Mr. Chang,
I would like to hear some of your thoughts on your own method described in your book, and how successful is it amongst pianists and teachers?
My book is for beginners to intermediate; advanced pianists should not need it, though it contains new info for practically anyone, so it is worth going over even for advanced pianists just in case, especially if they intend to teach.
I only took 7 years of private piano lessons from age 10-17, and thereafter, my piano education has been thru watching the numerous teachers I came to know, and my own research because it was such a mystery why many pianists were technically so advanced while others floundered all their lives without success. That's why I get hammered by guys like Marik when I stick my neck out too far.
Aside: Marik - of the 7 languages I studied, Russian was the hardest. Of course, Japanese might be harder because it is a combination of Japanese and Chinese (Kanji words) and you really have to learn 6 forms to be able to really speak it (low, middle, and polite levels, each with male and female) for a total of twelve; you see, you can not judge the difficulty of a mother tongue because you automatically learned it effortlessly, just as Mozart learned piano. Those with English as native don't know how difficult it is until you ask a Japanese; half of them will tell you that English is impossible to speak and pronounce. -- dosvidania! (I don't remember much else).
I worked at Bell Labs where I was also instrumental in hiring and firing some of the smartest scientists, and have experience judging the intelligence of people. I found that there was no direct correlation between piano technical skill (defined as winning competitions) and intelligence. The strongest correlation was with the teacher -- good teachers ALWAYS produced good pianists. The standard answer to this was that good teachers only took in smart students, which I found to be untrue. I'm already straying too far off the main road so I won't go into substantiating the previous sentence because the explanation is complex. These facts didn't make sense so I knew that research should lead to some insights -- that's how my book got started.
My book, personally, was far greater success than I ever imagined possible; in fact, I was put into an embarrassing situation where advanced piano major students from topmost conservatories were emailing me, asking why their teachers did not teach some of the basic things in my book, and asking me how to practice pieces I couldn't play.
At first, I wondered why concert pianists or professors in conservatories hadn't written my book a long ago - they should have. Then I realized that I was a scientist and all scientists must teach each other and learn new things EVERY DAY. In addition, I have diverse interests, and received quite a broad education. Pianists, OTOH had to practice everyday and had little time for anything else (until my book was written
)), including learning/practicing how to teach, and never evolved advanced teaching expertise as exists in most other disciplines -- the best example may be Franz Liszt, and today's teachers don't seem to do any better than Liszt since so many respected teachers claim to teach the Liszt method. Teaching manuals and methods must be scientific -- even piano teachers know that -- Whitesides said as much. But piano skills and teaching are two different things, and often mutually exclusive. So I finally began to understand why I ended up writing this book. It is by no means the final authority on practice methods, but just a great beginning compared to any other available book. My hope is that some music professor in a conservatory, as well as any accomplished musician, will pick up where I left off and advance it to limitless levels (that I could not even hope to achieve), just as scientific methods have lifted all other advanced fields of knowledge. We now know that the "art is not science" attitude is false, counterproductive, and has been the worst hidden enemy of aspiring musicians (advanced musicians know better).
So, what evidence do I have that the book works? There are now over 12 sites where my book can be accessed, and all combined, there are over 500 distinct downloads per day. I estimate that there are now over 45,000 pianists reading my book, and increasing every year. About 10% of my emails are from teachers who have used material in my book to teach, and they all report that their students are very happy with the new approach and making better progress. Over 50% of emails are from pianists who either cannot afford/find a teacher, or had teachers, but gave up in frustration until they stumbled upon my book. The optimistic views in my book convinced them that they should give it another try, and they were pleasantly surprised that they can now play things that were impossible before. In this Forum, I noticed that after the announcement of my book here, there was a sudden increase in pianists playing Bach which they had previously considered a tad too difficult.
To read some of these emails, read the "Testimonials" section of the book. Those are typical testimonials up to 2004, and they have continued unabated to this day, and I have added major improvements since 2004.
Why is the book special and better than other books? First, I found all the basic practice methods that were known and assembled them into a textbook. The thing I did differently is that it is written as a scientific treatise in that research results are reported together with any underlying mechanisms and theory that apply. For example I discuss how to do things as well as how not to do it, with the associated reasons. These reasons are not plucked out of thin air but are logically deduced from known causes. The book is NOT a random series of "useful rules". The most important elements are the attempts to explain WHY. I'm not saying I'm always right just because I explained it. But if wrong, someone can correct it and improve the book -- that's how science works. Without such "theory" and documentation, wrong methods can be inserted and correct ones lost, as has been happening in the past. The way I wrote it, the book can only improve with time; my fear about anyone not trained in writing manuals rewriting my book is that it might regress.
The book has been widely accepted by students; however, I think it is just as important for teachers as a way to increase their income. Enough for now; for more details, you will have to read it.
Topic: National Piano Schools