You’re right I might be underestimating the angle! Also in terms of what Shawn was (probably) doing. Troy has developed the hypothesis that more “vertical” wrist motions may be slightly faster (e.g. “steep” versions of DT and RDT). Those 250bpm vids he made back then are indeed with a pretty vertical (=closer to 12-6) motion.
1 Like
I’ve been wondering if the more vertical DT and RDT paths (like the diagonals of “x” vs. those of “×”) having greater efficiency is because those paths more naturally conform to the paths described by the antagonist groups.
This might get lost completely, but if we imagine the forearm bones as
“○○”
in the clock reference position, we can see that
“○x○”
fits together more compactly than
“○×○”
meaning that the more vertical diagonal paths would allow for less obstruction by the forearm bones. It would also explain why the horizontal 9 to 3 feels so much more awkward for most people than the totally vertical 12 to 6. Range of motion for 9 to 3 is naturally more impeded by the positions of the forearm bones.
In producing the horizontal path, more of the muscular exertion of each muscle in each group (ulnar vs radial) is spent cancelling the vertical force component applied by the other muscle in the same group than in producing the horizontal force component. In producing the fully vertical path, more of the muscular exertion of each muscle in both groups (flexor vs extensor) is spent producing the vertical force component than cancelling the horizontal force component of the muscle in the same group.
Obviously this is just a hypothesis, but it seems reasonable and consistent with observation to me.
EDIT: Another plausible explanation why the pure horizontal is more strenuous for most than the pure vertical is that the pure horizontal requires that extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU), which is the weakest of the carpi group, to pull against flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU), which is the strongest. Meaning there are greater imbalances in the muscled paired in 9 to 3 than in 12 to 6.
4 Likes
I appreciate the time describing all of that.
In the interest of having the right vocabulary to describe what I’m doing - I’ll just point out that in the Crosspicking with the Wrist video at 46 minutes in - Troy seems to be describing 1003 as Dart Thrower movement and talking about Grier and Tuttle as having Dart Thrower movement, then clock facing it as 1003 and saying the downstroke is pure deviation.
As a side note - I notice watching around 38:30 in that video, Grier looks like he has a very small amount of extension on the downstroke and is less pronated than Tuttle, Which seems like is closer to 1004 if I’m seeing what I think I’m seeing.
EDIT: Also, when I talk about my primary motion relative to this, 903 (I think) would be the wrist deviation only version of this that might count as primary - the upstroke escape is an added motion. When I’m going at the speeds above, I’m incorporating some economy on outside descending string changes because it’s trapped on upstrokes.
1 Like
Yeah I think we are saying the same thing 
Essentially only half of the pronated “1003” motion is dart thrower (the upstroke). The other half is closer to pure deviation.
“Dart thrower all the way” would be more like 1004 or even steeper like 11-5, like Tom Gilroy pointed out
Ha. Sometimes my density amazes even myself. That’s so obvious when you say it like that, but whenever I hear “Dart Thrower” I always think of a move where the wrist is pushing downward (like the part of the movement that actually launches the dart). I don’t think I can do a pure DT motion. But the DBX form that Troy says I can do the best is the Tuttle/Grier. So I guess I can do that “half” of a DT motion It’s also possible that I’m not thinking vertically enough when I try the pure DT.
These curved movements are a little tricky because they are either “half” DSX (i.e. RDT) or “half” USX (i.e. DT). It’s an important distinction because I think so much of the frustration we’ve seen in people trying to do DBX motions stems from them actually trying to make the movement curve. It sort of takes care of itself when you do it correctly.
Well it’s words that are helpful to conceptualise after the fact. But your recent progress demonstrates that you understood perfectly well how to implement these things in practice
Don’t worry, as soon as a clock face or throwing darts is mentioned, my brain implodes
1 Like
Well that’s the funny thing, the clock face makes total sense to me. I’ve seen others get confused with it, not understanding that the clock rotates with the player’s wrist.
I think where I get tripped up is identifying actual playing visual cues (in others and my own). In my own playing, even translating what I think I am seeing and associating it with what muscles/joints to activate.
I could be wrong, but I think a lot of these clockface observations Troy’s made are just that - observations. The subtleties of things like DBX or even helper motions aren’t necessarily things we need to try doing and matching up with the clock, just what to look for and how it all works.
3 Likes
I’ve no doubt that it makes perfect sense, I’m just woeful with that sort of visualisation for some reason!
This is correct. You just go fast. There is no sense of “doing” a curved motion. And I don’t think you can learn this by attempting to do a curve.
Yes, some people try to go fast and end up with what looks like trapped motion. Or they go fast and only get single escape. I’ve seen this recently in platform TC, where an individual sent us a clip of trying to play the “Glass Prison” which they said was sloppy. However on closer examination it wasn’t sloppy, per se. It was just a DSX motion being used to play a mixed escape phrase. This is an important distinction, if only psychologically. The player was frustrated, so it was enlightening to see that they were not really “failing” to play cleanly. They were actually succeeding at doing a thing well, just not the thing they intended.
So, obviously, there is cognitive step that you take to create the desired motion. However it’s not likely an attempt to “be curved”. It’s more likely about assuming a general posture, then trying in a very general sense to make the hand go back and forth in a picking motion that does not feel like it goes down or up relative to the strings. This, along with tactile feedback from unwanted string contact, probably produces the correct motion with enough trial and error. And I suspect it can happen quickly with specific instructions to do precisely what I am describing here, since it narrows the possible solutions dramatically.
Once again, disclaimer, broken record, “arpeggios” is too specific a thing to practice to learn this. You can learn to do something like play a roll pattern and still be useless on scale phrases, pentatonic lines, and mixed lines like jazz phrases and bluegrass melodies. A roll pattern is simply six repeating movements in a fixed location, which doesn’t come close to representing the variety you would need to actually play a song that moves across the strings in arbitrary ways. To fully generalize the technique, you need to learn a wide array of picking patterns, including stock rock phrases that you might discount because they can also be done with single escape motion. End broken record disclaimer!
5 Likes
This makes sense - when I started learning DBX mainly for use with ONPS runs, I still went out of my way to play everything in my normal repertoire and new songs I was learning with the new motion. I feel like the CPE Bach Solfegietto can be used as a nice etude that covers a lot of different picking patterns and I still play it every day, including trying it with this more recent picking form.
That’s fine picking! Boy, do I have a long way to go… 
1 Like