Its only possible use would be to balance a wonky piano stool.
Freaking idiot being very much the operative words. Books are great for having a discussion with a teacher. My teacher not only knew them all but knew all the authors too! She could really cut to the chase.
I have tried that but since Chang's book is online it didn't actually have the ultimate lasting effect on my wonky piano stool...
I cannot help but agree with the above as a good teacher or even a half good teacher is worth a million books.I am not happy with any type of "one size fits all".
Do you recognize a contradiction there?I'll spell it out. One size cannot fit all. But no-books can fit all.
I wonder why we're here.
After questioning some aspects of my music practice recently, I finally got around to having my first look at C.C. Chang's book. (I skimmed parts and skipped some, so my comments are limited by what I actually read.) I have some mixed feelings, but I guess I'm not alone; a common thread of discussions I've read about the book was that people have described taking what they find useful and valuable from it and disregarding what they don't.Although I dismissed some content as dubious and unsupported, I found a few nuggets of wisdom that appear to be of profound importance. They're introduced in the Preface, where Chang makes these four specific points that address practice methods (and misconceptions about their effectiveness):1. Learning hands-separate promotes relaxation, is the best way to increase speed and control, and is the only way to learn the motions needed for the speed and expression needed at tempo.2. Learning by slow hands-together practice and then ramping up speed is ineffective.3. Slow practice benefits memory.4. Memorization can be done away from the keyboard.
Besides, if books by such authors—with expert knowledge and qualifications concerning their craft—are of little value, then the information exchanged on the typical internet forum must be worth much less. Without the expectation of imparting or gaining knowledge, I wonder why we're here.
I think point 1 is very dubious, as there are plenty passages (particularly in romantic-era piano music) where the required motions are affected by issues like hands crossing. A trivial example is interlocking 'Liszt' octaves, which are a million times harder hands separate. Point 2 seems to contradict everything I've ever been taught, and point 4 is glaringly obvious.
I don't think anyone will be saying that it is easier to practice interlocking Liszt-octaves hands seperate. Think of it as a rule with exeptions. Would you agree that for most music it is the easiest way?
My example with Liszt octaves was purely to generate an obvious exception. I've just gone through the piece I'm learning just now - there are places which definitely should be practiced hands separate, places which I think categorically shouldn't be practiced hands separate, and places where I don't see any point in practicing hands separate. I don't think it a worthwhile rule at all, even if you allow exceptions.
The book is perfect for those who decide to actually read it word for word. Don't skim, read lol.
I haven't reviewed Chang's method in any detail, but fundamentally differ on a number of points. In terms of priority, I aim for music 1st, interpretation 2nd and technique last.
well put thalbergmad--I had wondered why my bentley wasn't working.
he offers little advice on how to put the hands back together, which to me is one of the most difficult things to do.
From what I've heard, even a Yugo won't run on chicken crap. [...]
I think it's technique that enables musical interpretation.
chang's advice to work on small fragments of a piece is often helpful, especially when one encounters a tricky little bit. additionally, he offers little advice on how to put the hands back together, which to me is one of the most difficult things to do.
I think it's technique that enables musical interpretation. Without technique, what's imagined to be music by the performer is liable to be noise to the listener. (Without competent self-assessment and discerning judgment, of course, it might be impossible to prioritize or even to understand the attributes of technique or musicality.)
Without technique, the detail of the music is lost, but not the music itself.
Without technique, the detail of the music is lost, but not the music itself. There is a subtle seperation. Indeed we are arguing "chicken/egg versus egg/chicken". I am not convinced that from technique alone music will "evolve". However, I do feel "interpretation" is a steering tool that is enabled either through musical appreciation or technical development.
Without technique, music is annihilated except in your mind.As you "haven't reviewed Chang's method in any detail," your tangent is a pointless diversion that compels bluntness: you talk a good talk, but it's belied by your recordings. Advanced repertoire requires commensurate technique from the performer in order to be rendered as music; musical appreciation implies choices appropriate to one's technical development.
I disagree Stevebob. There is something called "progress" which muddies your blinkered view. My performances, as provided, have ALWAYS reflected progress and invariably defied the issued slander, thus. In the future, I will produce performances which will catagorically disprove your "suggestions". These will be professionally recorded.