Problems with right hand. Maybe video might clarify problem?

I do condone this excellent practice technique, with the caveat that of course, at high speeds you should also be able to trill with no rotation, because at the highest speeds, any rotation at all will inhibit the trill... AFF

This is very true, also for pianists. I always have a pair of elastic bands in my pocket. Whenever I have nothing to do, I work the extensors (for laymen: the muscles that open the hand) with them. Wrap part around the thumb, pull the rest around one finger and stretch the band. Repeat for the other fingers separately. Since one band is not much of a challenge anymore, I use a pair. There is this device called "handmaster" to work the extensors of all fingers simultaneously, but it seems to work the pinky under the wrong angle, so I cannot recommend it. Besides, it breaks easily after 4 to 5 sessions. I guess you are familiar with "Piano Power" by Richard Prokop? Piano playing is all in the extensors, even if you play close to the keys without lifting the fingers actively, so those muscles need special care to avoid "professional" diseases of all kinds... Paul I like the idea of balancing muscle groups, but I'm very skeptical about Prokop. On his site he has some sensible "proofs", but others which are no such no thing and which are logically unsupportable. What exactly is his argument for the extensors? Why would they be more important than the muscles that are used to play? While it's healthy for muscle groups to complement each other, when a pianist plays from contact the extensors that he speaks of simply cannot play a direct role. I'm convinced that it's all about developing the action that gets tested. Lifting a finger challenges the previous finger to stabilise better. I don't think it's the lifting muscles themselves that need training, but a completely different muscular group (that are trained as an indirect result).

And then there is the missing link in the puzzle: rotational freedom. From my experience, although the student may perceive the forearm as "free" and "relaxed", rotational freedom should not be assumed and should be tested with the help of trills for ALL finger combinations with minimal interaction from the fingers. Are you sure it's truly minimal though? Doing the exercise as you describe with flat fingers makes for a complete mess. If I start with curved fingers, looking to rotate automatically triggers a rather considerable amount of the extending finger action- which at the very least stabilises the fingers. However, to go fast I have to feel the fingers actively pushing me back away from the table. It's a very different thing from steadying the arm and tapping the fingers up and down, but is it really "minimal interaction"? I think the fingers have to be quite extraordinarily active for the forearm rotation to get going. For a long time, I was dependent on rotation in a way that produced truly awful results. I do believe in experiments based on tipping the balance around, but I don't think there's any functional product that doesn't depend on considerable finger activity (that goes way beyond mere stabilisation of the fingers to transmit rotation).

Absolutely. The "trilling" fingers lie flat and passive on the table with the proximal joints near the edge but ON the table top. They do not engage in any movement. There is also no need to stabilize, lengthen, etc. anything because the proximal joints are supported by the table and you don't apply pressure down. It's more of a fluttering thing. The other fingers are dangling down somewhere. They are out of focus. Let's take fingers 2-3 of the right hand as an example and work out the exact details. First try pronation only with the index finger (for laymen: counterclockwise movement from the forearm and towards the thumb) 3 times - count 1, 2, 3 (slap, slap, slap). First very slowly, then a little faster. Don't take it to virtuoso speed yet. Remember: no activity at all in the fingers; it's purely rotational. The resting third finger is your point of support for balance. Then try supination with the third finger (for laymen: clockwise movement from the forearm and towards the pinky) 3 times - count 1, 2, 3 (slap, slap, slap). The resting index finger is your point of support for balance. Now alternate between pronation (2nd) and supination (3d). Again: no activity at all in the fingers. Don't force the speed . Something moderate like MM 88-108 maximum (4 movements in the beat) will be fine. If you feel uncomfortable anywhere, stop immediately. If you still have doubts about absence of finger activity in all this: it can even be done when you make a light, unclenched fist, using the proximal joint knuckles as points of contact. You can also rotate the light, unclenched fist in the air, holding your arms either in front of you, or down along your body and imagine you play the Pathetique (tremolos in the first movement). Paul

Absolutely. The "trilling" fingers lie flat and passive on the table with the proximal joints near the edge but ON the table top. They do not engage in any movement. There is also no need to stabilize, lengthen, etc. anything because the proximal joints are supported by the table and you don't apply pressure down. It's more of a fluttering thing. The other fingers are dangling down somewhere. They are out of focus. Let's take fingers 2-3 of the right hand as an example and work out the exact details. First try pronation only with the index finger (for laymen: counterclockwise movement from the forearm and towards the thumb) 3 times - count 1, 2, 3 (slap, slap, slap). First very slowly, then a little faster. Don't take it to virtuoso speed yet. Remember: no activity at all in the fingers; it's purely rotational. The resting third finger is your point of support for balance. Then try supination with the third finger (for laymen: clockwise movement from the forearm and towards the pinky) 3 times - count 1, 2, 3 (slap, slap, slap). The resting index finger is your point of support for balance. Now alternate between pronation (2nd) and supination (3d). Again: no activity at all in the fingers. Don't force the speed . Something moderate like MM 88-108 maximum (4 movements in the beat) will be fine. If you feel uncomfortable anywhere, stop immediately. If you still have doubts about absence of finger activity in all this: it can even be done when you make a light, unclenched fist, using the proximal joint knuckles as points of contact. You can also rotate the light, unclenched fist in the air, holding your arms either in front of you, or down along your body and imagine you play the Pathetique (tremolos in the first movement). Paul I think I see where you're coming from. However, there are key finger activities even in this bare minimum. They certainly can be underdone. When I do the basic rock onto the second, with no activity other than the rotation my finger will give way and slump. I think my work on the extension action has now developed a lot of instincts- but I can perceive a huge difference if I intend to make it minimally about finger action. At the moment of contact, I need a split second of the lengthening activity, followed by enough of it to balance the finger well- or my hand slumps lazily in a way that becomes totally dysfunctional at higher speeds. This isn't fully automatic yet, so I can still get it wrong if I eliminate the willful intent to use that lengthening action to stabilise the finger. If I make it all about the rocking at higher speeds, I get to a point where the knuckles begin to droop and then both fingers will stay on the surface. I'm rocking very fast but the fingers are no longer tapping the table at all- because the fingers are literally doing nothing. I can experiment with tipping the balance, but if I take the idea of stripping finger activity away literally- I am left with nothing but arm movement, behind two collapsed fingers that lie flat on the table. There are tricks that can be used to make the fingers do more, without necessarily making it a conscious focus. However, I think there's a slight danger that these exercises may produce something different for some people- if they make the intention all a bout stripping away finger movement. I think these depend very much on your starter habits. Myself, I do need to quite consciously feel the fingers activating to help rock the forearm back in the opposite direction. If I don't, my fingers will not tap the surface and the effort actually becomes greater. For others, the rocking may potential inspire stiffness in the fingers to counter the collapse- if they do not have a feel for the more efficient use of slight intent to lengthen, as the finger reaches the table. For that, reason, in many ways I do prefer the purer rotation exercises to be done in mid-air. I think it's important to be aware that high speeds will always necessitate a type of finger action. In the past, it was precisely because I sought to "replace" finger movements with rotation, that I struggled with trills and tremolos. When trying to go fast, the attempt to brace the fingers to rock onto actually made me very stiff. Only when I came to appreciate the necessity of at least trying to create some movement from the fingers, was I able to loosen up and create the possibility of imagining that rotation is doing it all.

Also, I noticed a very interesting thing just now. My right hand can go fast- both rocking and giving the table a good tap on each finger. However, my left is truly useless at it- even with 2 and 3! The results have been truly awful, so far! Definitely an exercise that I'll have to work out. However, the thing that stands out is that I can easily rock both hands as fast in mid-air. There's no sign of any difference in my rocking abilities. However, come to a table and I can perceive how my finger actions are hopelessly mistimed by the left hand. It is the failure to get the fingers in sync with the rocking (which permits the knuckle collapse upon contact) that is making it slow down. I like this exercise very much, but I don't like the idea of necessarily looking at it as an exercise that is supposed to strip away finger actions. I think, objectively speaking, it must almost certainly involve a very precise coordination between the timing of lengthening actions of the fingers and forearm rocking. Different people may benefit from more subjective way of perceiving, but I wouldn't use the idea of trying to minimise finger action as a one size fits all one explanation. My left hand is falling well short in terms of getting the finger aspect right. This is the thing I don't like about Taubman. Many of their videos show either very stiff fingers for rotation, or totally inert ones. Recently, I've been finding rotation extremely useful in a totally different way- by rocking the finger to the key but striving for an exceedingly active lengthening movement of the finger. In this version, it's more a sense of the finger creating the key movement, but with a little bit of a head-start to it. I find this far more functional and productive than rotation as a supposed "replacement". I'm using it as the absolute opposite- as something of a reminder to the finger to do its job of activating (not with stiffness, but with intent to lengthen slightly).

Actually, I intended the exercise as a POSITIVE focus (an ATM in a sense) on a weak (underdeveloped) part of the player's mechanism. Especially the supination aspect tends to be a problem in students. As soon as you get it, it's like swimming or riding a bike: you never unlearn it. As the fingers take over at higher speeds during real playing on the instrument, you are able to do more what you intend than you could before you learned the coordination. Apart from the word "forearm rotation", it has NOTHING to do with Taubman's methodology whatsoever. I am surprised to read that you experience "collapse" in doing the exercise since the fingers lie flat and straight on the table. Keeping them straight is the maximum of activity you need, which is close to none; the rest is pure forearm rotation. You may be using too much force coming down. P.S.: Did you know that you can actually play superfast octaves with pronation? I've seen this in Artur Rubinstein, in Cyprien Katsaris and in Wibi Soerjadi (there is a clip in Dutch on YouTube where Wibi explains his "floating hand" technique and demonstrates to the audience how he plays fast octaves and chords; I'll see if I can find it). Of course, there is the finger activity aspect you write about in your articles, but digging a tunnel from both sides can be useful at times... Paul

I'm sorry. I missed that question yesterday. I'll reply to it now. This reply is not to be taken as my advertising the book or any of Prokop's views or methods. This is just another physical element to be dealt with. The principle is universal for sports and injury prevention in general, actually, but Prokop's statement applying to piano playing in particular goes as follows: "The up-down-up motions that constitute the "firing" of the individual fingers are actuated by muscle groups of varying strength. the more powerful movements of the hand. Therefore, the weaker muscles must be strengthened." The flexors are overused in life as it is, but as a rule, the extensors don't get enough attention. This is one of the reasons for the development of RSI, etc... Throughout his book, Prokop gives clear examples of how to test for weaknesses. He also shows what motions, positions and angles tend to cause problems in certain hand types/sizes with untrained extensors. I tested his observations with students, and they are pretty accurate. Paul

Actually, I intended the exercise as a POSITIVE focus (an ATM in a sense) on a weak (underdeveloped) part of the player's mechanism. Especially the supination aspect tends to be a problem in students. As soon as you get it, it's like swimming or riding a bike: you never unlearn it. As the fingers take over at higher speeds during real playing on the instrument, you are able to do more what you intend than you could before you learned the coordination. Apart from the word "forearm rotation", it has NOTHING to do with Taubman's methodology whatsoever. I am surprised to read that you experience "collapse" in doing the exercise since the fingers lie flat and straight on the table. Keeping them straight is the maximum of activity you need, which is close to none; the rest is pure forearm rotation. You may be using too much force coming down. P.S.: Did you know that you can actually play superfast octaves with pronation? I've seen this in Artur Rubinstein, in Cyprien Katsaris and in Wibi Soerjadi (there is a clip in Dutch on YouTube where Wibi explains his "floating hand" technique and demonstrates to the audience how he plays fast octaves and chords; I'll see if I can find it). Of course, there is the finger activity aspect you write about in your articles, but digging a tunnel from both sides can be useful at times... Paul Sorry, I have to admit that I missed the flat bit. However, I do get much the same effect. lf I intend no finger action, my fingers get stuck down and don't rock onto the table. I need to at least feel a slight lift- even when keeping pressure low.I found it impossible to go truly fast here (as I can when curved fingers coordinate to help instigate the rotation- which suggests to me that the role of the fingers is the key). Digging a tunnel from both sides is very much where I'm coming from on this.my personal feeling, however is that rotation is minimally meaningful outside of the context th of the fingers role.I'd worked at it on many occasions but achieved limited improvement due to the absence of that mix. For that reason, I believe in shifting the balance, but rarely as far as to pretend rotation supplants the fingers- even in an exercise.my feeling is that rotation is pretty easy for the arm to learn. The difficult part is combining it with the fingers in the specific way that retains the useful freedoms, when you necessarily go on to reduce it. I think this demands that most rotation work be aimed at integration- rather than imagination that it can replace the fingers' role in any literal capacity. Regarding octaves, I've found it useful to rock towards either thumb or fifth- as long as I'm getting a quality extension action in both fingers, that virtually eliminates the chance of the hand to literally end up slanting. in the past, rocking was disastrous for me- perpetuating laziness of the hand. By feeling how the fingers actively cancel most of it out, it has become something very different.

I'm sorry. I missed that question yesterday. I'll reply to it now. This reply is not to be taken as my advertising the book or any of Prokop's views or methods. This is just another physical element to be dealt with. The principle is universal for sports and injury prevention in general, actually, but Prokop's statement applying to piano playing in particular goes as follows: "The up-down-up motions that constitute the "firing" of the individual fingers are actuated by muscle groups of varying strength. the more powerful movements of the hand. Therefore, the weaker muscles must be strengthened." The flexors are overused in life as it is, but as a rule, the extensors don't get enough attention. This is one of the reasons for the development of RSI, etc... Throughout his book, Prokop gives clear examples of how to test for weaknesses. He also shows what motions, positions and angles tend to cause problems in certain hand types/sizes with untrained extensors. I tested his observations with students, and they are pretty accurate. Paul I'm quite interested to have a look, but the price does put me off. I looked back at his website and recall what was so off putting about his excerpt. Firstly he doesn't understand the terms he uses regarding proof. Putting two and two together and observing four is not a "proof". We all know that it could be proven, but seeing one instance in practise and proof are radically different. Other things may seem as consistently predictable yet occasionally yield a different and unexpected result- which is why true scientists distinguish between mere observation of a result and an actual proof that no other result is possible. He falls foul of this in a way that has consequences, when he says that he lifts his fingers for a given passage, therefore the fingers should not play from the keys. I can do the arpeggio just fine without any lifting. It's most offputting to see such personal issues portrayed as if a mathematical proof- based on the most casual and ill researched use of technical language. Following on from that, I get the idea of balancing different muscle groups. But does he only portray it that way, or does he seriously think power is directly from the extensors? Does he claim that lifting the fingers as a run-up should always occur? If not, how are the extensors supposed to provide power? All round training is healthy, but I don't see any reason why it would directly aid the actual power of completely different actions. A weightlifter would wish to train biceps and triceps,but developing them in tandem is just more balanced. Strong triceps don't aid the power behind bicep curls. I have a strong suspicion that he has found things that work in practise, but has put 2 and 2 together and got 5,when it comes to his attempts to to explain why. EDIT- I just read that apparently he has also worked as a professor of mathematics- but I remain no less baffled by the claim that seeing two apples plus two apples making four can be regarded as an acceptable "proof". Even if you have observed a result a few hundred times, it does not prove it will always be so. Although it happens in mathematics that results do not change, if we take the same flimsy requirements for supposed proof in other less concrete areas, taking casual observation of a result to be a "proof" will inevitably lead to gross mistakes being made (which is exactly what Prokop does when he says you must lift your fingers to articulate a simple arpeggio).