C.C. Chang's "Fundamentals of Piano Practice": My thoughts ... your thoughts?

[stevebob]

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 required 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.

I found the first two principles especially relevant.  I was interested to see how they would be amplified in the material that followed, and they can be restated and summarized concisely as follows:

Learning music through slow HT practice and then increasing speed gradually is ineffective and inefficient because it doesn't train the motions needed for speed and expression at the target tempo.  Such motions are learned through high-speed HS practice of "parallel sets" (discrete handfuls of notes played in a single hand position), which also promotes relaxation and enables acquisition of technique without tension.

It turns out, then, that what I found most useful in a very lengthy and discursive volume could be summed up in one pithy paragraph.  But I'm finding that paragraph very useful indeed, and it more than compensates for the effort it took to sift through so much material that was not so useful.

A case can certainly be made that this book would benefit greatly from condensation.  While the material is well-organized in a macro sense, the paragraphs themselves are wordy, diffuse and excessively long.  And while I understand an author's wish to convince by demonstrating conviction, the authoritative tone prevalent here frequently conveys infallibility.

When one factors in a significant amount of errant punctuation and a homely presentation (of the downloadable PDF, at any rate), this book is not going to be taken as seriously—or reach as wide an audience—as it otherwise might.  At times I wondered what assumptions were made of the target audience anyway, and why a reader who is presumed to be familiar with fallboards or jacks and has an interest in the physical properties of acoustics would need a detailed explanation of time signatures and key signatures.

I would be interested in knowing more about the experiences and reactions of others.  What elements of Chang's work did you find most useful, beneficial or persuasive?  If you were to offer constructive criticism to Mr. Chang to support his mission to revolutionize the practice of piano and restore the instrument's popularity—something I'm sure we'd all like to see happen—what would it be?

[keyboardclass]

I really think books are no good.  They help teachers communicate with each other but that's about it.  I speak as someone with quite a number of shelves of them - until I got a good teacher I understood nothing in them, after, I really didn't need them.

[thalbergmad]

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". The book is obviously not aware of the abilities of who is reading it and is incapable of changing its approach to suit the specific needs of the individual.

Its only possible use would be to balance a wonky piano stool.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Its only possible use would be to balance a wonky piano stool.

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...

[pianowolfi]

Seriously, I don't think that books are no good!!!. I remember pefectly one day I showed up to one of my "oh so qualified" piano teachers with Leimer-Gieseking's Book about piano technique. All he said was "forget about books" (and he obviously didn't even have the slightest idea what book I had just mentioned, though he was a "conservatory professor") "don't waste your time with it, rather go practice"

Well... (" You freaking idiot, I wanted to discuss this book with you!!! I was an interested student!")

This very "professor" was the same person who later met a very important German writer, one of my favorite writers back then, who was very well known for his important contribution to 20th century literature, at a radio broadcast. All he had to say about this writer: "Well he's an old man, just like many old men"...

There are things that are good to forget.

But some things are good to remember.
As a bad example for instance... And I won't forget this one...

[keyboardclass]

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.

[pianowolfi]

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.

Good for you

P.S. "freaking idiot" is what I think *now* not what I said to him back then. Perhaps I should have said it but I didn't even dare to *think* it....

[thalbergmad]

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...

Schumann concerto works fine on my stool.

[timothy42b]

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.

This ignores what I see as some very real differences in learning style. The intuitive, results oriented "inner-game-of-tennis" student will get very little benefit from chang's book.  The analytical, intellectual, mechanics oriented student will get great benefit from it.

This discussion recurs, and usually with the same results.  Consensus is that it is worthless, but every single idea is correct.  I exaggerate, but only slightly.  Traditional teachers are put off by the over-the-top style but unable to point to anything they disagree with.

I think I'll read it again, based on the discussion on the PW forum. 

[thalbergmad]

Do you recognize a contradiction there?

I'll spell it out. 

One size cannot fit all.  But no-books can fit all.

Agreed, if you change books to book. I can take parts from one book and parts from another and find the cumulative results to be of benefit, but still nothing comes close to a good teacher.

Some of the "inner game" series was of use to me, but some others are about as much use as a one armed trapeze artist with an itchy arse.

If some people find Chang useful, I am happy for them.

Thal

[stevebob]

Well, this discussion is off to a good start. 

I wouldn't recommend that anyone with no prior experience try to learn piano (or any instrument, or any physical skill requiring specialized, precisely coordinated and controlled motions) from a book.  For someone learning that type of skill, a book's explanation is no substitute for a teacher's demonstration.

On the other hand, books can certainly help refine the abilities of those already proficient or suggest differing ideas, approaches, methodologies and tactics.  If it were otherwise, I doubt that people like Gieseking, Hofmann, Matthay, Sandor or Whiteside would have bothered to write them.

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.

[thalbergmad]

I wonder why we're here.

Because it is late at night, i have had an awful day at work and feel like an argument.

Thal

[scottmcc]

my thoughts on the book can be found here:  https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=31571.msg372489#msg372489

for some much better books, check my thread in the student's corner entitled "The Rachfan Reading List."  some of them have been mentioned above, such as Gieseking/Leimer.

cheers.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

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.

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.

[ted]

I found Chang's writing no better or worse than any other on technique and in places much more amusing. The playing of separated groups up to speed is certainly effective but I don't think the idea is original to him is it ? Over the years I have found all writing on technique to be disappointing, usually deadly serious, pompous and dogmatic, and none of the famous ones address the requirements of the various jazz styles and modern rhythm, where the best effects are not always achieved through orthodox principles.

Observation of good players and personal help from a good teacher are certainly best, but even then a player's internal sensations are mostly not audible or visible anyway. It is quite possible to produce beautiful sounds with uncomfortable or damaging means, and to move fluently with mediocre results.     

[brogers70]

I took up piano at age 40, after having been a good classical guitarist and singer before. Since I do research on malaria and since the world distributions of malaria and of pianists doe not overlap much, I've never found a very good teacher and spent most of the time teaching myself. I started doing endless Hanon and scales and made no progress, that I could see. From Chang's book I took away a few ideas 1. throw out Hanon 2. develop technique HS 3. use parallel sets to learn how to play fast 4. that way of not passing the thumb under that I'd evolved naturally doing all those scales has a (really confusing) name, "thumb over." Once I chucked Hanon and started working on technique in individual pieces I made much faster progress - now I can play most Mozart sonatas and the Schubert Impromptus, lots of the WTC. I'm never headed for the blazing Chopin Etudes or anything, but there's a lot of really good music at my level.

I'm sure a good teacher would have helped, but the only ones I could find in Africa and SE Asia were the sort who'd listen to me play, hear a mistake in a fast passage and say "Well, you need to work on that bit, there." One would sometimes give me some good advice on phrasing, but generally, none of them helped me anywhere near as much as Chang's book.

There's also lots of weird nonsense in there, about dream interpretation and the like, but just take what you need and ignore the rest. Of course, if I could choose between Chang's book and daily lessons with Bernhard, I'd take Bernhard any day. But he won't commute to Cambodia, I fear.

[keyboardclass]

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.

Quite.  That's why I'd rather post videos.

[birba]

I agree with Brogers70.  take what you need and leave the rest.  the same can be said of teachers, as well.  One of my teachers told me,  EVERY teacher has at least ONE gem of wisdom.  Take it and then leave.

[mephisto]

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?

[shadowzerg]

The book is perfect for those who decide to actually read it word for word. Don't skim, read lol.

[landru]

Agree with a lot of people about Chang's weirdnesses and such. But it isn't a comprehensive book about how to play the piano without a teacher. His emphasis is on giving instruction on how to PRACTICE - which is something my teacher does not give any advice on. His book has given me a lot of good advice and it helps to stop me from doing stupid things and expecting them to work (the so-called "intuitive" method he abhors.)

I'd rather have Bernhard beside me on the piano bench each practice session though...

[ronde_des_sylphes]

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.

[stevebob]

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.

I don't believe that Chang's advice about HS practice is expressed as a rule but rather a general guideline (or "rule of thumb," perhaps).  In fact, I recall that he advises that material suited to HT practice from the start should be so practiced.

The crux of the HS recommendation is the idea that the technique to play difficult passages at high speed is best learned at high speed, not at slow speed with the intention of gradually accelerating the tempo.  That task is made possible by subdividing a passage into groups of handfuls of notes to be practiced HS.  It doesn't work HT because we can't control and coordinate the training of both hands simultaneously in new technique.

And if it goes against everything one has ever been taught, that's to be expected.  This is one of the areas in which Chang asserts that an established approach or an intuitive approach is wrong.

The book is perfect for those who decide to actually read it word for word. Don't skim, read lol.

I don't know if you're serious or not, but I don't think this makes much sense.  A word-for-word reading of crap won't turn it into chocolate, and neither is such close examination necessary to extract the essential points from material that is fundamentally sound.  If I recall correctly, Chang's own advice to the reader is not to read the entire volume at the outset; I think he suggests reading certain sections, and then skimming or skipping around based on one's wishes or perceived needs.  That's what I did.

It's odd for me to feel like I'm advocating for Chang here—or, at least, attempting to paraphrase his advice based on my own limited understanding.  After all, I've found just a few important revelations that were overshadowed by some sketchy ideas and unedited verbosity.  I just wouldn't wish to misrepresent his principal ideas, as is sometimes done by those who might not have read (or even skimmed ) his book at all.

[slow_concert_pianist]

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. This is not to say that poor technique is to be advocated, but it is pointless looking at the technical detail until you first understand what you are trying to achieve musically.

Even "interpretation" parallels musical understand and therefore with no real musical direction/perception interpretation is futile. As "speed" is one of the significant elements of music, how could music be appreciated unless all the elements are coming together at performance speed? Most would simply 1st try and reference and then mimmick other performers, but as you are creating the performance, that is false logic. You end up with a "half baked" 2nd rate copy. I will never be Horowitz and Horowitz could never have been me. (I can see a few "flames" coming out after that line )

I therefore create a blueprint, i.e. a rough understanding of how I want things to sound, then I review the technical detail a block at a time. Sometimes a review of the technical detail leads to a change of interpretation of a given section. This is continually overviewed to reassess the musical outcome.

[stevebob]

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.)

[thalbergmad]

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.

I would put technique first as that is the engine that allows us to perform.

Playing music without technique is as daft as trying to run a Bentley on chicken crap.

Thal

[scottmcc]

well put thalbergmad--I had wondered why my bentley wasn't working. 

the issue of learning a piece "at speed" is curious.  listen to different recordings of from the same performer, and you will see that their tempo is very much different at different times in their career.  yet clearly they have learned the piece. 

chang's advice to work on small fragments of a piece is often helpful, especially when one encounters a tricky little bit.  but to learn an entire piece in that manner is exceptionally tedious, and one loses sight of the sought after "long line."

hands separate practice is often helpful, but what I find even more helpful is voice-separate practice.  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 can play a great number of difficult pieces hands separate but the coordination of the two hands on them is just too tough for me right now.

[stevebob]

well put thalbergmad--I had wondered why my bentley wasn't working. 

From what I've heard, even a Yugo won't run on chicken crap. 

he offers little advice on how to put the hands back together, which to me is one of the most difficult things to do.

Bingo.  In fact, I don't recall any advice about it at all, and wondered if I'd missed it somehow in my skipping and skimming.

I'm experiencing such difficulty right now with my test case of Chang's prescription for high-speed HS practice of parallel sets (Chopin's 25/11, which is replete with them).  Even when passages can be played at full speed HS, it's impossible (for me, anyway) to put the hands together at anywhere near that tempo.

And yet how much slow HT practice should one do—and how slowly—without fear that the muscle memory of the high-speed technique may be impaired?  At the moment, I'm experimenting with incorporating the left hand while the right hand plays in various practice rhythms.  Any other ideas would be appreciated!

[horowitzian]

From what I've heard, even a Yugo won't run on chicken crap. 

[...]

If it even runs in the first place.

[timothy42b]

I think it's technique that enables musical interpretation. 

Gieseking would agree, if I understand his book correctly.

He says that pianists add interpretation to the music because they sense it needs it - it is lacking something.  But he says what it lacks is not interpretation.  All the musicality is already in the piece, but it doesn't come out because they are not playing it completely right, and don't realize it. 

[timothy42b]

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. 

Bernhard had two methods of putting hands together.  One he called "dropping notes," which I have not found in chang and do find useful.  The other I think was small fragments but I'm not remembering clearly.

[slow_concert_pianist]

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. 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.

[thalbergmad]

Without technique, the detail of the music is lost, but not the music itself.

Without technique, everything is lost.

Would you build a mansion on a foot deep foundation??

Thal

[scottmcc]

having unfortunately listened to some of slow-concert-pianist's recordings, I can say with confidence that he would be the first to build a mansion without a foundation at all.  and then it would sink into the swamp.  so he would build another mansion, and it would sink into the swamp.  but the third one...

ad hominems aside, I define technique as the ability to produce a desired sound, whatever that may be, and interpretation as knowing what sound is desired.  based on my definition, music cannot exist without both.

[stevebob]

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.

[slow_concert_pianist]

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.

[stevebob]

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.

I think you're blinkered by your delusions, and your oft-mentioned "coach" is feeding your fantasies.  ("Currently rehearsing"?  Give me a break!)  I also think that any derision directed toward you at this point surely has far more to do with the pathetic spectacle of posturing as something you're not than anything specific to your recordings.  It's discomfiting and perplexing to see the little man behind the curtain still pretending he's the Great Oz and trying vainly to put the proverbial genie back into the bottle of credibility.

Do some research on Dunning-Kruger Effect, and try to understand that the constraints of reality aren't "slander."  At any rate, that's a peculiar allegation from someone with a history of hurling insults like lout, idiot, sycophant (however you spelled it and whatever you imagined it to mean), etc. toward those who actually can distinguish between crap and quality and who made earnest efforts to help you.

Back to Chang, please?  (And if the discussion has run its course, many thanks to everyone who contributed!)