Fundamentals of Piano Practice - Chang

[CC]

Amazon is now giving excellent author discounts which enables me to give 55% discounts to teachers who order my book, Fundamentals of Piano Practice, in packs of 8 books. Please go to my web site:

https://www.pianopractice.org/

for details.  Each pack is $90 (including S&H) and can be resold for up to $200.  Above that ($25/book) the student is better off buying from Amazon ($25.25 ea., free shipping).

[m]

Amazon is now giving excellent author discounts which enables me to give 55% discounts to teachers who order my book, Fundamentals of Piano Practice, in packs of 8 books. Please go to my web site:

https://www.pianopractice.org/

for details.  Each pack is $90 (including S&H) and can be resold for up to $200.  Above that ($25/book) the student is better off buying from Amazon ($25.25 ea., free shipping).

I am sure it is an excellent book! There is however, something in odds here, which I don't get... Usually, teachers make living with other means than re-selling or re-distributing books.
Those means in fact, those means are teaching fundamentals (and not only of practicing, but also the way of thinking about music, technique, as well as practical implementations), which give the students strong foundation, so they don't need to go and buy books on that particular subject . 

Of course, only my opinion. As always, YMMV (your milege may vary). 

Best, M

[CC]

I did this because so many teachers have emailed me that they are referring my book to their students.  I believe it saves the teachers a lot of time by not having to struggle with teaching practice methods so the teachers can concentrate on teaching musicianship and making faster progress.  Because parents don't always attend the lessons or understand them, it is equally important for the parents to be familiar with correct practice methods. They tell me that their students are very happy with the results.  Read the book if you don't believe that, because you can read the entire book free on my web site (below) -- I don't need to make money from my book, I'm just working on the book for the benefit of everybody. And what's wrong with teachers generating extra income?  I'm barely breaking even with this discount deal and I make a lot more from royalties if the students ordered the book from Amazon. The reason why the book is priced higher than I would like at Amazon is because the buyer saves money by not paying shipping above $25. It is also a good idea to give teachers the choice of selling it cheaper to students with limited resources.

PS: sorry the link to my web site did not work for many hours because it is hosted at my daughter's server, and there was a terrible storm and she lost power; she is not only a pianist but also a computer geek. Apparently, her backup power also failed.

[m]

I did this because so many teachers have emailed me that they are referring my book to their students.  I believe it saves the teachers a lot of time by not having to struggle with teaching practice methods so the teachers can concentrate on teaching musicianship and making faster progress.  Because parents don't always attend the lessons or understand them, it is equally important for the parents to be familiar with correct practice methods. They tell me that their students are very happy with the results.  Read the book if you don't believe that, because you can read the entire book free on my web site (below) -- I don't need to make money from my book, I'm just working on the book for the benefit of everybody. And what's wrong with teachers generating extra income?  I'm barely breaking even with this discount deal and I make a lot more from royalties if the students ordered the book from Amazon. The reason why the book is priced higher than I would like at Amazon is because the buyer saves money by not paying shipping above $25. It is also a good idea to give teachers the choice of selling it cheaper to students with limited resources.

PS: sorry the link to my web site did not work for many hours because it is hosted at my daughter's server, and there was a terrible storm and she lost power; she is not only a pianist but also a computer geek. Apparently, her backup power also failed.

Dear Mr. Chang,

I think you have some good points here. I guess, I am talking rather about "ideal world". I myself did not study piano or teaching from books, but rather from excellent teachers. I believe that if the books on the topic have any value, then this value is only to refresh some ideas learned in actual classroom, i.e setup when every little detail comes from that unique interaction between student and teacher, triggered by momentary music ideas.

In this respect I disagree with your notion "I believe it saves the teachers a lot of time by not having to struggle with teaching practice methods so the teachers can concentrate on teaching musicianship and making faster progress.". I believe, the practice methods are inseparable part of the musicianship and are a natural continuation of that unique interaction. It is my believe, that it's impossible to learn music from books, as every student has their own individual problems (most often, much deeper internal ones), every piece of music needs different approach, and every lesson is a unique act of interaction. In other words, without actual seeing the SOURCE of the problem, it is impossible to offer a more or less intelligent solution.
 
Of course, I realize, the teacher should be on a certain level not to only understand it, but also have sensitivity, knowledge, experience, and wisdom to follow those principles. Unfortunately, MOST of the time this is not the case.

I deeply wish your book could help people...

Best, M

[lostinidlewonder]

I also doubt that many of my students would read 200+ pages about piano playing (and understand it) let alone practice on their own what I set them.

I also noticed on page 27 it is written:
"the most important message of this book, is that piano skills can be learned in a short time, if the correct learning procedures are applied."

This seems to be a paradox because the correct learning procedures is in fact a very complex and long term issue that we are constantly striving to improve.

and a little before this was written:
" The innate dexterity of accomplished pianists and ordinary folk are not that different. This means that practically anyone can learn to play the piano well. "

I think this is overly optimistic that practically ANYONE can learn to play the piano well.

" Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength. "

I also disagree with this since if this was the case then a 90 year old with a healthy brain should be able to play the piano well, in fact the muscular strength and stamina of a person is a key point to piano playing.

"Hanon implies that the ability to play these exercises will ensure that you can play anything -- this is not only totally false, but also reveals a surprising lack of understanding of what technique is. Technique can only be acquired by learning many compositions from many composers."

I think that the treatment of hanon wasn't fair either in the book. Hanon does not completely teach technique, but it also is not completely useless. The statement that Technique can ONLY be acuqired from learning compositions is incorrect. Hanon for beginners is essential and if an intermediate or advanced student is unable to perform hanon in the correct manner then they should question what the problem is. Of course pieces will improve technique a great deal more but for the beginner Hanon in fact acts as a catalyst for their understanding of playing groups of notes at a time with a single position of the hand, a key building block for the understanding of piano playing for beginner/intermediates. My response to the importance of hanon is posted in more detail here: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=13583.msg146475#msg146475


These are only a few points I took out and I would not want my students to read this type of advice and make decisions without knowing what it exactly means. The problem with students is that they may read something but not understand the context or the exact meaning behind it, they may make guesses and go off on a wrong path. Thus a teacher can never be replaced by a book and a book alone can never act as a tool to improve a student if they have no understanding as to how to apply the principles that they read from it and see it in action

[m]

These are only a few points I took out and I would not want my students to read this type of advice and make decisions without knowing what it exactly means. The problem with students is that they may read something but not understand the context or the exact meaning behind it, they may make guesses and go off on a wrong path. Thus a teacher can never be replaced by a book and a book alone can never act as a tool to improve a student if they have no understanding as to how to apply the principles that they read from it and see it in action

Excellent point!

Best, M

[go12_3]

Practice + musicianship + technique +  effort = experience

[mephisto]

I also doubt that many of my students would read 200+ pages about piano playing (and understand it) let alone practice on their own what I set them.

I also noticed on page 27 it is written:
"the most important message of this book, is that piano skills can be learned in a short time, if the correct learning procedures are applied."

This seems to be a paradox because the correct learning procedures is in fact a very complex and long term issue that we are constantly striving to improve.

and a little before this was written:
" The innate dexterity of accomplished pianists and ordinary folk are not that different. This means that practically anyone can learn to play the piano well. "

I think this is overly optimistic that practically ANYONE can learn to play the piano well.

" Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength. "

I also disagree with this since if this was the case then a 90 year old with a healthy brain should be able to play the piano well, in fact the muscular strength and stamina of a person is a key point to piano playing.

"Hanon implies that the ability to play these exercises will ensure that you can play anything -- this is not only totally false, but also reveals a surprising lack of understanding of what technique is. Technique can only be acquired by learning many compositions from many composers."

I think that the treatment of hanon wasn't fair either in the book. Hanon does not completely teach technique, but it also is not completely useless. The statement that Technique can ONLY be acuqired from learning compositions is incorrect. Hanon for beginners is essential and if an intermediate or advanced student is unable to perform hanon in the correct manner then they should question what the problem is. Of course pieces will improve technique a great deal more but for the beginner Hanon in fact acts as a catalyst for their understanding of playing groups of notes at a time with a single position of the hand, a key building block for the understanding of piano playing for beginner/intermediates. My response to the importance of hanon is posted in more detail here: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=13583.msg146475#msg146475


These are only a few points I took out and I would not want my students to read this type of advice and make decisions without knowing what it exactly means. The problem with students is that they may read something but not understand the context or the exact meaning behind it, they may make guesses and go off on a wrong path. Thus a teacher can never be replaced by a book and a book alone can never act as a tool to improve a student if they have no understanding as to how to apply the principles that they read from it and see it in action

I beleive you are missrepresenting what Chang wrote here.
 
First of all, everything you write in your post may be true, and I have not even read Chang's book, but I think some of your comments are a bit blunt.

He writes "that practically anyone can learn to play the piano well." This doesn't mean that anyone can learn to play the piano well, it means that most have the possibility to do so. Just like practically anyone can learn to sing, a few people still cannot learn to do so.

The next quote is:
" Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength.

Your interpretation if this quote is completly wrong. Notice the word "mostly". Add to this that amazing pianist like Volodos have said the same thing.

[lostinidlewonder]

I beleive you are missrepresenting what Chang wrote here.

I don't believe I am misinterpreting him. His very words about his book was:

"I believe it saves the teachers a lot of time by not having to struggle with teaching practice methods so the teachers can concentrate on teaching musicianship and making faster progress.  "

Unfortunately I did not think that what was written can take away teaching students how to practice and in fact I highlighted problems with using a book for this.

First of all, everything you write in your post may be true, and I have not even read Chang's book, but I think some of your comments are a bit blunt.

I am not trying to be blunt at all merely stating my opinion on this topic. Since I might not sing praise loudly (although I do highlight merit in Chang if you read carefully) I like to highlight what one wants to be careful about.

He writes "that practically anyone can learn to play the piano well." This doesn't mean that anyone can learn to play the piano well, it means that most have the possibility to do so. Just like practically anyone can learn to sing, a few people still cannot learn to do so.

The comments is somewhat useless anyway, just as when it was said there is not much difference physical/dexterity between a pro pianist and someone who isn't. What is this exact "not much" or "practically everyone"? This has not been measured accurately and is merely a word with estimated value, it could mean 80% of the community it could mean 0.00008%, thus is very ambiguous and secretive in what it is trying to say.

" Acquiring technique is mostly a process of brain/nerve development, not development of finger strength.
Your interpretation if this quote is completly wrong. Notice the word "mostly". Add to this that amazing pianist like Volodos have said the same thing.

You have not highlighted how my notion is wrong, and using terms which lighten ones approach, like Maybe, perhaps, most etc, does not deflect or increase the credibility of what is being said. In fact it makes what is being said less universal and thus makes the book unable to help.

From my years of teaching I have found most people have a physical problem at the piano more so than a mental/brain or nerve problem. People can think the music, but the hands do not always follow. And I have taught 80+ year olds who are as intelligent as the rest of us with a fully functioning brain, however their physical nature restricts their progress severely. So the physical side of playing is in fact a commanding aspect of playing piano. I do not like the romanticized idea that we can play piano at top class for our whole life because it is just not true. Some people who are not old or very young in fact has different physical structure of their body, some muscles in their back might be more or less developed and that might cause problems, their arm might have nerve problems etc etc, there are countless issues of someones physical makeup which will hinder their progress to becoming a master at the piano (not that this is everyones aim, but I am sure it is a dream of many aspiring pianists albeit only a dream).


p.s: If you notice I wrote in my response to Chang "I think" "My opinion" etc. Not "This is a universal truth". However the way I write is persuasive and some people might take offense, but they should highlight their opinion with evidence not be too worried about my own stance.

[mephisto]

I don't want to argue with you.

Let us just agree to dissagree with our understanding of "mostly" and "practically anyone".

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry I always tend to seem like I am arguing, just trying to clarify myself.