Opinions on "Fundamentals of Piano Practice" - Chu

Of course we need to work to pass the thumb under - why? Because it is so LAZY AND UNDERTRAINED. Our thumb is the powerhouse of our hand, but we don't treat it as such - we generally fail to avail ourselves of its vast resources and capabilities. Chang probably advocates what he does because he sees so many people swivelling horizontally in order to get the thumb under, which is indeed counterproductive. And yes, at high speeds the thumb does not pass under in scales. BUT WE MAY STILL THINK THAT IT DOES! We may still perceive it as passing under even when it isn't, because the INTENTION to pass it under is still there. And perhaps continuing to try to pass it under (even though intellectually we know it doesn't) is exactly what galvanizes it into its potent action that gives us a strong, capable physical relationship to the keyboard. Thank you, Alvin for refreshing our memories of your post from the long-distant past... AFF

Some excepts from the chapter on thumb over vs. thumb under: "You can demonstrate the disadvantage of the TU method by observing the loss of thumb mobility in its tucked-in position. First, stretch your fingers out so that all the fingers are in the same plane. You will find that all the fingers, including the thumb, have mobility up and down (the motion needed to play the piano). Now, wiggle the thumb up and down rapidly -- you will see that the thumb can move 3 or 4 cm vertically with ease (without rotating the forearm), quite rapidly. Then, while still wiggling at the same rapid frequency, gradually pull the thumb under the hand -- you will see that as it goes under, it loses vertical mobility until it becomes immobile, almost paralyzed, when it is under the middle finger." "Now stop the wiggling and thrust the thumb down (without moving the wrist) -- it moves down! This is because you are now using a different set of muscles. Then, using these new muscles, try to move the thumb up and down as fast as you can -- you should find that these new muscles are much clumsier and the up and down motion is slower than the wiggle rate of the thumb when it was stretched out. Therefore, in order to be able to move the thumb in its tucked position, you not only need to use a new set of muscles but, in addition, these muscles are slower. It is the introduction of these clumsy muscles that creates mistakes and slows down the play in the TU method. The TO method eliminates these problems." "TO and TU should be considered as the extremes of two different ways to use the thumb. That is, there are many other motions in between. One unexpected benefit of learning TO is that you become much better at playing TU. This happens because your thumb becomes technically more capable: it becomes free. And you gain the ability to use all those motions between TO and TU that may be required depending on what other notes are being played or what type of expression you want to create. The thumb is now free to use all of its available motions and for controlling tone. This freedom, plus the ability to now play much more technically difficult material correctly, is what transforms the thumb into a very versatile finger." I think you shouldn't ever "Fully believe in" anything. There is no "Ultimate book on how to play piano that covers all possible problems and issues" - because there are infinately many issues to consider, based on context. Everything that you say right now will be correct at some point in time and wrong at another time, no matter what you believe in. This is why I voted yes on the poll "Is this book worth checking out?" yes, but so is EVERYTHING, because you can never know it all.

Sorry to say this is in every sense problematic. No disrespect, and I've expressed my views on Chang's bok already( albeit with poor English because I was very sleepy last night when I typed it), but this comment of yours really caught on my scientist's side: First, there ARE plenty of statements which is true, and is certain enough to be true for as long as our existence. Certainly not Chang's statements, and perhaps not most pianist's description of techniques. When I said I fully believe, I only mean that I was convinced and believe it on a non-scientific level, like believing my girlfriend, say. These are never certain, but when you believe in it, you fall for it. But what about "muscles contract when we play piano"? As long as you're playing a piano in a normal sense (i.e., you're not "playing" it by using a future machine that could read off directly from your mind and "plays" for you), you need muscles contraction.even if our understanding of how muscles contract changed. I'm using an extreme example here, that this particular statement is true but not helpful at all. Why? Because it's so trivial! As our knowledge advances, we don't change our views completely and still as uncertain as we were before---that's not an advancement at all!! We, in particular scientists but also semi-scientists like FELDENKRAIS and his likes, advances by accumulating more and more experience and having more theories in the grey area, while at the same time moving some of the theories in the grey area to the "proved truth" section. In piano playing, that may not be as clear as science. But if we distinguish between "what we do" and "what we think we do", at least the "what we do" part (actually, "what great pianists do" part) could be absolutely scientific, and clear statements can be drawn. If we consider the statistically effective (ie. effective for most people) description or way of training, even the "what we think we do" part could be scientific. Secondly, and not so seriously, if your above statement is correct, is it only correct at some point in time and wrong at another time?? Worth thinking, uh??

First, there ARE plenty of statements which is true, and is certain enough to be true for as long as our existence. Certainly not Chang's statements, and perhaps not most pianist's description of techniques. When I said I fully believe, I only mean that I was convinced and believe it on a non-scientific level, like believing my girlfriend, say. These are never certain, but when you believe in it, you fall for it. But what about "muscles contract when we play piano"? I was talking about the kind of statements Chang made, not general statements. Statements about what is the "correct technique" are useless without a musical context. Certainly there are statements that will hold true no matter what. I had thought that what you meant by convinced was thinking that Chang is "The only way". I don't really understand the difference between believing what Chang writes, and believing something on a scientific level though .. Secondly, and not so seriously, if your above statement is correct, is it only correct at some point in time and wrong at another time?? Worth thinking, uh?? I will get back to you on this !

Oh my God, I can't thank you guys enough for all the wonderful input you've provided, I haven't had the time to chew everything but I'll try going over it this weekend, I also just ordered my Craft of piano playing DVD (yayyy!!!!) can't wait to receive it. Amazon free shipping really help these days! Anyways, I myself will also read Dr. Chang's book in its entirety and provide feedback, thanks again, you all rock!!!

I know this is an old thread but I wanted to add my 2 cents worth. I am a pianist and piano teacher. Please, please, please, if you are an inexperienced or self-taught pianist please do not use this book as your guide. Either get one or more of the very excellent books that are available or, better still, find a good teacher. What is wrong with Chang's book? 1. The layout, font, dense style, and profusion of new (and unnecessary) acronyms are not just a hindrance to reading, they are insulting to the reader. 2. It is full of overblown claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and I feel the presence of megalomania behind them. 3. The book describes many correct and useful techniques, all of which have been known for decades, if not centuries, and are in widespread use by good teachers ... ... Unfortunately they are mixed up with wildly speculative explanations, pseudo-scientific rubbish (of which a self-professed advanced physicist should be ashamed), and just plain incorrect, misleading, and potentially damaging "advice". 4. He is forever going off in random directions, adding irrelevancies (sometimes correct, as often as not nonsense) which only serves to confuse and distract from the important points. 5. He seems obsessed with the detailed mechanism of movement and how to practice it, and rarely considers the musical intent. He seems to think of learning to play as an almost Pavlovian exercise in conditioning. But possibly the most important aspect of learning to play the piano is to learn/realise that you need to start with an idea of the sound you wish to create (the cumulative effect of tempo, rhythm, harmony, phrasing, touch, balance, emphasis, rubato, ...) and only then can you find the right physical actions to realise the musical intent. 6. He offers an incredibly naive and simplistic explanation of the methods by which great composers like Mozart and Bach generated their masterpieces. I could add another dozen criticisms, but I think that is enough. I do not care how much effort has gone into it, that alone is not enough to earn praise. What is produced has to be of good quality, whether it is something we are expected to pay for or whether it is given away freely. A GOOD book is Kendall Taylor's Principles of Piano Technique and Interpretation. I am sure that Alan Fraser could recommend many more.

By the way, I agree with Dr. Chang about passing the thumb under. He says, just tuck the thumb under and feel its complete immobility. Totally correct. When we do "pass the thumb under" it is with the help of the arm. The arm shifts to shift the thumb. This helps cure us of the tendency to stiffent the thumb through over-effort in moving it somewhere Once we have "dissolved" this thumb tension we now need to move the thumb more - much more, but always with the help of the arm. Try acting as if the thumb and arm are one. AFF

Alan, you are incredibly generous in saying what you agree. And considering other teachers with other views, it is a wise thing to say. I am fortunate enough that I don't need to be so careful, and unfortunate enough to have tried his method. About TO scale playing versus the traditional TU, I have so much to say, because it was exactly this half-truth and my devotion to his method that led me to seriously harm my technique and finally have to stop for several years. I was so devoted initially that I had personal contact with him. But in 2 years I had to stop playing completely. Half-truth because, it is true that when we play a very fast scale, our thumbs don't have time to pass under. It is stupid to insist on passing it under, although it feels like passing under. And I believe (with no proof) that great pianists, when they play extremely fast, don't pass under. However, the ''truth'' part just end there. This ''fact'' doesn't mean we should practice playing thumb over scale right from the start when the tempo is slow, which is what Chuang is advocating. (at least it was when I read his book 10 years ago). Chuang is no doubt right in saying that when the thumb is tuck under, it immobilizes our hand. But he is wrong to assume that going ''over'' is the only alternative. Supinating the hand to bring the thumb ''closer'' (often accompanied with low wrist), and rotating (pronating) the hand on the thumb's note, is one great way that Alan explored, and one that great pianists actually use ( I made this conclusion after exhaustive frame-by-frame analysis of virtuoso pianists playing fast scales that i find breath-taking-- Horowitz is just one example.) Chuang said none of this. He merely said (at least in his old book), we should shift our whole hand position then play the thumb's note. It is clumsy, and musically disconnected, just as it is physically disconnected. He advocates practicing this awkward way right from the start. If you want to see how it is to be one in his way, see the following: It is by Chuang himself I believe. At least he himself posted it, and put on his website in different formats as a demonstration: Forget about his swivelling hand in doing TU, which I find ineffective but is forgivable given that he is supposed to be demonstrating the ''wrong'' way in his mind. You can hear (and actually see) the gap in his TO playing. And very ironically, despite his ''shaking'' of his hand (a kind of hand bump on each note to make them more articulate. But it looks inefficient to me) to hide his inability to connect the note between 3-1 and 4-1, his TU demonstration (though still doesn't sound or look great) actually sound better than his TU demonstration. He has ''secrets'' like : practice the parallels, which we can play as fast as we can, then just connect the parallels. Unfortunately, piano playing doesn't have simple ''secrets'' like what Chuang is promising. Piano playing is difficult, but it is never because people don't realize parallel notes can be played fast easily. I still have many comments on his book. But nevermind..... The only thing I found useful is 2 books that he recommended (which ironically say nothing that Chuang advocates so vehemently) I am indebted to many teachers: on the physical aspect, first and foremost Alan, but Dorothy Taubman, Barbara Lister-Sink has very interesting ideas and exercises that helped me tremendously ( I am not naturally gifted on my coordination. In fact very bad..) These are true pedagogues on piano playing. It is sad to see that one of the most circulated book on piano-playing is by Chuang, which is the book that gave me bad habits that took ( and still taking) me years to unroot. I truly hope no one will have to suffer from it as much as I did....

Alvin, Thank you very much for these perceptions of yours. They are a valuable addition to this forum. At this moment I am too involved with other projects to give Chuang the attention he would need for a thorough evaluation, so I rely on you and other attentive forum members to give the scoop on this method. Thanks again, AFF