Chang and frustration

[db05]

I need help. Any advice would be great.

I'm an adult beginner, just started last year because it was required for my music course. Got hooked, so I switch my major to piano this year. Read CC. Chang's book earlier this year, it was interesting. I've tried flat-finger positions and adjusting distance from the piano. Also started studying scales thumb-over (TO) and was satisfied with speed, not so much with tone, which I'm still working on. My problem is TO arpeggios. Or any fast arpeggio for that matter. I can do arpeggios thumb-under up to a certain speed, which is slow. I tried to change the motion, but it doesn't help to get to speed, and worse, I don't hit the right notes.

I try to ignore this problem, it's just something I do besides the required work and my teacher doesn't know. I've not been given anything very interesting yet, and I'm afraid that I will find myself with a nice piece that is too fast and technically difficult for me. I'd start off working on my required stuff, but I'd get bored and try scales and arpeggios again. Last month, I started doing that arpeggio thing again, for about 30 minutes and later that night, my right arm hurt, from the back of my shoulder to my wrist. My hand was numb and I couldn't play the next day. I could play the day after that, but I was too depressed to. And there was still some pain. It still scares me.

How do you practice fast arpeggios beyond one octave? Should I be practicing that, even? My current teacher doesn't make me do exercises fast, although my old one did, and it was frustrating, even painful sometimes (backache). What should I do? I want to progress faster technically, and I don't want to be limited to beginner books and slow pieces.

[keypeg]

It is preferable to get a good teacher who is properly trained and can guide you.  In music "slow is fast".  That is to say, if you get the first foundations right, the other things will come quickly because everything rests on those foundations.  Find a good teacher, trust that teacher, and allow several months to go by before you assess any results.

I understand that Chang is a physicist and amateur pianist who observed the progress of his daughters under a very good teacher, and tried to extrapolate what caused the good results through his book.  I have a feeling that in some cases he has taken known principles and explained them from a different angle to make them more visible to those of us who are relatively untrained.  At other times, such as "algorithms", it seems like something straightforward seen from a unique angle, perhaps making it comprehensible to some through that angle. 

[db05]

It is preferable to get a good teacher who is properly trained and can guide you.  In music "slow is fast".  That is to say, if you get the first foundations right, the other things will come quickly because everything rests on those foundations.  Find a good teacher, trust that teacher, and allow several months to go by before you assess any results.

I don't have much of a choice since this is part of a course and there are only a few teachers in my school. My teacher is whoever is available this year. That's why in the past year, I've changed teachers twice.  I start with yet another teacher this semester, hopefully she stays until the end of the course. But if possible, I'd like to be a more independent learner. I've found that teachers don't seem to agree on these "foundations" anyhow.......... 

On a side note, music as an algorithm was a revelation to me. 

[keypeg]

What is part of the course?  Is your teacher making you study Chang?  Or do you mean arpeggios etc?

[richy321]

The only good solution is to find a really qualified teacher, even if you have to pay more for it.  Qualified certainly includes being able to teach scales, arpeggios and how to avoid injury.  Unqualified teachers are among the worst scourges of this world.

As far as Chang's so-called thumb-over (TO) technique is concerned, don't even try it.  I happen to agree that the thumb should not be bent under the hand (TU), but he does not teach the alternative adequately.  I don't believe he has mastered it himself, to judge by the video, where the TO scales sound even worse than the TU.

Put yourself in the hands of a good teacher.   

[db05]

What is part of the course?  Is your teacher making you study Chang?  Or do you mean arpeggios etc?

Sorry if I was confusing. Since piano lessons are part of my music course in school, I can only study with the teachers they have.

I studied Chang on my own. But yes, arpeggios are required. Scales too. I can play them, but if teacher insists I go fast (like with the one I had before), I'm in trouble.

[keypeg]

I understand that the trick to going fast is to have the motions correct and efficient, which we can best get going slowly.  Giving you that efficiency should be the job of a teacher.

 Piano is my 2nd instrument and I haven't been able to get to any teacher the past months because of circumstance so I've been forced to use some resources.  I downloaded "Mastering Scales and Arpeggios" by Francis Cooke - who was a trained pianist and teacher -  he breaks down the choreography and gives sequential training both mentally and physically.  Among other things, our thumbs move from the joint hear the wrist and we often have that motion underdeveloped and blurry.

For another, in TU there are distinct separate steps in moving the hand from one position to the other, having an active thumb.  Training and choreographing the movement in slow motion, and then slowly speeding it up, would seem to do the trick.

But with a teacher who wants fast arpeggios, I would ask "Could you show me how to get there?"  I would be aiming for something like Cooke does (his guide to teachers) - starting with a slow motion analysis of how I'm doing it now, where it's going wrong, under a teacher's watchful and informed eye - rebuild my scales and arpeggios, maybe sequential steps of practicing which the teacher should be able to set out.

I've come to the conclusion that "progress" does not consist of being able to do more and more things, but learning to do the first element well, then the second and the third.  It seems that the real road to progress often seems to be getting at the foundation of our playing and improving these - that's where tension and inaccuracy lie, if we are uncertain about what we are doing. 

[momopi]

where did you download - "Mastering Scales and Arpeggios" by Francis Cooke?

[son wolsi]

I understand that the trick to going fast is to have the motions correct and efficient, which we can best get going slowly.  Giving you that efficiency should be the job of a teacher.

 Piano is my 2nd instrument and I haven't been able to get to any teacher the past months because of circumstance so I've been forced to use some resources.  I downloaded "Mastering Scales and Arpeggios" by Francis Cooke - who was a trained pianist and teacher -  he breaks down the choreography and gives sequential training both mentally and physically.  Among other things, our thumbs move from the joint hear the wrist and we often have that motion underdeveloped and blurry.

For another, in TU there are distinct separate steps in moving the hand from one position to the other, having an active thumb.  Training and choreographing the movement in slow motion, and then slowly speeding it up, would seem to do the trick.

But with a teacher who wants fast arpeggios, I would ask "Could you show me how to get there?"  I would be aiming for something like Cooke does (his guide to teachers) - starting with a slow motion analysis of how I'm doing it now, where it's going wrong, under a teacher's watchful and informed eye - rebuild my scales and arpeggios, maybe sequential steps of practicing which the teacher should be able to set out.

I've come to the conclusion that "progress" does not consist of being able to do more and more things, but learning to do the first element well, then the second and the third.  It seems that the real road to progress often seems to be getting at the foundation of our playing and improving these - that's where tension and inaccuracy lie, if we are uncertain about what we are doing. 

I'm sorry, but your first claim is simply wrong. The movements that must be aquired to play fast must be realized ether at tempo, or faster. I may be an amature pianist, but I have had to many expierences in life to know that momentum, and such fast graceful movements can only be realized as they are. Going to slow and you will never learn it.

[keypeg]

Going to slow and you will never learn it.

My experience says otherwise.  But I don't think that you understood my post.

[timothy42b]

My experience says otherwise.  But I don't think that you understood my post.

If chang were alone in predicting speed walls, I might agree with you.

But he is not, and slow incremental progress does not get you to the next level. 

[rc]

As far as Chang's so-called thumb-over (TO) technique is concerned, don't even try it.  I happen to agree that the thumb should not be bent under the hand (TU), but he does not teach the alternative adequately.  I don't believe he has mastered it himself, to judge by the video, where the TO scales sound even worse than the TU.

I honestly don't see the problem with moving the thumb under the hand, it feels comfortable and is the easiest way to extend the range.  Especially obvious in slower tempos.

My experience was like keypeg.  I came here when TO was all the rage, I understand the arguement: motion at high speed is not the same as low speed (running moves different than walking).  Where this caused a problem for me is I began to think of it as two values A=slow movements, B=fast movements. 

However I found this to be false, it's much more like a gradiation.  Each notch up is a little different, a slight adaptation to be able to play a higher speed.  Trying to bypass all that and jump straight to fast-motion only gave me herky-jerky scales and arpeggios...  Instead, incrememental progress is exactly what gave me speed and fluidity.  Crawl before walk, walk before walk fast, walk fast before running, run before sprinting.  I've never seen a baby up and sprint!

The incremental process of learning to play fast doesn't necessarily have to be slow.  I used to sit down with a scale for an hour at a time, ramping it up to high speeds.  What takes time and practice for me is being able to do this with any scale, right off the bat, consistantly.  Which was at first a matter of being familiar with the different patterns, and becomes more about having good concentration.

[keypeg]

If chang were alone in predicting speed walls, I might agree with you.

But he is not, and slow incremental progress does not get you to the next level. 

As I tried to say before, you are not understanding my post.  Many actions in playing an instrument are actually a series of sub-actions, directing of energy, an efficiency that can get trained in layers.  We can blur it all into one motion, especially when going fast, and limit ourselves into something inefficient.  There are also ways of using and experiencing the body in ways we cannot imagine until we have done so.  "Slow practice" and getting faster, while still doing the old things, will not do it.  That's why I wrote about good teachers, knowing how to follow them and such (at least I hope I did).

The playing of a scale is actually a complicated manouver.  You have your hand in a particular position, fingers already touching the keys.  In Cooke's method, which I've also been told by a good pianist/teacher, with the right hand, the minute you have played 2, your thumb scoots under at the joint at the wrist (where and how matters) ..... exercises to give flexibility and the correct motion precede this ..... so that when you have finished playing 3, your thumb is already there for the 4th note.  At the moment that 4th note has been played, almost simultaneously but in fact, afterward, your hand moves into the next position so that the four fingers that come after the thumb again rest comfortably on the respective keys. When your hand moves over your thumb is also unbending at a particular joint.  So now your four fingers are in their position and they are ready to play - as soon as 2 is played the same thing happens again, except that this time the thumb has a greater distance (needs the flexibility, moving from the correct joint) because it's reaching for the tonic.

These separate motions are choreographed, trained into the hand, brought together.  When the fingers are on their respective keys, instead of reaching for them mid-flight, you get rapidity and ease.  You are training all that while you are going slowly, making sure you don't lose it as you speed up.  At the end you have a whisper of a motion, but the efficient way of play is there.

An antithesis: I played something that I have not played for a year and had tension in my hand, inability to play quickly or do the dynamics I wanted.  That is because now I know that I should keep my hand small for playing close together notes, and expand it when playing a greater expanse of notes.  There is a deliberate moment of expanding or contracting the hand when going from one configuration to the next.  In the past my hand was ready for whatever note anywhere, and so in a constant state of tension.  I was doing it all at once - by slowing down enough to get the different hand shapes and positions, I was actually speeding myself up.

Slow playing is not a matter of playing slowly and passively thinking it will settle into our memory.  The reason we play slowly is because there is a lot that we want to consciously put into our playing, and there isn't enough time when we play fast.  Later on these things are automatic - subtle little movements make all the difference.

[keypeg]

I've done a bit of a read on "speed wall" since posting - There is no prohibition on increments of speed and there is a place for deliberately learning the finer points of motion.  Obviously a point comes where you cannot do the same thing rapidly that you did slowly, but that's not the point.  I don't see anyone saying that everything has to be played fast right away - there is a place for each, no?

[richy321]

I honestly don't see the problem with moving the thumb under the hand, it feels comfortable and is the easiest way to extend the range.  Especially obvious in slower tempos.

Thumb-under is apparently still the conventional way of teaching scales; however, some critics of that method other than Chang (Whiteside, Sandor, S. Bernstein, W.S.Newman, Taubman) are pretty vehement that the thumb should not be bent under the hand; rather, it should stay alongside the hand and it is the hand that should move out of the way.  The main reason, as Chang and Sandor state, is that when the thumb is in that extreme flexed position, the thumb can only move in the most inefficient and limited way in the keystroke, causing the audible bump.  There are many other problems with it, but I won't go into that here.

My main objection to Chang, other than the term "thumb-over", which even he admits is a misnomer and used mainly as an attention grabber, is that he does not adequately explain how the thumb can play after the 3rd or 4th finger without a break without being bent under the palm.  He neglects to give rotation and other subtle movements of the forearm their due importance.  Probably the best written description available is Seymour Bernstein's in With Your Own Two Hands and 20 Lessons in Keyboard Choreography.

 

[keypeg]

Does the thumb move inefficiently, or is it necessary to learn to move it efficiently.  I remember somebody writing that the thumb is shorter than the other fingers when clearly it is much longer, but only if you count more than 2/3 of the digit.

[richy321]

Chang's demonstration of the thumb's limitations when it has to play in the fully flexed position is actually very convincing:  Try tapping your thumb up and down when it is in its normal position.  It is as agile and free as any other finger.  Now, as you gradually move the thumb under the hand until it is past the 3rd finger and keep tapping as before, you will find that the movement of the thumb is completely different, more of an "outward" movement, but at that angle, it has virtually no range of motion. It has lost its independence almost completely and must rely on a sudden opening of the entire hand or a lowering of the wrist to play the note at all. Both movements will inhibit the freedom of the other fingers and require compensation, which is another source of inefficiency.

This specific limitation or inefficiency of the thumb is a function of the way the thumb works and cannot be overcome by strengthening the thumb.

Obviously, many great pianists who consciously use the thumb under method have achieved mastery of scales, but some have argued (including Whiteside and Chang) that they have done so because they have unknowingly moved away from the thumb under method and are in fact playing by the thumb-alongside-the-hand method.  Sorry to use this unwieldy term, but I can't bring myself to use the term "thumb over" because it is so misleading.  Can anyone come up with a better term?

[keypeg]

Richy, from where do you move your thumb?  I tried that exercise the first time I read about it and did not feel restricted motion.  For my own personal needs I prefer to follow a teacher whose training and background I know and do so in person.  There was a video in PS and it looked like the hand was doing little bunny hops.  That seemed like an unstable and unpredictable base from which the fingers would move, and that was the part that bothered me.  Does the hand need to twist and hop about like that?  How is the quality of sound and tone (control) during these manouevers?  After all, the purpose is produce audible music.  This is not rhetorical, btw.

[richy321]

Richy, from where do you move your thumb?  I tried that exercise the first time I read about it and did not feel restricted motion.  For my own personal needs I prefer to follow a teacher whose training and background I know and do so in person.  There was a video in PS and it looked like the hand was doing little bunny hops.  That seemed like an unstable and unpredictable base from which the fingers would move, and that was the part that bothered me.  Does the hand need to twist and hop about like that?  How is the quality of sound and tone (control) during these manouevers?  After all, the purpose is produce audible music.  This is not rhetorical, btw.

I play the thumb from the wrist joint.  Is there any other way?

I agree that you need to be under the guidance of a teacher whose overall competence and approach you have complete confidence in.  I would never advocate using a newly touted technique you read about on your own without the concurrance of your teacher.  This was in fact the point of my first posting in this thread.

In the Taubman-Golandsky school, which I study under, tone is of the utmost importance, as is complete security and ease of playing.  As someone said recently, the hallmark of Taubman-trained pianist is unlimited speed and seemingly effortless playing. 

[rc]

Thumb-under is apparently still the conventional way of teaching scales; however, some critics of that method other than Chang (Whiteside, Sandor, S. Bernstein, W.S.Newman, Taubman) are pretty vehement that the thumb should not be bent under the hand; rather, it should stay alongside the hand and it is the hand that should move out of the way.  The main reason, as Chang and Sandor state, is that when the thumb is in that extreme flexed position, the thumb can only move in the most inefficient and limited way in the keystroke, causing the audible bump. 

Well I hopped over to the piano to see what it looks like for me and I see your point.

If I tried moving TU with a stationary hand, it wasn't comfortable
If I tried moving the hand with a stationary thumb, it was a wicked large angle.

In my playing, I would have to say it's a combination of the two.  I guess I took it for granted that the player would be moving their hand in the direction of the scale...  But I see a definite contraction of the thumb towards the center of the hand - it is underneath, if only for an instant, and the hand is also moving along, wrist motion included.

Though I've come to believe that thinking of playing in visual terms is unnecessary.

If the Taubman emphasis is on tone + ease and security, that also sounds like the same idea that helped me get the hang of scales and arpeggios.  What I came to was sound + ease, which to me are still the core principles in figuring out how to play something.

[keypeg]

I agree that you need to be under the guidance of a teacher whose overall competence and approach you have complete confidence in.  I would never advocate using a newly touted technique you read about on your own without the concurrance of your teacher.  This was in fact the point of my first posting in this thread.

Yes, I see that now having gone back to the beginning of the thread.  There is so much more at stake than one isolated body part.  How can we figure this out on our own, and especially try something unconventional on our own?

[db05]

I honestly don't see the problem with moving the thumb under the hand, it feels comfortable and is the easiest way to extend the range.  Especially obvious in slower tempos.

I had an experience watching one of my seniors, another piano major. His did scales and arpeggios with clarity and ease.  Asked how he pracitices, says he does 1 hour Hanon, 2 or more hours for scales and arpeggios... -You get the drill- to a grand total of 10 hours per day!

He never found the need to find another motion for playing fast. But then, looking at him play slowly, he can easily reach under to hit the next note... Have you ever considered that having large hands is a factor in playing? Turning the thumb under, regardless of speed, is a weird motion for me.

However I found this to be false, it's much more like a gradiation.  Each notch up is a little different, a slight adaptation to be able to play a higher speed.  Trying to bypass all that and jump straight to fast-motion only gave me herky-jerky scales and arpeggios...  Instead, incrememental progress is exactly what gave me speed and fluidity.  Crawl before walk, walk before walk fast, walk fast before running, run before sprinting.  I've never seen a baby up and sprint!

Have you ever seen babies walk? I have two nieces. While it's true that everyone crawls first, babies learn to walk fast first, with herky-jerky motions. They would scare me because they walk fast and it looks weird, but that's actually a way to keep balance. Then they learn to slow down and stand and turn without help.

Like when I learned to ride a bike. Just keep pedaling and learn to stop, that's it. The hard part is turning, and I only learned how to turn on a bike when I got comfortable in fast straight riding. If you try to turn on a bike too slow, that's when you fall.

Okay, I'm pretty confused right now. But now I know I need a good teacher to sort things out.

[keypeg]

I watched my sons learn to crawl.  Day 1: get on hands and knees, hold position 2 seconds, collapse.  Day 3: get on hands and knees, hold position 10 seconds, collapse.  Week 3: get on hands and knees, put one leg and arm forward, then another.  topple over. ... The hands and knees thing happened many times during the day.

[ramseytheii]

I think the thing about practicing speed is largely a matter of personal preference.  You can find lots of physical things to compare it to, like saying if you turn a bike slowly you will fall, but I can find just as many the other way, like dancers who learn their choreography in slow motion, or encountering a new word, and pronouncing it for the first time syllable by syllable.

Some people have the strength to read a score, and imagine the physical sensation, and then play it.  Others need to feel it out.  Complicated passages benefit from slow practice because a lot of motions happen in a lot of directions in a short amount of time.  "Motion" is not even the only element important in piano playing.

I happen to know that many pianists practice excruciatingly slow.  Those include Rachmaninoff, about whose slow practice a famous anecdote is told, and Cherkassky, who I'm told by one his best friends and students practiced exclusively slow.

In this case, just find what works for you.  Don't start worrying, "Well Chang says don't practice slow" and then forbid yourself from doing it.  That's so obviously a deficient reason.  Practice is experimenting.

Walter Ramsey

[richy321]

How can we figure this out on our own, and especially try something unconventional on our own?

This is an important issue, one that all serious students have to grapple with at some point.  If it were not for the risk of injury, I would say that a student should be encouraged to explore, think analytically about technique and experiment on his own.  If some ground rules were established I think it can be done safely.  If you are not under a teacher's guidance at all, you are definitely at risk.  Some thoughts:

1.  There needs to be dialogue with the teacher so that any risky or deleterious activity can be identified and stopped.  In order for this to work, the teacher must be supportive of individual exploration in the first place and willing to disinterestedly discuss approaches that deviate from his own.  I may be just lucky, but my teacher actually encourages me to explore on my own, especially in the area of refining my sensitivity and imagery and discuss it with him.  It is often found that the alternate view is actually consistent with the teacher's approach and the difference is a matter of imagery or modelling. If the new idea is inconsistent with his system and problematic, he explains why this is so and we move on.

2.  The student needs to be aware that sometimes when there is an apparent contradiction between the teacher's system and the student's new idea, there may be a pragmatic reason for it, i.e., the two principles may be consistent, but there is a pedagogical reason for the teacher's approach.  For example, I came back to the piano after reading Abby Whiteside, in particular the idea that it is the upper arms, not the fingers, that initiates action.  This made a lot of sense to me.  On the other hand, the Taubman school, which my teacher trained in, teaches that the attention should be given to upper end of the forearm, just in front of the elbow.  That is, every note is consciously articulated from that spot with a very slight (virtually invisible) up and down motion.  Logically and physiologically, this did not make sense to me.  After a couple of discussions it became clear to me that there was no real contradiction, i.e., it is only the conscious attention that was focused on that spot not because that's where the activity originates, but it was a point midway in the apparatus and was subject to conscious control.  The rest of the apparatus, from the elbow to the bottom of the spine will "fill in" from the needs of the forearm action.  To consciously try to control the more proximal parts is impossible at speed; it is far more efficient to let the body do much of the work unconsiously.  In this way, I was able to rationalize and integrate the two seemingly contradictory positions.

Richy