CC Chang's Fundamentals of Piano Practice - Answer the Critics

[doctor_ivory]

I am sure to get lampooned for this post, but I feel it should be made anyway.  Strictly  speaking, I am NOT one of the people who likes CC Chang’s book the Fundamentals of Piano Practice, but I know that there are a lot of people who do.  In the intrest of playing Devil’s advocate, here are some of the negative reviews that people on amazon have written about the book.  I must say I have read most of the book online and I agree with many of these criticisms and since I know that Chang is a member on this forum I want to given him the opportunity to answer his critics, but I encourage other people (preferably people who have been playing longer than a year) to defend (or assail) his book as well.

A book on piano practice from an admitted non-pianist?

I am very surprised this book was ever published. Mr. Chang is not a performing pianist, nor is he an accomplished piano teacher; thus, he appears unqualified to write on piano practice and performance methods. Mr. Chang admits his alleged source for most of his ideas is Mlle. Yovnne Combe, who taught his two daughters piano. Mlle Combe, was herself not a noted pianist, but suppossedly a student of Debussy who served as a transcriber of Debussy's new compositions reportedly as he played them on the piano. While some of the information about Mlle. Combe may be true historically, it does not qualify Mr. Chang to write a book on piano practice. Neither does Mr. Chang's background in Physics. If so, then we should be reading books about piano performance from many other physicists, instead of proven classical piano masters. And why stop there? We would expect better books about tennis written by physicists, instead of tennis players. Better books about basketball by physicists, instead of basketball players and basketball coaches. But of course, none of this is logical or reasonable. Ideas in the book such as "thumb over" and his discussions on flat fingers are not founded on any experience as a pianist, but on odd hypothetical theories that don't work. No pianists uses "thumb over." I discussed some of Mr. Chang's ideas with Kenneth Amada, a Leventritt and Queen Elizabeth of Belgium International Piano Competition finalist and prize winner (and student of Moritz Rosenthal, Edward Steuremann, Isidor Phillip, etc.) and he couldn't believe how wrong and nonsensical the ideas in Mr. Chang's books are. Moritz Rosenthal was a student of Franz Liszt, Johannes Brahms, and Karol Mikuli (a disciple of Chopin). Steurmann studied under Ferrucio Busoni, and Phillip under Saent-Saens -- these are the greatest composers and pianists in history, who themselves descend back to Beethoven, Haydn, etc. as direct-lineage disciples. So Master Amada, a former major international prizewinner in piano and student of the most famoust piano mentors in America in the 1920s to 1950s is "in the know." He also retired as chair of piano at The University of Iowa. Who do you listen to? Someone who's suppossedly/allegedly observing his kids' piano teacher (and isn't even a pianist or accomplished piano teacher with credentials) or one of America's most decorated pianists?

On close examination of Mr. Chang's book, it appears that either the ideas are simply erroneous, or appear derived from other popular books. In other words, his pronouncements on piano practice are either tragically incorrect and misguided, or they are unoriginal. Lots of advice on overcoming fear appear in many other books. And since Mr. Chang is neither a concert pianist or an accomplished teacher of piano, he has as much right to comment about piano as anyone who has taken a couple of years piano lessons with a local high school teacher: i.e. no right at all. Although there are many positive reviews of this book, I sense they come from friends and easily influenced readers -- many of whom admit they are not pianists at all. Quite simply, this book is a great disappointment. I bought it out of curiosity, and agree with reviewers who point out the book as extremely poor. Readers would be better served by reading interviews of the world's greatests pianists, as well as books written by actual pianists. Mr. Chang is not only not a great pianist...he is not even a classical pianist of any mention. He is neither a famous teacher who has produced students who have won international prizes. I am quite puzzled how a publishing company would pick up a book of pianistic nonsense written by a non pianist. I guess Andy Warhol was correct: "anybody can be famous for 15 minutes" in the modern world. Do yourself a favor. Save your money. I own every book available on piano performance and pedagogy currently in print, and not only is Mr. Chang's book the worst, it cannot be considered comparable. Every other book is at least written by someone who is a serious pianist. The claim made on the back cover of the book that "piano pedagogy had never been researched, documented, and analyzed properly" is ludricous and untrue. There is for example "The Art of Piano Playing: A Scientific Approach" by George Kochevitsky; A Symposium for Pianists and Teachers: Strategies to Develop the Mind and Body for Optimal Performance ed. by Kris Kropff, and many many other books on piano written by actual concert pianists or genuine piano teachers qualified to write about piano. In addition, every great book on piano learning has at least one chapter or major section devoted to piano practice. Many truly outstanding books exist written by pianists and accomplished teachers of major piano conservatories. This book is NOT one of them.

Some readers appear to wish to reject serious piano performance and practice books because they sound "elite" (translation: too hard for the beginner). The answer is that instead of learning from books, you should find a real piano teacher, and not waste your time trying to learn piano from a person with a physics degree and a couple of years ("if" that many!) of piano lessons, but who is not an accomplished pianist and/or piano teacher. (Publishing a book does not make you an accomplished piano teacher. It just means you convinced someone to publish a book. An accomplished teacher should have many students winning piano competitions, attending the most prestigious summer camps, like Aspen, playing on national radio or television, etc.) Piano is a refined instrument requiring years of genuine performing experience and knowledge to master. Only masters at the keyboard and/or piano teaching should be writing about piano performance and practice methods, not non-perfomers. This book should be avoided at all costs. There are many books on basic piano practice written for the beginners and intermediate levels. They are much better written than Mr. Chang's book, which frankly is poorly written because he is babbling about piano matters he doesn't appear to have genuine knowledge about.

Impractical

The author had a lot of interesting points in his book and you may feel really mind-blowing at first. eg, he is strongly against Hanon and Czerny series which had been used for hundreds of years. He took dozens of pages logically arguing why they were good for nothing, and then claimed that his method can be many times faster.

However, when you actually apply his methods, you will find many movements IMPOSSIBLE at all. eg, he stated that you should never move your thumb under other fingers, but directly move it to the destination piano key (the thumb-over method, as he named it). However, the fact is, no matter how fast your can move your thumb, it still needs time to 'jump' from one key to another, and during that interval all fingers are off the keyboard. How could one perform a good legato in that way?

I Googled the term 'thumb over', most results are about his books. Others may be indirectly related to it.

The author has no video on his site supporting his points, and no reliable source of information indicates that his method has proven to be correct.

Sorry for my bad English, but that's just my 2-cents. So use your own judgement.

Too much of a good thing

The author speaks with amazing authority on many topics regarding piano playing, and while I am not going to claim I am a better piano player than him (because I am probably not) he makes one fundamental error in ascribing his advise, and it is namely this; he assumes the methods that work for him must be universal in their application. There is simply no reason to suppose this, let alone emphatically state it as he does. I have read books on playing the piano by far more credible authors than him that completely contradict many of his "correct methods."
Third, while I may not be an expert at the piano I am something of an expert on learning and memory (insofar as the average person is concerned) as I study it extensively in university both from a psychological and neurobiological perspective and I can say that, in regard to his section on memory and the brain, this man is grossly uninformed. I am not going to say he is wrong about everything in this regard, because he is not, but he is wrong about a awful lot of things, and in a good many cases way out of his depth. Also, he talks constantly about science and its importance and yet provides no references for any of his information (hardly behaviour worthy of being called scientific).

Here is an extract to illustrate his "knowledge":

"The subconscious also stores its conclusions in what might be called "emotion buckets". For each emotion, there is a bucket, and every time the subconscious comes to a conclusion, say a happy one, it deposits the conclusion in a "happy bucket". The fullness of each bucket determines your emotional state. This explains why people often can sense what is right or wrong or whether a situation is good or bad without knowing exactly what the reasons are ("sixth sense"). Thus the subconscious affects our lives much more than most of us realize. It may control how we feel about piano music or our desire to practice."

Finally, I will say this: you should always be wary of people who claim to know everything.

Chaotic, a tad narcissistic and ego-boasting, but it has its merits

The writer may have a Ph.D., but so do millions and most of them don't claim to have discovered a new and only method for learning piano when they are not entitled to. I took lessons about 30 years ago and was taught to play each hand separately and then combine. This is not a secret, its just intuitive. That is basically how you learn nearly everything. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. Everyone who is claiming to have the best method and has an opinion on pretty much everything and sells it with 'science that just sounds like science' needs to be frowned upon. Also the use of loads of acronyms like HS for hands separate etc. is very iffy, almost 'shopping channel' like.

I would like to point out that I too was initially drawn to the promises of this book  , but 3 years of study at a conservatory with a serious instructor has since changed my outlook.  

[lostinidlewonder]

Many of us have already posted our opinions on this.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=31571
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=36310

[doctor_ivory]

Many of us have already posted our opinions on this.

Sorry, I knew other posts have addressed this book, but I did not think they really addressed many of the central concerns the reviews above do.  Most of the time people have just criticised the organization of his book.  I want people (esp. Mr. Chang) to address the serious criticisms posed by the above reviewers, and not dodge questions by saying many people find his book helpful and that many instructors have recommended his book to their students.  Information like that is purely anecdotal.  Many teachers teach Creationism, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

[stevebob]

I read Chang's book for the first time just last spring, after which I started this thread about my own impressions:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=37338

I continue to have very mixed feelings about its merits.  The information I found to be useful and valuable was very limited, but it was also very significant to me—eye-opening, really.  On the other hand, there was an awful lot of content to slog through that I found questionable (at best) or nonsensical (at worst).

The ambitious scope of Chang's project suffers most, in my opinion, from the glaring fact that it's neither professionally written nor professionally edited.  That's a bit sad, as Chang thought he could revolutionize piano pedagogy and thereby restore the piano's popularity as the domestic musical instrument of choice.  He obviously has his followers, but the book has been around long enough by now to concede that his plan has fallen very far short of the goal—and there are reasons for that (if, in fact, it was ever a tenable target).

I can't find the motivation to read those Amazon reviews to refute or affirm them point for point.  I began to scan the first one that was reproduced, and couldn't get past the assertion that "No pianists uses [sic] 'thumb over.'"  That's a ridiculous claim; I believe all proficient pianists use it even though they've probably never heard the term and even if they're doing it unconsciously.  (Thumb-over was not one of the meaningful tidbits of Chang's book to me; I'd already encountered the term in other forums, and I thought he was just giving a convenient label to something that pianists already do intuitively.)

I would wish Chang well and thank him for the small (but disproportionately important) way in which I benefited from his work, though I reckon that its many flaws will preclude the far-reaching impact he once predicted.

[lostinidlewonder]

I personally don't find trying to tear down someones credentials a very good form of critique why don't we look at the work itself that tells us more.

[timothy42b]

I personally don't find trying to tear down someones credentials a very good form of critique why don't we look at the work itself that tells us more.

I agree.

I find it significant that so many people attack the organization or style of the book, and think that doing so somehow refutes specific points he makes about learning piano.

I'm not aware of anyone who has actually shown any of the advice to be erroneous.  Some of it has been quite useful to me personally, some of it has not. 

[stevebob]

Though it's not clear to whom the previous two posts are directed, the organization and style of a book are hardly inconsequential issues.  In fact, they have a significant bearing on the author's credibility and on how his or her work is perceived and received.  Professional writers who expect to be taken seriously understand that.

Regarding advice in Fundamentals of Piano Practice that may be erroneous, consider Chang's assertion that perfect pitch is both necessary and trainable.  I wonder how many people have successfully acquired perfect pitch via the advice he prescribes.

[okoie]

I wrote elsewhere in this forum that only thanks to chang's chapter on speed wall i have reached the high speed requested by certain pieces.Before that I had tried the advices of 3 teachers and one book with no result. May be it's a question of individual anatomy and physiology. The important thing is an open and focused  mind:try, and take what's you're sure is really useful to you;  if the rest is not good for you, peraphs will be good for another. this is a pragmatic approach.May be there's the absolute truth on piano matters, valid for everyone.Who knows?

[perfect_pitch]

This may seem dumb... but if this guy is admittedly NOT a pianist, nor a piano teacher, why should he be giving advice on piano teaching???

I do not know the guy or I haven't read his book, so I'll try and look into it, but seriously - if he isn't a piano teacher or performer - why should we read it???

It's like trying to learn law from an ice-cream truck driver!

[stevebob]

This may seem dumb... but if this guy is admittedly NOT a pianist, nor a piano teacher, why should he be giving advice on piano teaching???

I do not know the guy or I haven't read his book, so I'll try and look into it, but seriously - if he isn't a piano teacher or performer - why should we read it???

It's like trying to learn law from an ice-cream truck driver!

But the fact that Chang isn't an advanced-level pianist doesn't mean his book is invalidated for that reason alone.  I think his recommendations should be judged by whether they have a factual basis and by their effectiveness.

A physicist with prior training as a reasonably proficient amateur pianist should certainly be qualified to understand the mechanics and motions of piano technique, and I would expect him to have informed opinions about the practice methods that can train those motions most efficiently.

It might seem implausible that a scientist would bother writing material about maximizing the benefit of one's piano practice regimen, but I really don't think that Chang's credentials are an issue here.

[timothy42b]

But the fact that Chang isn't an advanced-level pianist doesn't mean his book is invalidated for that reason alone.  I think his recommendations should be judged by whether they have a factual basis and by their effectiveness.

His daughters became advanced level pianists using the methods of their advanced level teacher.

Chang observed carefully and attempted to pass on the fundamentals of how this was done.  It is a book on how to practise and learn rather than how to play.  On that basis it would seem worthwhile for anyone to at least skim it, unless there it contains some dangerous advice.  So far that harm has not been shown. 

I'd forgotten the perfect pitch thing.  I'll have to reread that section and see what I think. 

[brogers70]

It doesn't matter whether Chang is a professional pianist or not. It is entirely possible for geniuses to have no idea whatsoever how they learned all the stuff that just comes naturally to them and for an ordinary mortal to have much better insight into that it takes for other ordinary mortals to develop a decent level of skill. Whether a particular teaching method works better than another is an entirely empirical question that could be settled by a controlled experiment (assuming you could organize enough teachers and students to do it).

I found plenty of weird, useless stuff in Chang, but also a few key bits that were extremely helpful.

[ramseytheii]

The whole idea of this post is just wrong.  Your premise, that there are substantial disagreements that you lay out in your quotes, is completely belied by the shallow, unspecific nature of the comments.

Comment #1:

A book on piano practice from an admitted non-pianist?

I am very surprised this book was ever published. Mr. Chang is not a performing pianist, nor is he an accomplished piano teacher; thus, he appears unqualified to write on piano practice and performance methods. Mr. Chang admits his alleged source for most of his ideas is Mlle. Yovnne Combe, who taught his two daughters piano. Mlle Combe, was herself not a noted pianist, but suppossedly a student of Debussy who served as a transcriber of Debussy's new compositions reportedly as he played them on the piano. While some of the information about Mlle. Combe may be true historically, it does not qualify Mr. Chang to write a book on piano practice. Neither does Mr. Chang's background in Physics. If so, then we should be reading books about piano performance from many other physicists, instead of proven classical piano masters. And why stop there? We would expect better books about tennis written by physicists, instead of tennis players. Better books about basketball by physicists, instead of basketball players and basketball coaches. But of course, none of this is logical or reasonable. Ideas in the book such as "thumb over" and his discussions on flat fingers are not founded on any experience as a pianist, but on odd hypothetical theories that don't work. No pianists uses "thumb over." I discussed some of Mr. Chang's ideas with Kenneth Amada, a Leventritt and Queen Elizabeth of Belgium International Piano Competition finalist and prize winner (and student of Moritz Rosenthal, Edward Steuremann, Isidor Phillip, etc.) and he couldn't believe how wrong and nonsensical the ideas in Mr. Chang's books are. Moritz Rosenthal was a student of Franz Liszt, Johannes Brahms, and Karol Mikuli (a disciple of Chopin). Steurmann studied under Ferrucio Busoni, and Phillip under Saent-Saens -- these are the greatest composers and pianists in history, who themselves descend back to Beethoven, Haydn, etc. as direct-lineage disciples. So Master Amada, a former major international prizewinner in piano and student of the most famoust piano mentors in America in the 1920s to 1950s is "in the know." He also retired as chair of piano at The University of Iowa. Who do you listen to? Someone who's suppossedly/allegedly observing his kids' piano teacher (and isn't even a pianist or accomplished piano teacher with credentials) or one of America's most decorated pianists?

On close examination of Mr. Chang's book, it appears that either the ideas are simply erroneous, or appear derived from other popular books. In other words, his pronouncements on piano practice are either tragically incorrect and misguided, or they are unoriginal. Lots of advice on overcoming fear appear in many other books. And since Mr. Chang is neither a concert pianist or an accomplished teacher of piano, he has as much right to comment about piano as anyone who has taken a couple of years piano lessons with a local high school teacher: i.e. no right at all. Although there are many positive reviews of this book, I sense they come from friends and easily influenced readers -- many of whom admit they are not pianists at all. Quite simply, this book is a great disappointment. I bought it out of curiosity, and agree with reviewers who point out the book as extremely poor. Readers would be better served by reading interviews of the world's greatests pianists, as well as books written by actual pianists. Mr. Chang is not only not a great pianist...he is not even a classical pianist of any mention. He is neither a famous teacher who has produced students who have won international prizes. I am quite puzzled how a publishing company would pick up a book of pianistic nonsense written by a non pianist. I guess Andy Warhol was correct: "anybody can be famous for 15 minutes" in the modern world. Do yourself a favor. Save your money. I own every book available on piano performance and pedagogy currently in print, and not only is Mr. Chang's book the worst, it cannot be considered comparable. Every other book is at least written by someone who is a serious pianist. The claim made on the back cover of the book that "piano pedagogy had never been researched, documented, and analyzed properly" is ludricous and untrue. There is for example "The Art of Piano Playing: A Scientific Approach" by George Kochevitsky; A Symposium for Pianists and Teachers: Strategies to Develop the Mind and Body for Optimal Performance ed. by Kris Kropff, and many many other books on piano written by actual concert pianists or genuine piano teachers qualified to write about piano. In addition, every great book on piano learning has at least one chapter or major section devoted to piano practice. Many truly outstanding books exist written by pianists and accomplished teachers of major piano conservatories. This book is NOT one of them.

Some readers appear to wish to reject serious piano performance and practice books because they sound "elite" (translation: too hard for the beginner). The answer is that instead of learning from books, you should find a real piano teacher, and not waste your time trying to learn piano from a person with a physics degree and a couple of years ("if" that many!) of piano lessons, but who is not an accomplished pianist and/or piano teacher. (Publishing a book does not make you an accomplished piano teacher. It just means you convinced someone to publish a book. An accomplished teacher should have many students winning piano competitions, attending the most prestigious summer camps, like Aspen, playing on national radio or television, etc.) Piano is a refined instrument requiring years of genuine performing experience and knowledge to master. Only masters at the keyboard and/or piano teaching should be writing about piano performance and practice methods, not non-perfomers. This book should be avoided at all costs. There are many books on basic piano practice written for the beginners and intermediate levels. They are much better written than Mr. Chang's book, which frankly is poorly written because he is babbling about piano matters he doesn't appear to have genuine knowledge about.

The only thing close to being specific mentioned here is the only thing that anybody ever mentions, which is "thumb over," which frankly, anyone with a brain will realize is the most noncontroversial idea ever advanced by a text about piano.  If piano playing relies on larger muscles to do the work, then it should be obvious that connective fingering is irrelevant to achievement.  If connective fingering is irrelevant, than why would it be necessary to always bend the thumb under the palm?

I am sorry, but I am missing something.  What is so outrageous about that simple-minded, and correct, idea?

This quote, above, just name drops competition winners and students of students.  A, B, and C may have been students of students of students of aunties of Liszt, but Liszt wasn't even himself able to articulate the essentials of piano playing.  Have you looked at his exercises?  Those do not exactly stand as genius monuments to pedagogy, unfortunately.

Comment #2:

Impractical

The author had a lot of interesting points in his book and you may feel really mind-blowing at first. eg, he is strongly against Hanon and Czerny series which had been used for hundreds of years. He took dozens of pages logically arguing why they were good for nothing, and then claimed that his method can be many times faster.

However, when you actually apply his methods, you will find many movements IMPOSSIBLE at all. eg, he stated that you should never move your thumb under other fingers, but directly move it to the destination piano key (the thumb-over method, as he named it). However, the fact is, no matter how fast your can move your thumb, it still needs time to 'jump' from one key to another, and during that interval all fingers are off the keyboard. How could one perform a good legato in that way?

I Googled the term 'thumb over', most results are about his books. Others may be indirectly related to it.

The author has no video on his site supporting his points, and no reliable source of information indicates that his method has proven to be correct.

Sorry for my bad English, but that's just my 2-cents. So use your own judgement.

I find it interesting that of all the chapters he wrote, the only thing that ever gets mentioned is "thumb over."  For me, it is the most non-controversial, most banal point in the whole book.

This person is more specific, but even so, he only mentions two relatively minor points.  What are his substantial objections?  How does he oppose the ideas?  he doesn't mention any ideas of his own, only that he can't figure out what the author was talking about.  What is so profound about this objection?

Too much of a good thing

The author speaks with amazing authority on many topics regarding piano playing, and while I am not going to claim I am a better piano player than him (because I am probably not) he makes one fundamental error in ascribing his advise, and it is namely this; he assumes the methods that work for him must be universal in their application. There is simply no reason to suppose this, let alone emphatically state it as he does. I have read books on playing the piano by far more credible authors than him that completely contradict many of his "correct methods."
Third, while I may not be an expert at the piano I am something of an expert on learning and memory (insofar as the average person is concerned) as I study it extensively in university both from a psychological and neurobiological perspective and I can say that, in regard to his section on memory and the brain, this man is grossly uninformed. I am not going to say he is wrong about everything in this regard, because he is not, but he is wrong about a awful lot of things, and in a good many cases way out of his depth. Also, he talks constantly about science and its importance and yet provides no references for any of his information (hardly behaviour worthy of being called scientific).

Here is an extract to illustrate his "knowledge":

"The subconscious also stores its conclusions in what might be called "emotion buckets". For each emotion, there is a bucket, and every time the subconscious comes to a conclusion, say a happy one, it deposits the conclusion in a "happy bucket". The fullness of each bucket determines your emotional state. This explains why people often can sense what is right or wrong or whether a situation is good or bad without knowing exactly what the reasons are ("sixth sense"). Thus the subconscious affects our lives much more than most of us realize. It may control how we feel about piano music or our desire to practice."

Finally, I will say this: you should always be wary of people who claim to know everything.

Well, that seems more acceptable criticism.  But why criticize without correction?  And why would we take it at face value?  For instance, this critic claims to be an "expert" at least according to "average people" whatever that means (I'm in expert in dirty martinis compared to average people, so why don't I have a degree?  Or a job?) and he even lists a specific passage, but there's no corrective.  What exactly is the criticism?  I can't even figure out what it is.

Chaotic, a tad narcissistic and ego-boasting, but it has its merits

The writer may have a Ph.D., but so do millions and most of them don't claim to have discovered a new and only method for learning piano when they are not entitled to. I took lessons about 30 years ago and was taught to play each hand separately and then combine. This is not a secret, its just intuitive. That is basically how you learn nearly everything. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. Everyone who is claiming to have the best method and has an opinion on pretty much everything and sells it with 'science that just sounds like science' needs to be frowned upon. Also the use of loads of acronyms like HS for hands separate etc. is very iffy, almost 'shopping channel' like.

This person's major complaint is that the author shortens the words "hands separate" into "HS."  Have I made my point?

If these shallow and banal criticisms are enough to move your mind on the subject, it suggests to me you haven't exactly delved too deeply into it yourself.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

I read Chang's book for the first time just last spring, after which I started this thread about my own impressions:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=37338

I continue to have very mixed feelings about its merits.  The information I found to be useful and valuable was very limited, but it was also very significant to me—eye-opening, really.  On the other hand, there was an awful lot of content to slog through that I found questionable (at best) or nonsensical (at worst).

The ambitious scope of Chang's project suffers most, in my opinion, from the glaring fact that it's neither professionally written nor professionally edited.  That's a bit sad, as Chang thought he could revolutionize piano pedagogy and thereby restore the piano's popularity as the domestic musical instrument of choice.  He obviously has his followers, but the book has been around long enough by now to concede that his plan has fallen very far short of the goal—and there are reasons for that (if, in fact, it was ever a tenable target).

I can't find the motivation to read those Amazon reviews to refute or affirm them point for point.  I began to scan the first one that was reproduced, and couldn't get past the assertion that "No pianists uses [sic] 'thumb over.'"  That's a ridiculous claim; I believe all proficient pianists use it even though they've probably never heard the term and even if they're doing it unconsciously.  (Thumb-over was not one of the meaningful tidbits of Chang's book to me; I'd already encountered the term in other forums, and I thought he was just giving a convenient label to something that pianists already do intuitively.)

I would wish Chang well and thank him for the small (but disproportionately important) way in which I benefited from his work, though I reckon that its many flaws will preclude the far-reaching impact he once predicted.

Interesting post; I wasn't aware that the author had pretensions to revolutionize pedagogy.

Although I defended him in my last post, I only skimmed through parts of the book.  I found the actual writing too horrendous to bear.

Your point about proficient pianists using the so-called "thumb over" technique is well made.  The fact is, a lot of pianists play the piano, and hardly any of them can actually talk about how they do it.  The fact is, connective fingering is not only inessential to proficient and universal piano technique, it is harmful.  The idea of the thumb always bending under the palm, is an idea that comes from an ideal of connective fingering.

Although we have certain pedagogues who made important physiological advances, when we read their writings, or writings of students about them, the thing that stands out the most to me is that their teaching was primarily psychological.  They didn't spend time explaining the exact movement in each bar, but tried to unlock their students' imaginations (supplanted by physical principles but not specifics).

Walter Ramsey

[doctor_ivory]

Comment #1: The writer is stating, rather verbosely, that Chang's credentials are suspect.  If Chang is just a physicist then we might wonder why we should take his word as gold when there are so many other excellent books by excellent pianists (which the reviewer goes to the trouble of naming) that provide more reliable information.
As for "thumb over,"  you cannot state, as Chang does, that thumb over is the only way to go.  Because, while it is useful for fast arpeggios, you will never be able to acheive true legato with it.  To be frank, at fast tempos this point is almost irrelevant; however, at slow to moderate tempos it is very relevent.

Comment#2
The key point here is this passage:

The author has no video on his site supporting his points, and no reliable source of information indicates that his method has proven to be correct.

Nuff said.

Comment #3
Why criticise without correction?  Because it is an amazon review, that's why.  Whether he corrects Chang or not is completely immaterial to the fact that Chang is wrong in this regard.
But if you want some correction I will tell you what the subconscious is.  In modern psychology and psychiatry the subconscious is simply a word that refers to everything your brain does that you are not aware of (such as regulating your heartbeat).  Chang has confused the subconscious with Freud's notion of the unconscious and completely altered it to suit his own needs.
The review itself points out that Chang's so-called scientific approach is not remotely scientific because he provides no references.  The quote was there to illustrate Chang's "knowledge."  The brackets were implying sarcasm.  Perhaps the author of the review never stopped to consider that there was actually anyone who believed there are emotion buckets in the brain.
It is somewhat ironic that you are asking why should we take that reviewer's claimed expertise at face value, because precisely one of the points at question is why should we take Chang's expertise at face value?

The fact is there is nothing shallow or banal about questioning a persons credentials, asking for references, and getting simple facts correct, especially when that person is claiming expertise.

But if you want a even more damaging argument, let me provide one.  Consider section 1.II.7 (Hands Separate Practice: Acquiring Technique).  Apparently the only thing you need to do to acquire good finger technique is practice HS (sorry I meant to write hands separate).  That's it, nothing about arm position relative to the angle of the fingers.  Nothing about pulling with your fingers to produce a fast light touch.  Just practice HS and miracles will follow.
Think I am being unfair, then read for yourself: https://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.II.7

 The fact is, a lot of pianists play the piano, and hardly any of them can actually talk about how they do it.  

Go to a conservatory and talk to a few pianists and see if that statement still holds true.

Although we have certain pedagogues who made important physiological advances, when we read their writings, or writings of students about them, the thing that stands out the most to me is that their teaching was primarily psychological.  They didn't spend time explaining the exact movement in each bar, but tried to unlock their students' imaginations (supplanted by physical principles but not specifics).

If you believe this, then you need to read more books.  May I suggest going to your local university and checking out their music library.  

[lostinidlewonder]

Quote #1
"Ideas in the book such as "thumb over" and his discussions on flat fingers are not founded on any experience as a pianist, but on odd hypothetical theories that don't work. No pianists uses "thumb over."

I will play devils advocate here, there are passages of music where thumb over works much better than under. When we play things very fast or have fast hand movements thumb over is most more efficient as it does not change the size of your hand, note that changes to your 1st or 5th will cause expansion and contraction of your hand. Thumb over causes the hand to maintain its same expaned size and when playing fast runs allows us to produce the same result with less effort compared to thumb under. Look at Debussy's Images Reflects dans Leau for instance when the RH starts running up and down the octaves a whole tone pattern vs LH melody after the cadenza. Anyone who approaches the RH with a thumb under motion will play with unnecessary tension. It seems very strange that this person said you never use thumb over and it is a hypothetical theory, to me this highlights the limited piano repertoire experience they have and/or a limited technique.

'. The claim made on the back cover of the book that "piano pedagogy had never been researched, documented, and analyzed properly" is ludricous and untrue.'
I agree here quite a preposterous assumption although I have never read the back of Chang's book as I have only ever read it on the internet.


Quote #2
"The author had a lot of interesting points in his book and you may feel really mind-blowing at first. eg, he is strongly against Hanon and Czerny series which had been used for hundreds of years"
To me this not not a mindblowing example at all and in fact that it merely runs in line with the quoters own ideological stance on Hanon is why probably why he found it so impressive. Chang failed to highlight alternatives to Hanon and failed to explain away the benefits Hanon has for the beginner and those who want to rethink about hand positioning/balance.

"he stated that you should never move your thumb under other fingers, but directly move it to the destination piano key (the thumb-over method, as he named it). However, the fact is, no matter how fast your can move your thumb, it still needs time to 'jump' from one key to another, and during that interval all fingers are off the keyboard. How could one perform a good legato in that way?"
This is a good example of where an axiom in the book is stated but no detailed routine to understand it has been properly discussed and thus those who are still trying to learn about technique end up getting lost. Talking about the thumb one could devote an entire chapter to, the thumb is the most complicated finger in the entire hand, all serious pianists will admit this fact to you. The thumb is such a difficult tool to use correctly that to restrict it to move in a particular way will hinder your technical progress much more so than doing the same with any other finger. I find it ludicrious to say that the thumb ALWAYS has to come from above but at the same time it is just as crazy to alway do thumb underneath! Both have their application and anyone with a decent amount of piano repertoire knowledge will know immediately examples where both are used and are the best effective in each case.

Quote #3

"The subconscious also stores its conclusions in what might be called "emotion buckets". For each emotion, there is a bucket, and every time the subconscious comes to a conclusion, say a happy one, it deposits the conclusion in a "happy bucket". The fullness of each bucket determines your emotional state. This explains why people often can sense what is right or wrong or whether a situation is good or bad without knowing exactly what the reasons are ("sixth sense"). Thus the subconscious affects our lives much more than most of us realize. It may control how we feel about piano music or our desire to practice."

this extract is out of context as we cannot understand what Chang defines as "conclusions" or "emotion buckets" or why he went on about talking about a 6th sense in decision making. If this paragraph exists on its own it is simply babble. I don't find it fair to quote what is written in the book without taking the entire picture into view at the same time, understanding the context of the quote needs to be established to make a constructive critique.

Quote #4
I dont find a Ph.D a very useful degree as a matter for piano writing. Most people always mistake Ph.D as a medical degree, it is a Doctorate in PHILOSOPHY. I guess those with a Ph.D should say in the piano manual they write, "The piano is a wonderful invention as the more you get to know it the more questions it produces." Ph.D people are like question generators aren't they? Not so much answer seekers. I do not see really any philosophical content in Changs Fundamentals book so highlighting his Ph.D degree seems completely irrelevant to me.

[okoie]

lostindlewonder,
  you have been  misinformed about mr. chang's degree:he has a doctorate in physics ,not in philosophy.That's what he tells in his book.

[lostinidlewonder]

hi okoie, I was merely referring to quote #4 which mentioned Ph.D, maybe they meant physics doctorate, in that case it would be a PhD (and you would want to mention it is a physics degree because the majority of the time when we see the letters p h d it means a philosophy doctorate) without the dot or usually D.Sc, in any case it is confusing why one wants to bring this up if it can't be used to reduce the value of the work. In fact if I had a physics degree I am sure it would help somewhat in explaining forces. It is a shame that Chang did not use his excellent physics skills to draw force diagrams of technique in action.

[scottmcc]

hi okoie, I was merely referring to quote #4 which mentioned Ph.D, maybe they meant physics doctorate, in that case it would be a PhD (and you would want to mention it is a physics degree because the majority of the time when we see the letters p h d it means a philosophy doctorate) without the dot or usually D.Sc, in any case it is confusing why one wants to bring this up if it can't be used to reduce the value of the work. In fact if I had a physics degree I am sure it would help somewhat in explaining forces. It is a shame that Chang did not use his excellent physics skills to draw force diagrams of technique in action.

in the US there are two main sets of letters used to describe doctors, PhD and MD (also a few others like DO but we'll skip those for now).  Anyone who's not a physician (MD) gets lumped into PhD, even though it technically means doctor of philosophy.  But that's the US and its precise use of language again.  I will "refudiate" this poor usage promptly.

Back to the matter at hand, I've already written several critiques of Chang's book, several of which referenced above, and any others available with a quick search of this site.  My opinion is unchanged since I wrote them.  But really, in his defense, if authors were expected to answer every negative remark about their work, especially anonymous reviews on Amazon, they'd never have time to write anything.  The sheer volume of venom spewed on the internet is amazing!

[ramseytheii]

Comment #1: The writer is stating, rather verbosely, that Chang's credentials are suspect.  If Chang is just a physicist then we might wonder why we should take his word as gold when there are so many other excellent books by excellent pianists (which the reviewer goes to the trouble of naming) that provide more reliable information.

If you are going to criticize someone's credentials, without at all looking at the arguments they are making, that is by definition not substantial criticism.  If you analyze the arguments, and find faults in all of them, you ask, "how did this happen?"  You then find confirmation of your analysis in the lack of credentials.

To look for credentials first is by definition to be shallow.  That's why this person is name-dropping competition winners and ex-mistresses of Liszt.  He is not actually saying anything about the substance of the book.  

As for "thumb over,"  you cannot state, as Chang does, that thumb over is the only way to go.  Because, while it is useful for fast arpeggios, you will never be able to acheive true legato with it.  To be frank, at fast tempos this point is almost irrelevant; however, at slow to moderate tempos it is very relevent.

So what you seem to be saying is this is an instance of over-heated rhetoric, rather than a bad idea?  Or are you saying that "thumb over" never works?  

Comment#2
The key point here is this passage: "The author has no video on his site supporting his points, and no reliable source of information indicates that his method has proven to be correct."
Nuff said.

Again, what exactly are they disagreeing with?  What points does the author make, that are wrong?  This person mentions nothing specific, and obviously has closed their mind because there isn't a video online showing the thing.  Which indicates only one thing: the commenter doesn't understand what he is reading.  In my mind that nullifies criticism (though there is actually no criticism here).

Comment #3

It is somewhat ironic that you are asking why should we take that reviewer's claimed expertise at face value, because precisely one of the points at question is why should we take Chang's expertise at face value?

The author wrote an entire book of ideas relating to piano technique.  If you want to start by questioning credentials, you are ignoring the substance.  This commenter, by contrast, quoted someone else, said that they themselves were the expert, and didn't provide any information by which to judge.

You have to judge by the substance, not the credentials.  Otherwise, every student of Liszt's bastard children would have to be judged among the greatest pianists of all time.  Hey, you're just looking at their credentials, right?

The fact is there is nothing shallow or banal about questioning a persons credentials, asking for references, and getting simple facts correct, especially when that person is claiming expertise.

There is when you don't provide a single constructive criticism of the substance of their book.

But if you want a even more damaging argument, let me provide one.  Consider section 1.II.7 (Hands Separate Practice: Acquiring Technique).  Apparently the only thing you need to do to acquire good finger technique is practice HS (sorry I meant to write hands separate).  That's it, nothing about arm position relative to the angle of the fingers.  Nothing about pulling with your fingers to produce a fast light touch.  Just practice HS and miracles will follow.
Think I am being unfair, then read for yourself: https://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.II.7

I think you have a point... too bad nobody bothered to bring that up.  The commenters you quoted gave rather the impression that they didn't read the book.  If you can make your own substantial criticisms like this, why did you post ridiculous, substance-free comments from dorks on amazon?

Walter Ramsey

[stevebob]

I doubt that the Amazon reviews on which this thread is based really merit the analyses that doctor_ivory wishes to give them (ostensibly to expose, for better or worse, the value of Chang's points about piano practice).  It's peculiar to me that a big deal would be made about the credentials of a book’s author by self-proclaimed critics about whose credentials we know nothing!  The critiques at some other sites like YouTube are worth less than nothing about 99% of the time, after all, so I wouldn’t automatically elevate the self-proclaimed critics at Amazon into any lofty realm of reliability or authority.

Some of the criticisms in this discussion are inapposite, reflect a misunderstanding of the material, or are voiced from the viewpoint of a devil’s advocate merely to provoke some response.  For example, it hardly seems valid to claim Chang promises miracles from HS practice alone and to skewer him for not treating basic issues like arm position.  The book is about efficient practice routines, not posture!  Someone who hasn’t worked out issues like elbow position and arm height for himself or herself probably won’t be sufficiently proficient even to benefit from Chang’s methodologies and would be better served by studying the fundamentals of piano playing instead.

[...] If you can make your own substantial criticisms like this, why did you post ridiculous, substance-free comments from dorks on amazon?

That's a good question.  I wondered the same thing when doctor_ivory recently began a thread that seemed like a naive inquiry into the nature of HS practice and the reasons many seem to find it valiable.  It was subsequently revealed in another thread that the good doctor already knew the answers to his own questions, including the physiology of the brain's hemispheres and their control over coordination of manual tasks that require interdependence of the hands.

 

Don't get me wrong, Doc, as I mean no offense; the forum is slow these days, and I'm sure we're all interested in good discussions and debates.  But when there's even the appearance of people being less than forthright about their positions and backgrounds, and the appearance of posting stuff that's calculated to stimulate conversation and counterarguments, others might think there's an undisclosed agenda and might feel manipulated by it.

[ramseytheii]

Quote #1
"Ideas in the book such as "thumb over" and his discussions on flat fingers are not founded on any experience as a pianist, but on odd hypothetical theories that don't work. No pianists uses "thumb over."

I will play devils advocate here, there are passages of music where thumb over works much better than under. When we play things very fast or have fast hand movements thumb over is most more efficient as it does not change the size of your hand, note that changes to your 1st or 5th will cause expansion and contraction of your hand. Thumb over causes the hand to maintain its same expaned size and when playing fast runs allows us to produce the same result with less effort compared to thumb under. Look at Debussy's Images Reflects dans Leau for instance when the RH starts running up and down the octaves a whole tone pattern vs LH melody after the cadenza. Anyone who approaches the RH with a thumb under motion will play with unnecessary tension. It seems very strange that this person said you never use thumb over and it is a hypothetical theory, to me this highlights the limited piano repertoire experience they have and/or a limited technique.

You are clearly correct.

I think the problem stems from people being taught piano from a young age solely on the basis of connective fingering.  It is hard to conceptualize playing the piano with muscles that do not come into direct contact with the keys.

But the whole idea of the awkwardly named "thumb over" seems to me to be a description of playing with larger muscles, and treating the hand as a unit, rather than a set of individual parts.  Some repertoire demands that we do that; often it is post-Lisztian repertoire, but even in Beethoven this muscular demand was coming forward.

It is hard for people, who have always played everything with connective fingering, to understand the idea of moving the hand, or the forearm, or the arm, as an entire unit, and to relinquish, for even a split second, contact with the keyboard.

Perhaps Chang (I never read the book) believed in this point too strongly, and believed everything should be played with upper musculature, and so insisted that that was the only, proficient way too play.  That is rather an instance of over-heated rhetoric, than a bad idea.  The idea itself is sound; the application was too zealous.

This is a good example of where an axiom in the book is stated but no detailed routine to understand it has been properly discussed and thus those who are still trying to learn about technique end up getting lost. Talking about the thumb one could devote an entire chapter to, the thumb is the most complicated finger in the entire hand, all serious pianists will admit this fact to you. The thumb is such a difficult tool to use correctly that to restrict it to move in a particular way will hinder your technical progress much more so than doing the same with any other finger. I find it ludicrious to say that the thumb ALWAYS has to come from above but at the same time it is just as crazy to alway do thumb underneath! Both have their application and anyone with a decent amount of piano repertoire knowledge will know immediately examples where both are used and are the best effective in each case.

I think part of the confusion of this topic arises from a description of it based on side-effects, not the actual process of what is happening.  The reason that sometimes the thumb is not bent under the hand is that the entire hand has to move in order to reach a new position or location on the keyboard.

Look at a lot of passages in Prokofiev, for instance, where he wrote in the fingering; very fast scales often use sequences of 1-2-3-4-5.  There can really be no doubt how he played these, as individual gestures, moving the hand rapidly along the keyboard.  He certainly didn't cross the thumb under his pinky.

There are plenty of passages like that in Liszt too, just to take one from the top of my head, the tutta forza arpeggios near the end of the Mephisto Waltz.  They can't be played by crossing the thumb under the pinky, they have to be played as a series individual gestures utilizing the entire hand as one unit.  The difficulty of course is making them sound like one big arpeggio, when they are made up of so many small impulses.

Back to my original point: the confusion is, I think, in the description.  What you are really doing is not moving the thumb over the keyboard, you are moving the entire hand, using the upper musculature.  It just so happens, that the result or the side-effect is: the thumb doesn't get crossed under.

He focussed unnecessarily on the action of the thumb, when the thumb is not the primary moving force.  Really what is happening is we are using shoulders, upper arms, elbows, forearms, and wrists to move around, rather than connecting by fingering alone.

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

I think every pianist with a little experience knows very well that so called "thumb over" (yes Walter, that's an akward name for it) and "thumb under" are both used in practice. That's nothing new and there is no point in polarizing these two.

[stevebob]

I think every pianist with a little experience knows very well that so called "thumb over" (yes Walter, that's an akward name for it) and "thumb under" are both used in practice. That's nothing new and there is no point in polarizing these two.

Unless one's point is to discredit those who acknowledge "thumb over" as a prosaic matter of fact rather than pretend it's something outlandish, exotic, gimmicky or ridiculous.  (And heaven forbid they ever refer to it as TO (as I've seen many times elsewhere) lest they be accused of a trivial and insincere approach to pedagogy.  )

Neither the use of acronyms nor the use of "thumb over" seems particularly remarkable, and I don't think that serious and informed criticism would be dismissive or disdainful of either practice.

[ramseytheii]

I had to post again, because this paragraph from the first commenter is so amazing it actually makes me dizzy with giddiness:

I discussed some of Mr. Chang's ideas with Kenneth Amada, a Leventritt and Queen Elizabeth of Belgium International Piano Competition finalist and prize winner (and student of Moritz Rosenthal, Edward Steuremann, Isidor Phillip, etc.) and he couldn't believe how wrong and nonsensical the ideas in Mr. Chang's books are. Moritz Rosenthal was a student of Franz Liszt, Johannes Brahms, and Karol Mikuli (a disciple of Chopin). Steurmann studied under Ferrucio Busoni, and Phillip under Saent-Saens -- these are the greatest composers and pianists in history, who themselves descend back to Beethoven, Haydn, etc. as direct-lineage disciples. So Master Amada, a former major international prizewinner in piano and student of the most famoust piano mentors in America in the 1920s to 1950s is "in the know." He also retired as chair of piano at The University of Iowa.

Think about it: this guy was not only a student of Rosenthal, he was a student of Steuermann; not only was he a student of Steuermann, he was a student of Philip; not only was he a student of Philip, he studied with etc., etc.; there are so many great names he studied with, you can't even list them all!  The greatness is just overwhelming!  He is so great that he redefines greatness!  I feel great just reading this paragraph!

And not only that but Steuermann studied with Busoni, and etc.; and Philip studied with Saint-Saens, and etc.; and not only did Rosenthal study with Liszt, he studied with Brahms, and etc., and Mikuli, and Oh Heavens Help Us, Mikuli studied with Chopin, and probably etc. also, and didn't Saint-Saens also study with etc?

And by the way, didn't these people do anything, or did they just study all the time?

Well they clearly studied so much, that to disagree with them, not only are you dumb, you don't understand Chopin, Liszt, Mikuli, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Rosenthal, Busoni, Philip, and etc. [since they all agree], and since you are so dumb you should not have opened your mouth in the first place, because what you don't know is that all of these greatness great composers extended back not only to BEETHOVEN but also to HAYDN and did anyone mention that HAYDN thought that MOZART was the greatest composer alive and so therefore if you don't like MOZART you CLEARLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PIANO AND ITS PEDAGOGUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


etc.

Walter Ramsey


PS Who can prove that those who dislike Mozart, and disagree with Steuermann, Philip, Busoni, Brahms, Rosenthal, Liszt, Chopin, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart, must by definition be Islamic terrorists?  You have 6 steps.

[lostinidlewonder]

Lol ramseytheii, now we are getting somewhere! I remember Ravel saying that he hated Saint Saens compositions so he's hardly the greatest as the quote mentioned. The quote reads almost like one part of the bible, blah blah begat blah balh who begat lol. It is wrong to think that a teacher can "transfer" secret knowledge to their students, in the end 99% is the students own effort 1% is the teachers direction. So which teacher you have in all essence is quite irrelevant especially when you are at a level where you are writing books on piano, we must read what you write to come to a conclusion not give a damn about the teacher genealogy tree you comes from. I am sure that we know more about piano playing today than what Chopin knew so I don't care if someone studied under Chopin no matter how many degrees of separation, we gotta move on we have progressed much further, stop living in the past

[thalbergmad]

I spoke with God last night and he agrees with Chang.

Thal

[brogers70]

I spoke with God last night and he agrees with Chang.

Thal

OK, but who did God study with? His taste in music is abysmal; all those harps!

[ramseytheii]

OK, but who did God study with? His taste in music is abysmal; all those harps!

Brilliant!

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

OK, but who did God study with? His taste in music is abysmal; all those harps!

He says he studied with Parish-Alvars.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

He says he studied with Parish-Alvars.

Thal

In the context of this forum I rather tend to the assumption that He either studied with Bernhard or Pianistimo...

[thalbergmad]

Going back to this Chang chap, as someone who just loves playing the piano for the sheer joy of it, I simply cannot be arsed to read something like this. A scientist would sit for hours examining a pint of beer, whilst i would just drink it.

I was "trained" on Czerny and Hanon and remarkably my arms have not withered away and dropped off and I have suffered no injury apart from a pulled muscle at the British Arm Wrestling Championships in 1987.

If i cannot play something, I practise it until I can, sometimes with the help of a teacher, but more than often not. However, I think everyone has limits and i do not see how a book could help me to play Tausig's Halka which i spent weeks on and then gave up.

I am suspicious that this book on its own might produce hundreds of average pianists, but not a single great one. I am also suspicious that i am a complete tosser that does not know what he is talking about.

Thal

[faulty_damper]

I actually read his book many years ago when he offered to print it out, bind it, and send it to you for $20.  Much of what is in it was very useful to me because I was trained only in the thumb under technique to playing scales and arpeggios.  The concept of thumb over was difficult to grasp because it sounds like the thumb should go over the back of the hand.  It does not.  It would have been very helpful if he had a video of this technique as some have criticized. 

Here's the answer to the critics:
The video has been on the book's website for at least 6 years when I first watched it.
https://www.pianopractice.org/

He first plays the scales TO twice and then TU twice but both at a moderate tempo.

[keyboardclass]

That wmv must be the most awkward scale playing I've ever seen - why all the movement?

[sashaco]

That chain of teachers Walter so rightly lampooned reminded me of the Ionesco bit- my aunt's cousin's butcher's nephew's dog's best friends... - and also of a guy I played tennis with in college who knew everyone's records so well he could give himself indirects over Borg and McEnroe- I beat X who Beat Q who beat...

One must be careful with appeals to authority, or origins- we'll wind up asking cows to analyze milk.

Sasha Cooke   

[attaboy]

I was directed to this thread from a google search. I could go on and on with comments, but as an amateur pianist trying to get back to piano after over 50 years, coming on Chang's book has been a godsend. It has helped me immensely but more from the standpoint of getting insights. To try to learn precisely what he is talking about is advisable but to then exactly follow Chang's teachings may be a mistake. I'm finding that if I take from what he says and adapt it to what I am trying to do, it can be very helpful. For example, while I was always aware of the value of HS practice, his approach has given insights that have made HS practice more efficient for me. But where I've adapted it to me is that it seems to work better in my case to take brief excursions into HT well before Chang would advise, while still mainly practicing HS. For some others, I'm  sure my adaptation wouldn't be advisable.
I suspect Chang has purposely given what may seem like a didactic approach since if he didn't the book could go on forever. He hopes, I believe, that the reader is smart enough to realize this and will take each topic for whatever value he can make of it. This book may not be for the advanced pianist but it has helped me a lot. I just don't think you can be too critical as you wade through all the material it presents.

[ramseytheii]

I was directed to this thread from a google search. I could go on and on with comments, but as an amateur pianist trying to get back to piano after over 50 years, coming on Chang's book has been a godsend. It has helped me immensely but more from the standpoint of getting insights. To try to learn precisely what he is talking about is advisable but to then exactly follow Chang's teachings may be a mistake. I'm finding that if I take from what he says and adapt it to what I am trying to do, it can be very helpful. For example, while I was always aware of the value of HS practice, his approach has given insights that have made HS practice more efficient for me. But where I've adapted it to me is that it seems to work better in my case to take brief excursions into HT well before Chang would advise, while still mainly practicing HS. For some others, I'm  sure my adaptation wouldn't be advisable.
I suspect Chang has purposely given what may seem like a didactic approach since if he didn't the book could go on forever. He hopes, I believe, that the reader is smart enough to realize this and will take each topic for whatever value he can make of it. This book may not be for the advanced pianist but it has helped me a lot. I just don't think you can be too critical as you wade through all the material it presents.

I think that is a wonderful post.  In fact I have that attitude all the time.  For instance, I consider it generally a waste of time to practice Liszt's exercises.  But there are ideas in there, that never would have occured to me, and offer insight.  I wouldn't sit down and memorize every piece in the Leimer-Gieseking method, but their particular way of visualizing has added more tools to my own technique.

In general, most of us make poor disciples.  We can't just follow blindly, we have to adapt ideas to fit our own needs and circumstances.  In that sense, it is better to be exposed to more knowledge, and more ideas, than to reject them off-hand.

Walter Ramsey

[attaboy]

Thanks Walter! I feel honored that you appreciated my post.