Can someone explain me the "fast speed" practice?

[Daniel_piano]

Can please someone explain me better this "playing faster" principle?
Faster IS better, I can attest to the fact...

Now, I understand it, you have to play HS faster than final speed so that final speed will be easy to play
The problem is that I'm not able to do that
Let's say just for the sake of example that I want to practice a
2 parts invention or a shubert impromptu using this method
So, I'm supposed not to begin with slow practice, andsupposed to be able to play the whole piece HS faster than final speed first
Now, I don't know you, but I cant literally do that
My finger can't even move if the speed is too fast and I did no slow practice praparation first
So, how does this work?
Are you really able to practice a piece HS faster than final speed without any previous slow practice
Not only my fingers can't do what they cannot do, but I can't do this without getting a tendonitis

If you use this method can you please explain me how you proceed when beginning your practice on a new piece, for example a 2 parts invention ?
What's your secret?...

Daniel

[mosis]

Okay. I will use, as an example, the two-part invention in D minor, as I've played this one before.

Take a look at the right hand. What is it? A d minor scale! How difficult can this be? The overall speed of this invention isn't too fast (Bach never wrote tempo markings, but come on, this is no Liszt). Moreover, you should be using "thumb over" technique for these scales, so it's even easier to play quickly. Ultimately, the only thing limiting your speed will be this lateral displacement of the hand, so practice that! The fingering I use for the first two bars is 231234143212. Play 2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1, 4/3/2/1,  in chords, and practice them just like that, so the only thing limiting your speed is this lateral displacement. Once you can get it to the speed that makes the final speed easy for you, you can stop.

If for some reason you simply can't get it faster than final speed, no problem. Practice as fast as you can, but always perform it slower.

[mound]

Now, I don't know you, but I cant literally do that

Daniel - that's because you are trying to play too big of a passage.  No, of course you won't be able to play something HS faster than speed right off the bat - you have to pick a passage that is small enough where you can. Surely you can play 2 notes in a row faster than target speed of the piece right? In fact, hit those two notes together and you are playing "infinietly fast".. Three notes? Probably.  Four? maybe, Five? perhaps! Six? Maybe not.  Look around these forums for posts from Bernhard on the "7 / 20 rule" to help you understand how you need to determine the size of the passage you are going to be playing. It has to be a passage that you can learn to play properly after only 7 repetitions. Even if that means it's only 2 or 3 notes. You then play for speed first so that you can determine the motions that will be required of your hand to play it that fast. THEN, you practice "in slow motion" - those exact same motions you ultimately need to play it at the target speed.

So the point isn't to be able to blaze through an entire piece with one hand. It's the blaze through a small chunk with one hand, so you find the motion that will work.. Then you practice that exact motion, slowly.

Bernard has described this much better elsewhere throughout these forums, peruse around for a while. Also read Chang's book "Fundamentals of Piano Practice" (look up the user CC, he has the link in his profile)

Again, the two points of this are:
1. To find the appropriate hand motions first, so you don't practice a motion that won't work.
2. To get your hands moving faster while seperate, because they will slow down together.

I hope this helped!

-Paul

[Daniel_piano]

Mosis, Mound thanks for your explanation
Now, I'm not sure I quite understood this whole think 
Maybe I should try to be more specific:

Example 1 speed: 29 = quarter =  120 bpm
Example 2 speed: 30 = half note = 75 bmp
Example 3 speed: 32 = quarter =  100 bmp

Now, I'm not saying I'm not able to play these chunks
I'm saying that I became able to play these at full speed only beginning at very slow speed
Now, I wouldn't be able to play these (if they were new to me) full speed first, before any kind previous slow speed practice. Were you?

Find the appropriate hand motion first makes sense, but how can I find those motions if at such speed it's impossible for me to play them or if the whole execution is very sloppy?

I understand I can cut the chunks to just two notes, but two notes by two notes it would require me three years to finish these pieces as they're made of thousands of notes

Would you please explain me (again) how to proceed with the chunks I've proposed

(sorry to bother you so much, I'm just eager to learn)

Thanks
Daniel

[mosis]

You're assuming you must play at speed as soon as you see it.

No, first you must apply the 7 repeat method to determine how much you may practice. If after 7 repeats you do not know a section, you must cut it in half. Once a section is learned, you will know all the notes and all the fingerings, and you will be able to apply parallel sets, different rhythms, and whatever other practice methods you require to get the passage up to speed.

[mound]

(I typed this reply as Mosis was typing, but to add to what he said)

Well I think Barnhard and Chang are probably more qualified to give you specific answers to this specific question, but I'll try from my understanding.

Now, I wouldn't be able to play these (if they were new to me) full speed first, before any kind previous slow speed practice. Were you?

I would if I didn't try to to take such a big chunk.
I'd look at the first bar. The first two beats are the same, and I'd probably end up using a repeated note group to get the notes all in my hand (search on 'repeated note group' if you don't know what that is.) Starting with only 2 notes, yes, I could do it at speed=infinity. so could you. Play them together. A-Bb probably with fingers 4-5.  Sound them together, and then use what Chang calls "Phase angle" with regard to a parallel set, Bernhard calls it "wiggle your wrist" to ever so slightly alter the time between when 4 hits the A and the 5 hits the Bb. Alter this "wiggle" to slow it down (from speed=infinity).  You could do hundreds of repetitions of that bit in a very short time. Then from Bb to A (54) it would be the same motion in reverse. Don't use your fingers, use your forearms, wrist to "roll" from one note to the other (sounding them together as a "chord attack" first equaling speed=infinity, and then changing how you roll from one to the other to slow it down. You're not speeding anything up, you are starting as fast as possible and slowing down. easier huh?)

To do a full repeated note group, if I labeled those first 6 notes 1-6, you'd practice just that, starting at a chord (speed=infinity) and slowing down to very slow and speeding back up for as long as it takes to master that chunk.  You'd repeat for:

12
23
34
45
56
123
234
345
456
1234
2345
3456
12345
23456
123456

Doing the fast to slow to master each "group" - complete the entire set in one sitting, and you have just executed a "repeated note group set" exercise for that.

You may already have technique that makes it very easy though for you play that kind of motion, so it's up to you to decide if you need to do that or not. But with this kind of phrase, it's all going to be in your rolling that wrist, not executing the notes with your fingers, rather, letting your fingers simply be an extension of your arm.

Anyway -  it may also help to not necessarilly think of those groups of 6 as starting and ending as they are written, perhaps the group should be played crossing the bar line (ie. take all those notes, rewrite them, and shift all the connecting lines over so they cross the bar line, so your groups of 6 cross the beat. I don't know if this will work for this piece specifically, but it is something you should try and see.)

I see alot of repetition in that right hand phrasing. The same shape repeating  over and over with a few accidentals, starting on a slightly different note, so keep that in mind. If you master the motion and learn the few differences in each group of 6, I think you could learn to play that entire passage, at blinding speed, very quickly. 

If you start too slow, you could easilly give more emphasis on the notes coming from your fingers, or any number of hand movements that will allow you to play a beatiful version of this passage slowly, and you would then start speeding that up, but you will hit a "speed wall" at which point those motions which you have now (unfortunately) ingrained in your subconscious, will not allow you to surpas.  You can see (I hope) how this concept of starting at speed=infinity (even though it means starting with as few as 2 notes) means you only have to worry about slowing down. What is easier? Slowing down or speeding up? 

understand I can cut the chunks to just two notes, but two notes by two notes it would require me three years to finish these pieces as they're made of thousands of notes

This is not true. Hopefully, seeing the example above of the repeated note group (as an example, you don't have to do an entire set like that for every phrase) - but you can get hundreds of repetitions into a very small amount of time.  (as an aside, be sure when you're working on this type of thing, that you find an equally challenging passage with your left hand, from the same piece or an all together different piece, so you can alternate so as to avoid injury.)

Also, as can be seen in your first example, yes, there are 24 notes or whatever, but how many of them are unique and require unique motions to learn? Very few.  You have to look for patterns and look for ways of pulling from a score what you need to learn, and what you can "imply is learned" simply because it's repeated.


Anyway, I don't feel I'm doing any of these techniques justice, it's all described at length in posts by Bernhard and in Chang's book, so I guess I'll stop writing. I hope this has helped somewhat!

 
-Paul

[Daniel_piano]

to get the passage up to speed.

So there's actually a getting up to speed component in all of this
Now, there's a difference between saying that you must get up to speed as soon as possible and that you must start immediately playing faster than final speed

Now playing the notes as chords make sense to and in that way faster than final speed is indeed possible

From what I've understood you CAN practice in slow motion but only after having found, seen, learned the full speed correct motions
So, since my teacher always play all the pieces I've to learn for me in order for me to see the right movement before starting practicing the piece, does that mean that I don't need to find the appropriate hand motions first because I've already seen from my teacher?
So, maybe I can start slow because it would be a slow correct motions and not a slow different motion? Am I right?

Also I've to say that Bernhard, Chang and other members here contradict themselves somewhat
For example Chang said to slow dows from infinite speed, while Bernhard said that slow practice is vital as long as you know the right motions first (meaning, I think, that you get up to speed starting from slowed down correct motions)

To do a full repeated note group, if I labeled those first 6 notes 1-6, you'd practice just that, starting at a chord (speed=infinity) and slowing down to very slow and speeding back up for as long as it takes to master that chunk.  You'd repeat for:

12
23
34
45
56
123
234
345
456
1234
2345
3456
12345
23456
123456

Doing the fast to slow to master each "group" - complete the entire set in one sitting, and you have just executed a "repeated note group set" exercise for that.

Thanks for this detailed explanation Mound

Thanks again Mound and Mosis for you kind and precious answers, I'm going to read your posts several times trying to understand all of this better

Daniel

[xvimbi]

So, since my teacher always play all the pieces I've to learn for me in order for me to see the right movement before starting practicing the piece, does that mean that I don't need to find the appropriate hand motions first because I've already seen from my teacher?
 
So, maybe I can start slow because it would be a slow correct motions and not a slow different motion? Am I right?

No. What works for one person may not work for another (bones are of different lengths, joints have different ranges, coordination between fingers is different, sitting height and distance might be different, etc.). You need to optimize the motions for yourself. If what you said was possible, everybody would play with the exact same optimized motions.

Also I've to say that Bernhard, Chang and other members here contradict themselves somewhat
For example Chang said to slow dows from infinite speed, while Bernhard said that slow practice is vital as long as you know the right motions first (meaning, I think, that you get up to speed starting from slowed down correct motions)

There is no contradiction. Slow motion practice is important primarily for memorizing. This does not have anything to do with acquiring speed and technique. Once you have figured out how to play a passage at or above speed, you should play it very slowly and deliberately in order to ingrain and memorize it. Both fast and slow practice have their place.

[bernhard]

Yes, the question that keeps being asked and being answered and being asked…

How can one play a piece one has never seen at speed straightaway? Surely one has to start slowly , at least to figure out the notes!

And I agree. You must start slowly and carefully but not at the piano!!!

Now, Daniel, you must be careful here not to make an intellectual argument out of this. You must be careful not to read stuff and try to imagine what it is going to be like and then decide, based on your imagination that it makes no sense. The written word is very unsatisfactory. It can never give you the full picture.

In the 16th Century, the Spanish conquistadores were obsessed with the “El Dorado”. The legend of a place so immensely rich and full of gold, that the ruling king would not wear any dress, but simply sprinkle himself with water and roll down in gold dust, so that his body was totally covered in pure gold. (Hence “El Dorado”: The Golden One).

Many Spanish adventurers braved the jungles of South America in search of El Dorado. Usually all they had to guide them was a badly drawn copy of a copy of a map that someone that allegedly had been to El Dorado had hastily made. Of course the original map had been destroyed, and so had the copy, but someone who had seen the map and memorised it had managed to make a copy of what he remembered seeing on the copy of the copy.

A post in pianoforum is just like this map. It may lead you to El Dorado, or it may not. But sitting down and discussing it around a cosy fireplace in Madrid, will not take you there.

You must use the map and explore the territory. Even if you do not get to El Dorado, you may get much more you bargained for in the simple process of following the map to see where it will take you.

The Spanish consquistadores followed their maps, and (as far as we know) never found El Dorado. But they did find a whole new continent, whose exploitation financed the whole Baroque in Europe (and much more besides).

Untold riches await you, but they may be very different from what you first imagined.

You seem to be worried that following this sort of method will take far more time than the alternative. But don’t just sit there looking at a map and wondering where it will take you! Get a ship and go explore!

Here is how you do it:

Pick two pieces of similar difficulty/style. One of them you learn exactly the way you would have you had never heard of these maps. The other one you learn by following (the best you can) the instructions given. In a couple of week’s time (or more, or less), compare results and tell us.

And here are the threads where your exact same question has been answered to the best of my ability:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2255.msg19129.html#msg19129
(Replies #19, #27, #29)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3371.msg30141.html#msg30141
(replies #7and #8)


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3778.msg35061.html#msg35061
(reply #6)


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2313.msg19807.html#msg19807
(replies #6 and #7)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2920.msg25568.html#msg25568
(reply #1)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2076.msg17157.html#msg17157
(reply # 1)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2076.msg17157.html#msg17157
(replies #88 and #96)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4282.msg39831.html#msg39831
(reply #3, #7, #11

If you still have doubts (but be sure to actually do it, rather than just think about it), come back.

And by the way, ximbi, mound and mosis are absolutely correct. (I actually feel that my post here is almost superfluous! )

Good luck and Bon Voyage!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

 ximbi just beat me to it!

So, since my teacher always play all the pieces I've to learn for me in order for me to see the right movement before starting practicing the piece, does that mean that I don't need to find the appropriate hand motions first because I've already seen from my teacher?

Up to a point, yes. But remember that your teacher’s physicality (and age!) maybe very different from yours. The movements that are best for him/her are not necessarily the movements that will be the best for you. So by all means try using his/her movements, but be prepared to change and adapt them if necessary. Perhaps more important than the movements is the sound s/he is able to elicit with these movements. If you like the sound, go for the sound. As the old Chinese saying goes: “Do not follow in the footsteps of the masters, rather seek what they sought”.

Also I've to say that Bernhard, Chang and other members here contradict themselves somewhat
For example Chang said to slow dows from infinite speed, while Bernhard said that slow practice is vital as long as you know the right motions first (meaning, I think, that you get up to speed starting from slowed down correct motions)

There is no contradiction at all. Contradictions often arise from purely intellectual understandings. Piano playing is not an intellectual subject. Here is an example of apparent contradictions caused by superficial intellectual understanding:

“An elephant belonging to a travelling exhibition had been stabled near a town where no elephant had been seen before. Four curious citizens hearing of the hidden wonder, went to see if they could get a preview of it. When they arrived at the stable they found that there was no light. The investigation therefore had to be carried out in the dark.

One touching his trunk, thought that the creature must resemble a hosepipe; the second felt an ear and concluded it was a fan. The third feeling a leg, could liken it only to a living pillar; and when the fourth puts his hand on its back he was convinced that it was some kind of throne. None could form the complete picture; and of the part which each felt, he could only refer to it in terms of the things which he already knew. The result of the expedition was confusion. Each was sure he was right; none of the other townspeople could understand what had happened, what the investigators had actually experienced.” (Idries Shah).
 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Daniel_piano]

You seem to be worried that following this sort of method will take far more time than the alternative. But don’t just sit there looking at a map and wondering where it will take you! Get a ship and go explore!

Here is how you do it:

Pick two pieces of similar difficulty/style. One of them you learn exactly the way you would have you had never heard of these maps. The other one you learn by following (the best you can) the instructions given. In a couple of week’s time (or more, or less), compare results and tell us.

Thanks Bernhard for you answer
You're right, I must remember that any food must be tasted before I can say if I like it or not 

Now, I'll try it
I'll do this "experiment" following exactly the instruction given and I'll let you know
Now, the problem is, before I can follow exactly any instruction I need to understand perfectly what these instructions are
I just can't make a guideline from your numerous posts (mea culpa) and it would be really helpful if you could, before I start this experiment, list briefly and numerically all the instructions I'm supposed to follow
For example it isn't still clear to me if I am supposed to always play notes as chords first, or if this apply only in certain situation and if I can still figure out the correct motions by just playing the chunk normally (fast but not as a chord)
And also; this is supposed to be for hardest chunks (usually few bars in any piece) but what am I supposed to do with the other bars of the piece, those without any new tecnique to learn?

Again, thanks and sorry for harassing all of you so much
I appreciate your help immensely

Daniel

[ilovemusic]

Now, I'll try it I'll do this "experiment" following exactly the instruction given and I'll let you know Now, the problem is, before I can follow exactly any instruction I need to understand perfectly what these instructions are
I just can't make a guideline from your numerous posts (mea culpa) and it would be really helpful if you could, before I start this experiment, list briefly and numerically all the instructions I'm supposed to follow
For example it isn't still clear to me if I am supposed to always play notes as chords first, or if this apply only in certain situation and if I can still figure out the correct motions by just playing the chunk normally (fast but not as a chord)
And also; this is supposed to be for hardest chunks (usually few bars in any piece) but what am I supposed to do with the other bars of the piece, those without any new tecnique to learn?

Again, thanks and sorry for harassing all of you so much
I appreciate your help immensely

Daniel

You can find all you're answers on the forum if you search hard enough. If you do not need to learn new technique it is a matter of memorisation: you can choose larger chunks for these easier parts. You should be able to learn them in 20 minutes (say), thereafter learn  a new chunk, etc. until you have (for instance) gone through the whole piece or section.

Repeat this the next day (you will have forgotten most parts, but you relearn it faster the next day), until you know the whole piece (except maybe the difficult sections, which you practise by the method described above).

It is all on the forum, really. If it doesn't work, that's to bad. The problem with this method is it actually feels like working: you can play around much. But working in this organized way will increase the speed of learning, which is what we all want, I think.... For myself, I try working with this method, but sometimes it is hard: one needs discipline. But after a while (I guess) you do not activelly have to organize anymore, but automatically practise  in a more organized way (probably ANY kind of organization/structure will increase the efficiency of practise, but this approach seems very good). 

Regards, Joost.

[mound]

Daniel -

My response is "yeah, what they said"
Don't feel bad about wanting to discuss/ask/discuss some more.. I'm just as guility of that, but talking about "these maps" helps you to learn them well enough that you can then go and use them.

Do yourself a favor, and read every thread that Bernhard has pointed you to, it's all there. But as a headstart, check out this thread:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4858.0.html

specifically Reply #8, where Bernhard lists the steps, in numerical order.. Remember, you will adapt in various personal ways as you learn it.

-Paul

[Daniel_piano]

Do yourself a favor, and read every thread that Bernhard has pointed you to, it's all there.

I've already read carefully all of them
Even though I know almost every answer to my question can be found on old posts they're not organized well and I can't find nothing like what I'm looking for: a briefly numerical summery of all the guidelines to try to this method
Search in old posts and try to put every bit together is not practical enough IMHO

But as a headstart, check out this thread:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4858.0.html

Thanks, I'll have a look at it... maybe there all the guideline are better organized and summarized

Daniel

[mound]

Search in old posts and try to put every bit together is not practical enough IMHO

Yeah, I hear ya. It's worth the effort though.

Have you read Chang's book? That's very well organized and talks more to the "speed first" question that you first posted with.

-Paul

[Daniel_piano]

Search in old posts and try to put every bit together is not practical enough IMHO

Yeah, I hear ya. It's worth the effort though.

Have you read Chang's book? That's very well organized and talks more to the "speed first" question that you first posted with.

-Paul

Yes, I've read it, and forgive me for saying this, IHMO that section about choice of speed practice is not well organized on explained
Chang goes in detail explaining why "fast practice" requires different motions than slow practice, using the trout of the hourse as an example, but he then doesn't explain well the solution to this problem and the parallel sets section is completely unlinked to this one while they should be together since one is the solution of the other, and he also says diffent things and I'm not able to understand what is the right one: for example first he says that you must start from infinite speed and then slow down, then he also says that you should instead start from slow but get up to speed as quickly as possible, then he even says that it's impossible to start fast and that the solution is to always alternate fast and slow speed... so eventually I didn't understand what am I supposed to do

Unfortunately when my computer crashed I lost the email I got from Chang trying to explain me what fast practice was but even with those responses from him, I was still confused.... (mea culpa probably)

Maybe it's me, but even in the old posts here and on Chang's book there are many bits of the same explanation/topic in diffent positions mixed with the other so that you need a huge cut and paste reconstruction work to figure out the whole thing
Chang said me he wanted to create a numerical summary of all the guidelines because it would make the book comprehension easier, I hope he will do it in a near future

Daniel

[mound]

Hi Daniel,

I agree, between the writings from both of them, there is alot to distill. Lots of things stated from different angles. It took me a good two months of reading and asking questions about this before I started to put it into practice. You know what I discovered? It doesn't really make total sense until you actually dig in and try it.  (think of it as medical school, you learn tons and tons of theory, but you really can't be a doctor until you've finished your residency, where you put the theory to practice.)

Try it from every angle you perceive it has been presented to you in. See what works and what doesn't, draw your own conclusions. Both Bernhard and Chang have been very careful to consistently state that nothing is written in stone and that these are suggestions that work for them. If you have a specific question, ask it for a specific answer.

Also, definitely send Chang email suggestions if you feel the organization of his book doesn't make sense or you question aspects of it. He is totally open to input.

he also says diffent things and I'm not able to understand what is the right one: for example first he says that you must start from infinite speed and then slow down, then he also says that you should instead start from slow but get up to speed as quickly as possible, then he even says that it's impossible to start fast and that the solution is to always alternate fast and slow speed... so eventually I didn't understand what am I supposed to do

He's not saying different things here although it could easilly appear that way. You're trying to collect it all in your head and your'e seeing contradictions where there are none because you aren't seeing the order and context of these steps.

Think of it like this (and in practice, this becomes clear) Of course you have to "start from slow" -  that is, you have to first decipher the notes on the page and the fingerings (although your follow up speed work may dictate those change, this is why it's HS at this point, so you don't form hand memory). Unless you are a perfect sight reader, this phase is the "starting slow"

Once you've figured out the notes, then you "get up to speed as quickly as possible" by going right to speed practice. This requires you work on a small enough chunk that you can learn after 7 repetitions (here is the overlap to Bernhards methods).  You do speed practice right away at this point to determine the hand motions you will need. You then start practicing those exact motions, in slow motion, in order to ensure memorization.

So here would be a numerical ordering:

1. Begin slowly by translating the notes on the score to the fingers and piano.
2. Practice for speed with an appropriately sized passage to determine hand motions.
3. Practice in slow motion, the motions decided upon in step 2.  Slow motion means the fast motions, only slowed down. Utilize any described practice techniques (parallel sets, serial sets, phase degree, chord attack, thumb over, rythmic variation etc. to master the passage)

That of course is the order of "slow" to "fast" to "slow motion" to "target speed" practice.  Now, the What and When you practice is where the majority of Bernhards writings comes in. This is the "7 rule" which determines the size of the passage you should be practicing.  The "20 rule" determines for how long you should practice.  Bernhard and Chang overlap in the "how to practice" - that is, chord attacks, repeated note groups sets, the continuity rule etc.  etc. etc.

Unfortunately when my computer crashed I lost the email I got from Chang trying to explain me what fast practice was but even with those responses from him, I was still confused.... (mea culpa probably)

No apology necessary my friend! In his first chapter he explains how "none of this is intuitive" - it's not, it's very perlexing in fact while you are trying to internalize it all. It won't really gell and make perfect sense until you've actually applied it to your own practice, so dive right in. You will have a bunch of false starts, and you'll read and re-read much of what's been explained and try again. You are learning a process, and it takes mistakes to learn.  There's nothing mystical or magical about any of this, nothing that's going to create in you an overnight ability to learn piano pieces quickly. This process is something that itself needs to be learned and that alone takes some work.

Maybe it's me, but even in the old posts here and on Chang's book there are many bits of the same explanation/topic in diffent positions mixed with the other so that you need a huge cut and paste reconstruction work to figure out the whole thing

This is an unfortunate byproduct of the medium. I'll admit Chang's book can be confusing. Even after one read I wasn't nearly convinced. It wasn't until I stumbled upon these forums and started reading what Bernhard wrote, which parallels Changs work in so many ways, with the addition of all the planning/efficiency of learning material, that I was like "holy crap, there's something here".

Stick with it Daniel, keep trying, the important thing is to stop thinking about it and try it. I know this is all very "intellectual stuff" and the inclination is to try to absorb it all to "prepare yourself to apply it" - but unfortunately I don't believe it works that way.

-Paul

[Daniel_piano]

In his first chapter he explains how "none of this is intuitive" - it's not, it's very perlexing in fact while you are trying to internalize it all.

Now, you know, this is something I've never agreed with Chang
Chang consider the "standard" and "wrong" routine (hand together, very slow incrementing speed day by day, all the piece repeated hundreds of times instead of few chunks..and so on) the intituive one, the one that our instinct would lead us to while he calls the other approach the non-intuitive one or the one that you need to learn by someone and not something that you would so instinctively

I don't agree with this point of view
Actually I believe that our instinct always lead us to the better way to learn or do something, but our culture has so much brainwashed our instinct that we rely on cultural, and counterintuitive principles
So to me it is just the opposite

The wrong approach is the one that it's no intuitive and that resulted from years and years of myths, beliefs, doctrines, ideologies, mannerism,  and accademicism while the right approach is the one that our instinct would instinctively follow but that we don't listen or are aware of because cultural imprinting is too strong

My only problem so far is speed as I've always intuitively and instinctively utilized all the approaches suggested by Bernhard and Chang
Even if my teachers said otherwise, many years before reading Chang or Bernhard I was already practicing hands separate, with different rhytms, choosing little chunks and working on the hardest chunks first alternating hands and practicing on hitting only the main beats eliminating the various "ands"... I simply found all of this very intituitive while I found what Chang call the "intuitive method" very cultural, counterintuitive and counterinstinctive

Now, the only things I've never done instinctively is playing fast first and so this new speed approach is something I've to learn
What I found more intuitive in speed is always alternating between the various speed so that eventually you may be able to play in all the speed possible having become used to all of them, but again starting very slowly 40 bpm and increasing 1 or 2 bmp day by day is imho very counterintuitive and no something that we would do instinctively, it's something culture mediated not our mind natural approach

I've found that when we turn down our cultural imprinting, our cultural beliefs and cultural rules our mind always do the best, most sophisticated, intelligent and effective thing simply by instinct that it's the most powerful entity on the universe
For example culturally we may believe that orange are very rich in vitamin C but it has been showed (on a study I don't remember the reference of) that little children who has no cultural programming or belief-education and that suffered from vitamin C deficiency between oranges, potatoes, alfa-alfa and other foods always chosed (instinctively) the wild rose that is the richest fruit in vitamin C (but they didn't know it)
So, not only our mind know what is best for our body, for our constitution and emotional eritage when it is no brainwashed by society, but it has a pre-programmed encyclopedical knowledge

So, what's the bottom line of all of this?
I don't know, I just need to say it... sorry

Daniel (polemic-mode off)

[Daniel_piano]

By the way Paul, thanks for explaining it to me again 

Thanks
Daniel

[xvimbi]

...
So, what's the bottom line of all of this?
I don't know, I just need to say it... sorry

What Bernhard was saying and what CC is writing about has been around for a long time. It is nothing really new, but it has been presented, for the first time - as far as I know - in a concise manner. Practicing HS has been done for centuries, practicing smaller chunks has been done for centuries, etc. But it has never been compiled into a coherent "school of thought".

[Daniel_piano]

...
So, what's the bottom line of all of this?
I don't know, I just need to say it... sorry

What Bernhard was saying and what CC is writing about has been around for a long time. It is nothing really new, but it has been presented, for the first time - as far as I know - in a concise manner. Practicing HS has been done for centuries, practicing smaller chunks has been done for centuries, etc. But it has never been compiled into a coherent "school of thought".

You're right, I know they never said they invented "these" method
I've a teacher that know these methods and said to me that they were already mentioned on Bach's son book, another says instead that they're from Lizst

I was just talking about Chang idea that the method he talks about is not the intuitive or instinctive one, but that actually the intuitive method is the contrary of the "right" "more sensible" approach
Now, I do think that our intuition is smarter than that and that the method he calls "intuitutive" is actually the "culture mediated method" while the method he talks about is actually the "intuitive, spontaneous and instinctive method"

I don't agree with this statement by CC:
"the best piano practice methods are surprisingly counter-intuitive"

I do think in fact that the best piano methods (the one he talks about) are very intuitive and instinctive while the stardard methods (HT, slow to fast, metronome, no chunks) are very counter-intuitive and simply cultural mediated, not something originated from our smart intuition and instinct
I still don't understand what he finds intuitive about HT practice, to me it's not something we would do instinctively
Using our intuition (without cultural brainwashing) in fact I'm sure all of us would instead practice hand separate even without knowing or reading about this method

Instinct and intuition always make the right choices and the choose the best and quickest way for us to learn a lesson
Our instinct is dull today just because of cultural imprinting and brainwashig starting from school, television, marketing and government
Children today are very dull they would not survive three seconds in a park alone and this because they have computers, after school activities, school, homeworks, television but they don't know life, adults are not very smart on educating them.. always chosing to transmit fake values such as money and status-quo and they're hyperprotective
When children lived on the countryside and knew life and death and fun they were strong, they were able to survive in harsh environment and look after they small siblings without the helo of a babysitters and they had extraordinary instinct
Everyone today says such nonsense as children traumatized by life events, yet they see lot of violence and death on television
But when they saw their grandparents dying years ago, they never get traumatized and had a real understanding of life and death and were less violent
My 7 years old cousin was not even allowed to go to his father funeral two months ago because he "could get traumatized" ...
I cannot thing of a worst crime... I'm still mad as hell
Now, if I ever discover that they told to him that is dad is just away for a business affair instead of telling the truth... well.. someone save them from me !!!

Sorry for the OT (just need to say it) 

Daniel

[bernhard]

What Bernhard was saying and what CC is writing about has been around for a long time. It is nothing really new, but it has been presented, for the first time - as far as I know - in a concise manner. Practicing HS has been done for centuries, practicing smaller chunks has been done for centuries, etc. But it has never been compiled into a coherent "school of thought".

Xvimbi is right. None of this is new. At one point I fancied myself I had invented some new practice trick, just to find out that someone had already written about it 50 years before.

However, although many of my teachers talked about isolated procedures (HS before HT, the chord trick, etc.) more often than not they either did not know or did not bother to explain why I should be doing it. And sometimes they gave completely wrong reasons. For instance, the chord trick – which is the first step in acquiring superlative speed – was taught to me as a way to figure out fingering. This is not a bad use of it – and I still use it for this purpose, but to use it to get instant maximum speed is a far more useful application.

And in any case, no one ever taught me any of these procedures in any integrated way. They were always isolated.

This is a bit like baking a cake. The ingredients are very important and completely necessary, but they are not sufficient. You must mix the ingredients in the correct proportion and in a predetermined order. In short, you must follow a recipe. And this is true for most activities (especially complex physical activities like Olympic gymnastics).

Superlative chefs with years of experience can bake any cake without any recipes. But beginner chefs-to-be must start with the basics: sponge cake. Then they can start to diversify and figure out that although the basic procedure is very similar, each cake has its own recipe (chocolate cake, angel cake, Victoria cake and so on and so forth). Also each chef will have its own unmistakable “signature”.

So you must get to that kitchen and start baking. In the beginning it may burn , or it may not rise, or it may taste awful. But if you persevere, soon you will be able to figure out what is it that you have to do to make the recipe work

Which is basically what Paul has been telling you all along. And he is right! So stop procrastinating! Do it!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.