Hanon's tremolo

Fair enough, Paul, all points well-taken... But my intuition says, "Back to basics..."

I trust topic. Paul

I thought about this awhile and came to the conclusion that what you say is true if the axis of rotation remains parallel with the upper arm. In the motion I am referring to this is specifically NOT the case - the axis of rotation is the ray between the shoulder joint and a point near the wrist. For the sake of example, I am going to say the point is exactly midway between the wrist joint and the knuckle of the middle finger (Since this is certainly very close). I know from reading your blog you know plenty about physics and geometry, so consider that the circumferential displacement is the product of the angular displacement and the radius of rotation. Since the fingers that actually contact the keys are very close to this point (Compared to the elbow) rotation about this axis does not cause them to move so far that they no longer reach the intended keys. Look carefully at the Richter video - his elbow flails around in exactly the way you describe, but his fingers stays on their keys. I take your point, but I'm not fully convinced. It doesn't strike me as enough movement to suggest that the upper arm is truly the source, unless it's very close to straight. If you were to play near the top of the keyboard, the angle of the elbow would make it quite impossible. There's a very small range of positions in which it could cause the wrist to turn in the useful path. Ultimately, I'd just say that the upper part should be free to respond, regardless of what the primary mover is. However, I don't perceive any difference in a basic rotation action if my elbow touches my side and stops the upper arm moving (except in a more subtle response). For me, that says upper arm is a passive response (including in the Richter film) rather than a transmitter to hands movement. Ultimately there's little likely visual difference if the upper arm is a passive response, so movement is never direct evidence in itself that the upper arm might be the power source. All we know is that it definitely isn't immobilised. Beyond that, regardless of how the acticity occurs, passive fingers move very limply and braced fingers cause a blockage. There's no way of doing it with (EDIT - I meant without) finger action differentiating the fingers out from the hand. Rotation can only help throw them into movement, it can never do the whole job for a finger that generates no movement of its own. I couldn't speak for my mindset at the time with certainty. However it's an interesting example as it shows poor movement that I'm currently correcting. The rotation (which was probably conceived as a forearm action with a freely responsive upper arm) squashes the hand into what I call negative movement. Finger and thumb are being pushed back up towards the height of the palm (which falls down) and being burdened by the arm action. They are not doing positive movement to expand out and away from it - which is the only way to transmit energy with effortless efficiency. Rotation is only good if it helps throw you into length. When it squashes you, it creates extra tension. My recent discovery in the thread about adapted reinterpretation of arm weight relates to this. When rotating, the arm must have already switched direction- so instead of squashing the finger down, the finger can fly free away from the palm, while the arm is already moving in the opposite direction. I've been doing slow practise that involves exaggated rotation that throws finger and thumb out into length, so they don't get squashed as in that film. However, this is to train the fingers to lengthen out so they can do then their job without big rotation (which is impossible at high speeds). If they don't learn to do movement movement their own within more subtle rotation, rotation will simply squash them as in that film and make the lazier at generating useful movement.

Actually, , it was me who gave Andrew's movement. I'll try to explain why. 1) When I read 's post, I suddenly got a vision of typical Asian hands and fingers: not just a little collapse here and there, but major collapse - very weak hand bridge and buckling "knees". Andrew's movement prevents any collapse whatsoever anywhere; 2) This movement uses both interosseous and lumbrical muscles with maximum independence for the fingers. No conflicts caused by undue tension in opposing muscle groups; 3) This movement gives great sensitivity to differences in key resistance/weight; 4) I also gave instructions about doing this movement gently, softly and slowly in the hope the poster would get rid of his/her "strike-the-key-as-hard-as-you-can-and-then-relax" approach, which I think is the cause of suffering in this particular case. P.S.: Of course, you always hope that the advice helps and that posters spread the good news about how qualified the help is you get on this Internet resource, etc. General talk about function and structure didn't seem like the right thing to do at that time. Intuition. Paul agreed, for me the outwards lengthening has proved the most consistently effective key to the basic idea of standing up (in association with awareness of how to point the thumb down, to open the hand). Yesterday I saw the typical thing of a young girl who simply cannot avoiding collapsing her joints if she only pulls back from the knuckle, as in the more conventional and normal human gripping action. When I showed her how to slide out forwards and then imagine that the action is almost on the verge of doing so (rather than conceived as a pull back towards the body) the collapse vanished at once. She could stand properly without any instability. My last blog post is all about this means of eradicating collapsing fingers and I haven't yet found a student where it failed to get them into a stable posture. I do still use grasping exercises too, but I find that many hands cannot use this as the standard action- because they cannot avoid collapse when performing it. This creates too much instability and unpredictability for a simple quality of movement.

Thank you Andrew for that clarification - very valuable! AFF

Thank you Andrew for that clarification - very valuable! AFF Sure, I'm finding that appreciation of the difference between creating length between knuckle and fingertip and allowing that space to get closed is a common link in just about every aspect of technique. For me, all rotation practise should be done with an awareness of this element. It seems to me that Taubman method emphasises banging the arm down through the finger- rather than using rotation to unleash true finger movement through the key, without the arm putting pressure down on top of it. When rotation stop being about moving a still finger in space, but instead starts being merely the first step of whipping a finger out into length, it stops being something that encourages inactivity and instead starts to serve as an active contributor to the necessary opening action. The analogy of whipping is often stated, but I didn't fully get what it really means- until I stopped to rationalise that the only effective way to crack a whip properly is to stop moving the hand first, so the whip can really fly out. Likewise, good use of rotation has to already have started going back in the opposite direction, so the finger can fly out on a combination of the existing momentum plus hand activation. Miss this key element and all rotation practise is nothing more than practise at squashing a straining hand. Although I'm still skeptical of the idea of the upper arm as a literal energy source, I did find it helped a lot of things just now, to experiment with it. I realised that it can be done at the extreme of the piano (contrary to my last post) but again you need a lengthened arm. When I did it in the one in the Liszt, unless I leaned back and straightened my elbow it required a huge amplitude of elbow flapping that produced relatively little speed in return. It felt very unwieldy. However, when I went back to my normal movement (after both the big elbow flapping and practise with a straight arm) something was freer and there was more sense of the arm being unified all the way from finger to shoulder. It's helped with my long term problem of keeping the wrist in a simple long line, rather than bunched up. I'm still not convinced that it was literally present when I went back to normal playing (with slight forearm rotation but mostly finger action) but I think the experience of doing it frees up potential blockage in places which can easily end up sticking. It's possible that a subtle amount of remaining movement helps out, but I don't think it could ever be the primary source so much as a small addition to other elements. Anyway, I do like the idea of using the whole arm rotation as a learning exercise however, so thanks to the poster for bringing in the suggestion. I don't think I'd actively explored that particular motion before during playing- which has probably something to tighten a little more than desirable. It makes sense to start with freeing the whole arm, then turn from the forearm and then learn to move the fingers from the freedoms that evolve.

I think some of the discussion above overcomplicates what is basically a very simple problem. That exercise is a marathon. Even with the most economical technique it needs muscular stamina. Just as you would not train for a marathon run by going out and running a whole one every day, this exercise should not be practiced in its entirity right from the start (unless you are playing through the whole thing very slowly). Start with short sections, and as you develop ease and fluency, gradually join them into larger ones. Let the stamina in your forearms build gradually over weeks or months, until you can play the whole exercise. Then speed it up if necessary. Eventually you will get to a level where the fatigue only begins to tell somewhere on the final page. And even though it is a technical exercise, try to make it sound like a piece of music too.

I think some of the discussion above overcomplicates what is basically a very simple problem. That exercise is a marathon. Even with the most economical technique it needs muscular stamina. Just as you would not train for a marathon run by going out and running a whole one every day, this exercise should not be practiced in its entirity right from the start (unless you are playing through the whole thing very slowly). Start with short sections, and as you develop ease and fluency, gradually join them into larger ones. Let the stamina in your forearms build gradually over weeks or months, until you can play the whole exercise. Then speed it up if necessary. Eventually you will get to a level where the fatigue only begins to tell somewhere on the final page. And even though it is a technical exercise, try to make it sound like a piece of music too. There's a real limit to the marathon analogy. Up to a point, jogging is largely about stamina- not technique. At least, it's nowhere near as easy to get things comprehensively wrong, in jogging. With improper technique, pacing methods may lead to a plateau long before you can do it without effort. Also, given that it's purely a mechanical etude rather than a piece of music that would be suitable for performance, completing this marathon would only really be an achievement for its own sake. Musical tremolos are generally about running shorter distances with style- not having the grit to survive a marathon. The real purpose of studying this is not to build stamina but acquire effortless control over tremolos, that can be applied to musical compositions- where they rarely demand stamina but merely fine precision and control. There's more value in playing just a few bars superbly than doing the whole thing without stopping imperfectly- whether you're tired at that point or not. With that in mind, even if the pacing method were guaranteed to result in enough stamina to play without tiredness (which it really isn't, if you don't get the most basic quality of movement right for every individual unit) you couldn't get fine control over the sound without coming back to what quality of movement makes for fine control. Playing the whole thing is really just a check for consistently good form- not something that comes from stamina. If you get tired it usually shows poor technical form. For me, pacing issues really go without saying, if you're tackling an etude like this one. But the bulk of the important work lies on getting the most basic movement right- by using mild rotation to keep freedom but by always generating more movement still from the fingers. With things like pacing approaches, I remained at a unsurpassable wall for years until I went back and addressed the fundamental way in which I was moving the keys. There's a real danger that pacing approaches can even perpetuate errors- as they offer false hope that doing things wrong (without specific remedial work) will automatically lead to doing larger chunks right, as long as you stop when you're tired and only add a little at a time. The approach didn't help me one bit, without attention to technique. I've since completely transformed what is possible in tremolos- whether I'm practising them specifically or not.

Here's a rather impressive performance of a piano duet created by Itō Yasuhide based on that exercise. (sheet music only available in Japan). For this occasion, the transciber/arranger himself plays the accompaniment with those tremolos. Enjoy: Paul

It's interesting to hear it- but I can't say I'd be tempted to upload it onto my ipod for a second listen. Obviously it makes sense to look for as much music as possible in the etude, but I don't think it inherently contains enough for desire to learn it in full to be fuelled by sincere musical reasons. It would be looking for interest where you can find it, as part of a primarily endurance based challenge- which strikes me as an inherently flawed goal. In that respect, I think you're far safer to virtually forget the idea of running the marathon in one and work at quality in small segments with consideration of nothing but inherent quality- rather to try to force stamina to build. The ability to stitch it all together in one go will just arise of it's own accord when you have good general tremolo technique- not simply from spending enough time doing training bursts that are organised to get progressively longer. I'd have the plan to start doing more IF the quality of technique makes it feasible to do so- not have any intention of working according to a schedule on which endurance is expected to be getting you to a certain point by a certain time. Wishful thinking easily comes in when you haven't actually nailed the technique, when you start pacing goals- leading to a desire to press on when things just aren't right yet. If it's really right at the core, it just won't feel like you're pushing yourself to get things together.