ALERT: Chang's "Fundamentals of Piano Practice"is a MUST for all pianists

[baadshah]

I know Mr Chang's book has come up before on the forum, is well-known to many of you, and is frequently referred to in posts, but just in case some of you (like me until last week) are still unaware of its existence, then it is a MUST read.

You may agree with everything in it, some of it or even very little of it, (im not sure whether i fit into the first or second category yet!), but I believe it is of use to all, particularly those without a teacher trying to get by by themselves.

The best news of all is that the second edition is available to download FREE :

https://members.aol.com/cc88m/PianoBook.html

I know that this has been around for ten years or so and is hardly "breaking news", but im sure that not all forum users are familiar with it, so this post is particularly aimed at them!

Im also interested in your opinions about the book - its strengths and weaknesses, and if/how it has revolutionised your playing.

[da jake]

I wrote a much better piano book... It consists of the following:

If you don't have a good teacher, you'll never get to play any advanced pieces properly

End of..

[baadshah]

Mr Da Jake,
 maybe thats a bit extreme, dont you think?!!
The closest thing i had to a good teacher before reading this book was a man who would slam the lid on my fingers. i usually managed to avoid the lid, but the conductors baton he would rap pupils' fingers with was more of a challenge!!

A GOOD teacher would be the ideal, but finding one, let alone having the cash available to pay their deservedly high fees is another matter!

[chopintod]

I think da jake's right, as far as playing previously published pieces goes.  Of course, you can teach yourself and make up your own stuff fine.  But a good teacher is pretty much a must for advanced stuff.

Terry

[palika dunno]

I totally disagree. I HATE this *** book and I hope as little people as possible use his methods. Read Leimer/Gieseking and Neuhaus.

Regards
Palika 

[baadshah]

thanks for the recommendation alamdv!!
 im also interested in other books too! is the approach taken by gieseking and/or neuhaus completely opposed to chang? and how much do these two pianists have in common with each other? what do you hate so much about Chang?

coincidentally I ordered the gieseking book on amazon last week - but havent got it yet. Can anyone else recommend the Neuhaus book?

im a lapsed pianist just starting up after a break. I can play reasonably 4 or 5 chopin etudes, some difficult fugues etc.
Can anyone else recommend any other suitable books?

getting a teacher is just not a possibility - apart from being limited from a financial point of view, i live between several places so couldnt attend lessons with any regularity,  and i am frequently obliged to stop playing for weeks and months at a time. In spite of being bound by these considerable constraints, i have in the past succeeded in making significant progress, and am looking for ways of optimising my efforts to yield the best results.

[palika dunno]

well chang says: talent is not important, only the right practising method. I dont know exactly what he wrote but doesnt he even say that everyone can become a concert pianist when s/he uses his methods  well, then I wonder why there are so little great pianists in comparison with people who play the piano.
he often writes: technique and music cant be learnt seperately. BUT: he gives you a plan for learning a bach invention (quite ridiculous cause he says something like "a person with an iq of 100 will be able to learn this piece in xxx hours"..."learn bar x up to y in  z minutes...etc.") and after that he says "after about one week you have learned the technique, now you can practise the music" so basicly he says "first the technique, then the music" which is absolutely wrong and the baddest thing one can do.
or such things like "repeat this bar up to 10000 times to learn the technique 
etc. etc. etc.
i dont know why it is so difficult to unterstand that the only real "method" for gaining technique is: to know as exactly as possible what you WANT, to PLAY as exactly as possible what you want, an CONTROL (with you ear!) if you play what you want. and this is basicly what leimer/gieseking and neuhaus tell you. leimer even says that his pupils dont play etudes and exercise at all but gieseking had an incredible technique (although his music is boring)! well, i suggest you to buy "Rational principles of piano technique" by alfred cortot and work at least through the first chapter. IMO this is the best to do for developping technique.
follow my advice ...if you want 

regards
palika 

[leahcim]

well chang says: talent is not important, only the right practising method. I dont know exactly what he wrote but doesnt he even say that everyone can become a concert pianist when s/he uses his methods  well, then I wonder why there are so little great pianists in comparison with people who play the piano.

Mebbe because they don't follow his method?

To me the book contains lots of potentially contentious material and claims, but there is no perfect book and it's not like a mathematical proof, if you can show that the 1000x claim isn't true, it doesn't make the rest of the book false.

Although it's interesting that a lot are drawn to that section.

The practise stuff, to me, seems worth trying - unless you don't need it, but then you probably wouldn't be looking for books to tell you how to practise - and is advocated by others - plus, to address the "Get a teacher" comment earlier in the thread - that's true too, but practise is, in general, not something you do instead of having a teacher - and it's often one area where a student is left to their devices to a greater or lesser extent.

It's pretty much a truism to say that to get better you need to practise - some might expand on that and say practise well, some might even go into a bit of detail - he's advocating and describing a set of pragmatic things to do that equal "practise" - that can't be bad - some are giving no more advice than the taxi cab driver in the Carnegie Hall joke.

Similary, to your method at the end of your post - it isn't one - I can't follow it, other than buying the books - I could say in one or two lines all you need to do to learn to program a computer - "all you need to do is know as exactly as you can what software you want  and then write software. Use your senses to see when you've done it" Voila, we'll put MS out of business and all buy bosendorfers and ferraris. Perhaps some would take that line and figure out the rest and hail me as a genius teacher [written citations on used ten pound notes preferred, to po box 75... ] - but usually those one-liners need breaking down into some practical steps - at least for most people - and of course a teacher.

[rlefebvr]

" so basically he says "first the technique, then the music" which is absolutely wrong and the baddest thing one can do"

I would have to disagree with you here. You can't play music without good technique. I don't care what anybody says.

The danger is falling into a trap where technique is all you care about and never make the move to learn music. This happens because in the end it is so much easier to just read the little dots on the page then it is to figure out why that little dot is there in the first place.

If you practice hard, I believe within two years you have enough base to learn music and start really enjoying the experience.

Now of course the best is to start learning both at the same time and a good teacher will do that for you, but without a doubt the first few years he will be stressing the technical requirement as he should.

You critic of Chang is not really wrong, but short sided as he teaches the shortest way to get from point a to b.
It is not meant to be the "Bible" of piano and music learning. There is no such book.

[BoliverAllmon]

your signature is awesome.

boliver

[timothy42b]

so basicly he says "first the technique, then the music" which is absolutely wrong and the baddest thing one can do.

palika 

That's not what he says.  He is quite clear.  He is trying to make practice efficient, so that you can reduce time spent on technique to 10% or less, and then you have 90% or more time to spend on musicality.  You have misquoted him. 

Do his methods work?  Obviously he is correct that there are methods of practice that are far more efficient than others, and that most people use the inefficient ones.  You still won't make it to concert soloist standard in six weeks, but you'll be farther along in those six weeks than you might have been otherwise.

If you don't like the hyperbole, there are other authors that give much the same advice in a different style.  Most aren't free, though.

[palika dunno]

"all you need to do is know as exactly as you can what software you want  and then write software. Use your senses to see when you've done it"

  I dont know how to write software.
but everyone knows how to move his/her fingers. or dont you? 

palika

[leahcim]

I dont know how to write software.
but everyone knows how to move his/her fingers. or dont you? 

That's a funny comment - although a lot of people wouldn't consider learning to draw because they can't draw very well, so it's not entirely unexpected

I can't play the piano now, whether I can move my fingers or not, I have to learn, just like you'd have to learn how to program. I gave you a method as good as you gave for piano

[Although, just about every book I've read has been talking about how it's not about moving fingers as such, and to use your arm weight blah blah blah - if anything it seems to be about learning not to move them more than necessary, which you might have thought would be difficult since everyone knows how to move their fingers ]

Of course, you might want to "listen to other recordings" - I'd say "look at other good programmers' code" - you can even take bits of that code, something you can't do with piano recordings.

Musicality? - Generally called "Taste" in programming - although you can get away without it.

Theory? Depends here - for general programming, look at Knuth. For specific applications a background in that subject might be more appropriate but you don't need to know it.

...and then practise, practise, practise by writing code, which, as someone said, everyone can move their fingers.

It's easy and we've had 2 lessons so far - let me know how you're getting on

We could do languages next - I've an new approach based on a piano method "think exactly what you want to say, then say it exactly in the language you want to speak. Use your ears to listen if you got it right"

[palika dunno]

It's easy and we've had 2 lessons so far - let me know how you're getting on Smiley

  I dont want to learn programming 
did i say that? 

 
palika 

[leahcim]

I dont want to learn programming 

That's one of the benefits of your method though - you won't

[tocca]

I think there's much good in Changs book, i've borrowed some ideas from it. But i don't think it's a good idea as a beginner to follow it to the letter.
Read what he says, try to figure out how to apply it to your practise in a good way, and try out his suggestions for yourself with an open mind.
Try a new piece, learn a part of it as you are used to and apply some of his suggestions to another part and see if there's any difference and so on...

If there are certain techniques you have problems with, look up what he says about how to go about practising that technique, try out what he suggests and compare the results.
If you don't have a teacher i would highly recommend recording yourself from time to time. It's a very different thing to listen to a recording of your own playing vs listening while you're actually playing. It can really be an eyeopener!

That said, i tend to agree with da jake: "If you don't have a good teacher, you'll never get to play any advanced pieces properly".
Maybe i wouldn't take it that far, but... almost.