Taubman ideas

Isn't that the one split between both hands? There's another later, only in the right hand. However, virtually every pianist uses a cheat based on only playing single notes for most of it. Yes, you're right. After looking at the score, I see that the passage is indeed split between both hands. At 4:57, the thirds in the right hand occur, which he plays quite easily, even if some cheating is involved. Schonberg described Horowitz's thirds in the Brahms 2 as having a "nonchalant flourish". When you talk about cheating, do you mean that the pianist redistributes most of the right hand notes for the left hand? I don't have the ear to zone in and say anything for definite. However, I think there's a standard cheat that involves only playing two of the thirds with single notes in between. To actually execute it as written at a half decent speed is probably about as close to literally impossible as anything ever written.

You're saying that the cheating involves dropping some notes, as opposed to restributing them? In other words, for every three sets of double notes, the pianist plays the first two sets as written, but then only plays a single note instead of playing the third set of double notes. Do you think that the ascending D major double thirds are even harder to execute than Lhevinne's rendition of the "Double Thirds" Etude? Maybe Schonberg wasn't thinking of the potential cheating when he praised the "nonchalant flourish" of Horowitz's double thirds in the Brahms.

It's not even that many. I think there's a rather standard cheat (suggested by the editor in one edition, I believe) that contains just two thirds per octave plus single notes- if I remember rightly. I can't honestly tell how many notes Horowitz plays, but I'd be very surprised if he didn't leave out at least some of those.

Knowing Horowitz's philosophy about aiming for maximum result with minimum effort, I would think that he probably would drop some of the notes- especially if the dropped notes are imperceptible, allowing you to the create the desired musical effect without having to play all of the notes. Horowitz talked about how he sometimes drops a few notes during long octave passages and plays single notes at times, but the listener wouldn't be able to notice the dropped notes. According to this website , many pianists drop the left hand accompaniment entirely and just play the thirds as scales in both hands. I wonder Horowitz used that approach.

Maybe he did that on purpose! AFF

Would a pianist play unevenly on purpose? What I was referring to wasn't merely variety in sound, but the sense of certain notes not sounding as clearly as others.

Might I suggest Chapter Five of Josef and Madame Lhevinne's "Basic Principles in Pianoforte Playing" Jim

Seems like we really moved away from the topic on rotation and method. If we don't rotate, then what is left? I don't get it. It seems to me to be a matter of rotation and arm and body movement. You can't just play with the hand doing all the work. There is the matter swiveling to take care of the matter of the thumb, but I try to keep any swivel to a minimum. rotate and move the arm instead. Maybe that's wrong? to play fast, the movements must be small; thus the rotations may be hardly perceived. I am skeptical about rotating on every note or the arm many times a second, unless it is a very small movement. So small you don't even notice. I heard something the other day about playing at speed. I think the fellow was paraphrasing Tatum--to play fast, you have to hear fast. you can only play as fast as you hear. the faster you hear, the faster you play. Maybe it comes down to something like that and doing things that feel right? Until a few years ago, I thought all playing had to keep the arch and for most playing I do that. But watch Horowitz. Sometimes, he has the arch, then he'll go flat-finger--and I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing. But what ever he was doing felt right, got him what he wanted. Can we all agree that rotation with arm movement works, whereas (horror) swiveling does not? And from my watching Horowitz and other Russian school pianists it seems that using arch with rotation or flat-finger with rotation is okay, as long as the proper skeletal alignment is used for that particular movement. On books, I've read the Fink book and have the DVD. I thought he and Alan seemed to be for the most part on the same page, or am I wrong here? Alan, please correct me. I like Alan's explanations better and put together with Fink, I've been helped--to both get better technique and to avoid and overcome injury. Am I the only one who thinks Fink is okay? I also thought I was understanding what the Taub. method was trying to say--but muddled it up a bit. --oh well, maybe it's just these things help me as an injured pianist with laxity? Bob T f they helped me. What is the problem with Fink's method? Bob T

Can we all agree that rotation with arm movement works, whereas (horror) swiveling does not? Well, I'd agree that rotation work, up to a point. I just don't understand why some obsess over it, or why it's necessary to believe that it must play a role even in extremely fast scales. The Taubman method has a lot of circular logic. I regard rotation largely as a way of freeing things up in practise- not as something that is required on every note in a final product.

When we met, Seymour Fink and I discussed our respective works and concluded that between the two of us we had all the bases covered. Now I would have to rescind that because I have been discovering more pieces of the puzzle, but I have nothing against Seymour's work: I admire it highly. Without rotation you still have the basic lever movement of the finger which is almost everything! You can't make a blanket statement about anything in piano technique: for instance, swiveling is often good and useful. It all depends on context. Welcome back, Bob, will I see you in Salt Lake City? All best, AFF