that 'rotate' your hand/wrist into playing position are also in the forearm (not the upper arm). The premise that 'rotation' marshals stronger muscles than the forearm finger muscles or arm weight is erroneous. I had to stop watching there. If you want to test this just get someone to grip your forearm while you attempt to 'rotate'. You'll soon see which is the more powerful.

I can't comment on Taubman but I know that Mortensen made an excellent transcription of Piazzolla's Milonga del Angel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RLZBgLH7H8&feature=related

I agree that the main rotating muscles are in the forearm rather than the upper arm. But as I understand it, the main issue with isolating the fingers is not so much about muscle strength. (Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear him say the muscles controlling the fingers are weak. He did say they tire easily if used in isolation, which is not quite the same thing.)

I don't recall all of Golandsky's explanation at the moment, but the Taubman approach aims to coordinate movements so that muscles are not straining against each other, which causes inefficiency and fatigue.

I also have doubts about that double rotation. This technique need to rotate your entire arm so it takes much more effort than just moving the fingers. And rotating back and forth for just 1 note seems undoable at speed.

I think that you need to use them both, both finger muscles and forearm and wrist motion. And in such a way that they support each other.

chopin- I'm not going to argue Mortensen, because I didn't watch the video and have no need to. I would like to look at your statement about the muscles controlling the fingers being strong/weak. Indeed, they are quite strong. Certainly strong enough to press the keys on the piano, much less hold your own body weight. But, like jdw said, they tire very quickly. A tired muscle cannot fire rapidly, let alone in a coordinated manner sufficient to play the piano with any accuracy. Much like trying to hold yourself on a ledge by just your fingertips, I think you would find if you tried to play an extremely difficult piece using only finger muscles, you will see yourself tire at about the same rate. On a 1/2 inch ledge, most people can hold their body weight by their fingertips for between 45 seconds and 1 min 15 seconds. That certainly won't get you through a challenging ten minute piece.

wouter- Doubles are hard to see, and even harder to feel. What you actually tend to feel is a "collapse" of the hand, and what you hear is an unevenness in the notes. Try this: play a five-note scale in C-major. Thumb on C. Then play your index finger. Your hand should be totally relaxed, your fingers on the keys. Now, play your middle finger. Observe the motion of your finger and hand before you play it. You cannot push it straight down, but actually must "prep" the motion by picking it up ever so slightly. This is the principle behind what Taubman calls a double rotation. (It's so very difficult to explain over the forums.. wish we could sit down at a piano. It's so much easier to understand what I'm trying to say when in person.)

I have every respect for Dorothy Taubman, it's just that it doesn't help her case when her ideas are represented with incorrect, misleading claims as seems to be happening all over the net, much of it promulgated by Golandsky - all this snake oil nonsense.

Not sure I followed you on that one. What do you mean?

Thanks for the introduction to Mortensen. He is indeed clear and useful, even though, as chopin r us pointed out, he doesn't seem to realize that we have muscles in our forearms that pronate and supinate. (I had the same thought while watching the video.)

It seems to me that both Golandsky and Mortensen have a noticeable inelasticity in their hands while demonstrating rotation, sounding rather harsh, yet they don't necessarily play that way in "real life." One would not wish to play with such stiff fingers, and Taubman Approach doesn't advocate such a thing, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, the whole idea is to be fluid and natural, as Mortensen says but doesn't exactly do here.

You may find it worthwhile to check out Sheila Paige's presentation of similar ideas. She only has introductions to her DVDs on YouTube, not complete videos, but you can get a lot out of even that much.

I appreciate Derulux's clear explanation of double rotations.

Elene

I studied this video and several similar ones but still do not understand them. I don't play a huge heap of classical music but when I improvise I use a fair amount of technique of all sorts and I think I would grind to a halt if I began thinking about things like that. I frequently use the direct finger striking which he deplores, because I prefer the clear, detached sound for the rhythms I like, but I don't think it results in harshness or tension as he suggests, or at least it has never done me any harm, physically or musically, that I know of. But I suppose if the principle is undetectable then I might be doing it anyway and not know it. Either way I don't think I shall try to fix what is probably not broken.

I think the point 'It's what all great pianists do whether they were taught it or are even aware they do it.' is worth considering. The answer being 'Well, why not just play like the greats and you too will be doing this hidden thing!' I think that's the way to go. The secrets don't need dredging up.

Ted, if you were "broken," you'd likely know, and yes, if you don't feel broken, you're probably not. My teacher ended up studying Taubman style with Sheila Paige because, due to being taught in an amazingly incorrect manner, he got to the point where he could barely button his shirt, let alone play without severe pain.

That being said, it's possible that you just haven't been playing pieces in which you'd be prone to hurt yourself by playing with isolated fingers. But I think it's more probable that since you use "technique of all sorts" you're naturally using your body at least fairly efficiently and not isolating your fingers in an uncomfortable way. I think most of us probably play with some degree of rotation and other movement of our arms because that contributes to our sounding and feeling musical and not stuck or mechanical.

You may remember that in the early 19th century some teachers (Kalkbrenner was one) affixed rails to the front of the piano and insisted that the student's arms rest there. Let's just say that this idea went away a long time ago and that's a very good thing.

Rotation does not add difficulty; as Mortensen said, actually it is freeing and brings a sense of ease and fluidity. One telling place to experiment with this is the C minor prelude from WTC I. Try playing it with just your isolated fingers, then with rotation and other arm movement, and I think you'll see what I mean.

While double rotation may be hard to perceive in someone's playing, rotation in general is by no means "undetectable." It's quite macroscopic. Look around and I'm sure you'll notice it. It's absolutely fascinating to observe what movements a pianist is making in performance and what muscles are causing them.

However, I am definitely not brilliant enough to watch great pianists and automatically learn how they do what they do by osmosis. The "secrets" need to be pointed out to me and I need to have someone demonstrate and explain how I can do it myself, then sit with me and give feedback. There's no substitute.

And the funniest thing is that the "secrets" are all very simple. You learn this amazingly simple thing... then you spend the next 50 years trying to put it into practice, and you go deeper and deeper.

Elene

I think a little historical perspective is in order:

Matthay, over a hundred years ago, was the first person to write about the curious phenomenon of the hands 'rotating' inwards (pronating, making the knuckles horizontal) just before commencing playing. He saw that in doing so the muscles working against the pull get wound up. What great pianists do, he noticed, is allow that tension to unwind a little into the pinky area whenever playing on that side of the hand was required. Basically he postulated a constant winding/unwinding motion whilst playing. He wrote masses about all this, but the simple thing to notice is that the 'greats' don't just fix their hold in pronation, by second nature, they allow it relax (unwind) to some extent. That's Matthay, Taubman and Golandsky in a nut shell.

edit: and this is what I forgot to add:

I think that's the exact point of the technique. If you already do it, great! Congratulations. Move on. But if you do not, and can't figure out why your playing is not where you would like it to be, here is a scientific approach to diagnosing what technique issues you may have and not even know it. I do stop well short of the "miracle pill" ideology, but there is nothing wrong with quantifying and categorizing, in a scientific approach, what movements create sound, and which movements allow one to play with greater facility and ease.

By the way, if you get a chance, please review my previous question. I would like to discuss it, but wasn't quite clear what you meant.

I don't see what is scientific about it. Mr Mortensen got the anatomy substantially wrong, and yet he's a spokesman?
I was only saying the snake oil salesman approach doesn't wash with me.