He's talking about musical memory that ends up being in the correct pitch. Technically, it is not absolute pitch and he isn't correct, but his overall point is alright.

I have heard some excellent pianists praise the book. It is flawed, but even something flawed can be useful. And I think it has been useful for many, myself included.

It is also a nice gesture of him to put out the book for free: http://www.pianopractice.org/

I don't think he would mind discussing excerpts of his book. Many have done so.

This thread was written when I was in my bed sleeping. I'll skip a lot of posts about the book, and return to this.

Kaydia Based on my starting age of 65, the message is basically that time is short, and I should hurry up and learn so I can get to the music I want to play. As long as it's not too complicated and won't take too much time to learn. I guess it's a good thing that I like simpler pieces.

I was maybe ten years younger than you were when I started to learn to play the piano, but I was heading (fast!) towards my second burn-out that was a hard blow to my brain. Many of its functions recovered, but memory / working memory did not. So even though my body was younger, my brain was not.
In this situation, I chose to focus on learning to play as beautifully and expressively as I can. The last three words are very important, because I once was a child with very clumsy motor skills (both fine and gross), so playing beautifully and expressively does not come naturally to me. However, this is a goal that I can achieve - and can achieve every time I finish with a piece.
After some detours, I ended up at the Piano Career Academy, where I had excellent lessons that focused very much on technique.

Sgisela Anyways, for me, the joy of playing piano is (and I think always has been) much more about the process of practicing and working through things than it is about the end result.

Rather shortly after I had bought my piano, I watched a documentary about a Swedish ballet dancer. She said: I love to practise. If you become a ballet dancer just because of the performances, it won't work. You spend so much more time practising than performing!
I realised, for me to continue with the piano, I need to love practising. Otherwise, I may just as well sell the piano now. And I do, I love practising. Not every day, not every time, but I do.

*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

        Kaydia iternabe I am pretty sure absolute pitch is not necessary to play piano well. Maybe at the very top level for professionals, but not for the rest.

        That's why I skipped over that and started skimming. If I thought AP was necessary I might as well give up learning piano now. 😄
        AP is absolutely not necessary to play the piano well and absolutely not necessary for mental practice. While some terrific pianists have AP, others do not. I have not read a single article or book(and I've read many on memorization) where AP is even mentioned as an important tool for memorization or do mental practice probably because so few people have it.

          Kaydia pianoloverus It's not necessary to have absolute pitch to do MP. Absolute pitch is probably helpful in memorizing a piece, but is rarely mentioned in articles about memorization probably because so few people have absolute pitch. Most people think absolute pitch cannot be learned but it's in born.

          In addition I think the paragraph from the book you quoted is an example of his unclear and poor writing.
          Absolute and relative pitch are very different but he uses them both in the same paragraph sometimes together, sometimes separately, switching back and forth.

          On that page I linked, he explains why he believes AP is necessary. I'm not saying I agree with him. I don't have a desire to memorize my pieces, so it's not relevant to my learning process.
          What is his so called "reason" for thinking AP is necessary? I didn't see it on what you quoted or maybe just thought what he said was nonsense. I

          It's non even clear if he is distinguishing between mental practice and memorization in his writing. I think almost everything he writes, regardless of the quality of the content, is poorly written.

            Kaydia pianoloverus It's not necessary to have absolute pitch to do MP. Absolute pitch is probably helpful in memorizing a piece, but is rarely mentioned in articles about memorization it was so few people have absolute pitch. Most people think absolute ditch cannot be learned but it's in born.

            In addition I think the paragraph from the book you quoted is an example of his unclear and poor writing.
            Absolute and relative pitch are very different but he uses them both in the same paragraph sometimes together, sometimes separately, switching back and forth.

            On that page I linked, he explains why he believes AP is necessary. I'm not saying I agree with him. I don't have a desire to memorize my pieces, so it's not relevant to my learning process.

                pianoloverus Excuse the previous posts as I have difficulty using the site when I try and quote something today even though things worked well yesterday.
                AP is abosolutely not necessary to play the piano well or for mental practice. It's also not clear what Chang even means when he talks about mental practice. Is he just talking about memorization? In the numerous articles and books I've read about memorization, I don't think AP has even come up in the discussion probably because most people don't have it.
                We have been discussing a few pages of the Chang book. I have looked at a few other pages and find "info" in almost every paragraph that I think is just plain wrong.

                    I haven't read the book so can't judge except what was quoted here 😊

                    What makes it unnecessary confusing is that he intertwines the terms elephant (absolute pitch) and giraffe (relative pitch) and then explains how elephants use their long necks to reach high into trees. You can argue oh well, they're both mammals and elephants can reach high due to their size, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual statement wasn't correct.

                    Again, no judgement on the rest of the book, but I can't say I'm very enticed from the few excerpts that were discussed here 😉

                    As usual I am exaggerating. It will be fine. Whatever I'm playing - I am just trying not to massacre it completely. A bit of massacre is fine 🙂

                      Animisha I chose to focus on learning to play as beautifully and expressively as I can. The last three words are very important, because I once was a child with very clumsy motor skills (both fine and gross), so playing beautifully and expressively does not come naturally to me. However, this is a goal that I can achieve - and can achieve every time I finish with a piece.

                      When I see graceful hands playing in videos I wish mine looked like that. It just doesn't come naturally to me. I think maybe I need to exaggerate my movements and fake it 'til I make it. 😄

                      Animisha After some detours, I ended up at the Piano Career Academy, where I had excellent lessons that focused very much on technique.

                      I looked up the Piano Career Academy and watched her demonstrate a correct key attack. I'm going to give that a try and see how it goes. I'll check out more of her videos later. Thanks for mentioning it.

                            pianoloverus AP is abosolutely not necessary to play the piano well or for mental practice. It's also not clear what Chang even means when he talks about mental practice. Is he just talking about memorization?

                            I don't know. I wasn't interested in the AP memorization aspect, so I didn't delve more in to it.

                            pianoloverus In the numerous articles and books I've read about memorization, I don't think AP has even come up in the discussion probably because most people don't have it.

                            Yes, that makes perfect sense.

                            pianoloverus We have been discussing a few pages of the Chang book. I have looked at a few other pages and find "info" in almost every paragraph that I think is just plain wrong.

                            I've only looked briefly at a few sections so far. When I read articles/books like this. I just pick and choose what makes sense to me, and what I think will work -or I think is worth trying- with my learning style.

                            TO BE CLEAR: I WAS NOT PROMOTING THIS BOOK! I merely shared a section that I found interesting (the age groups), and then when I replied to the comment about the "nonsense" in the book, I said that's why I had stopped reading and started just skimming (because of the AP stuff). I feel like I'm having to argue that I agree with you.

                                  pianoloverus It's also not clear what Chang even means when he talks about mental practice.

                                  He is talking about audiation, and maybe visualization.

                                      Sophia I wasn't promoting the book.

                                          ranjit pianoloverus It's also not clear what Chang even means when he talks about mental practice.

                                          He is talking about audiation, and maybe visualization.

                                          My question was whether Chang is using mental practice to mean memorization practice or something else.

                                          Absolute pitch is not necessary for audiation unless one thinks audiation means hearing a piece in one's head at the correct pitch. Anyway, it's not necessary to hear a piece at the correct pitch to hear it in one's head even if one wants to use that for memorization. Not that I think that's a good or usually promoted way to memorize a piece. In fact, as I've stated several times on this thread, in all the discussions I've read about memorization mental practice is rarely if ever mentioned as one of the main approaches.
                                          If AP was necessary to be a good pianist or for memorization, then a huge percentage of good pianists would have to be reclassified since they don't have AP.

                                              To me, the age brackets look pretty accurate. Some of the things there aren't exactly correct, but those overall align with my experiences looking at learners from various age brackets. It runs counter to the notion that piano must be learned as a young child. Talent absolutely exists, and children too have likes and dislikes. But if someone 13-18 becomes very interested in piano playing and has some talent, they can definitely play at a high conservatory level or maybe even concert level. Above the age of 18 or so, it depends on the individual's specific case. I think it is very possible to learn the piano well in your 20s (I should certainly hope so!). I suspect the reason you don't see this all that much is because people tend to have other priorities at that age. 35+ in the vast majority of cases gets dicey when you're talking about playing Chopin Etudes and the rest of the virtuouso repertoire. (There are some "super-agers" who are exceptions to this but are very rare.) Overall, I agree with most of what he's saying in terms of the age brackets.

                                              Interestingly, Josef Hoffman also said in his book that he thought someone starting at 25 could become a concert pianist if they had talent.

                                                • Sophia

                                                • Post #48
                                                • Edited

                                                Kaydia I wasn't promoting the book.

                                                Oh I got that 🙂 I also get that the book may be very useful for some. Plus it's just fun to discuss these things and potentially even disagreeing, no arguments involved!

                                                But part of the discussion was about a passage you specifically quoted (and bolded) - one that is conveying an objectively wrong idea that absolute/perfect (and since he doesn't seem to distinguish between absolute and relative) even relative pitch is a non-negotiable necessary skill to learn piano. Absolute pitch isn't vital for anyone, and relative pitch is a "nice to have" that will develop all by itself (somewhat) in time anyway. Which personally makes me happy because that means I can spend my energy to learn more enjoyable things such as pretty pieces 😂

                                                As usual I am exaggerating. It will be fine. Whatever I'm playing - I am just trying not to massacre it completely. A bit of massacre is fine 🙂

                                                    pianoloverus Absolute pitch is not necessary for audiation unless one thinks audiation means hearing a piece in one's head at the correct pitch.

                                                    No, the idea is that when you hear a piece in your head, it tends to be around the right key. With enough exposure, this sound memory develops. It is a distinct neurological mechanism from perfect pitch, and most good musicians I've seen have it. Like, I can sing a C and it's usually close to accurate, like within about a quarter tone. That kind of thing.

                                                        Sophia But part of the discussion was about a passage you specifically quoted (and bolded) - one that is conveying an objectively wrong idea that absolute/perfect (and since he doesn't seem to distinguish between absolute and relative) even relative pitch is a non-negotiable necessary skill to learn piano. Absolute pitch isn't vital for anyone, and relative pitch is a "nice to have" that will develop all by itself (somewhat) in time anyway. Which personally makes me happy because that means I can spend my energy to learn more enjoyable things such as pretty pieces 😂

                                                        Right. I bolded the sentence in a paragraph, instead of just quoting the sentence alone and and out of context. As I said in the post where I quoted that, that was the point where I stopped reading and starting skimming instead. It didn't occur to me that copy/pasting that quote in response to another post was going to cause such controversy. Haha. Live and learn. 🙂

                                                        Sophia Oh I got that 🙂 I also get that the book may be very useful for some. Plus it's just fun to discuss these things and potentially even disagreeing, no arguments involved!

                                                        Thank you for understanding, and I'm sorry for being abrupt about it. Now I'm going to go have some fun finishing up a lesson piece.

                                                              Raw thoughts: I'm supposed to be working. 😃

                                                              The "perfect pitch" idea felt to me, back then, like the mindset of a physicist used to dealing with absolute measures, and transferring that mindset into music, and how he understood his daughters' lessons with that good teacher.

                                                              I cannot remember the details of what I read 17 years ago and what specifically got me to not read further than that page. It had something to do with memorizing a passage. I had, in fact, done a lot with mind, head, ears at that point because of the lack of musical training up then (i.e., basically none). I had done mostly standard diatonic type music. Fuer Elise was the first piano piece I had done as a kid because it was in the 1905 book my grandmother sent from Germany. That together with lots of Clementi, Kuhlau - all of them sonatinas generally. Ok, so:

                                                              The sonatina will have a theme - little melody-thing, which asks and answers a question (how I felt it) - like a sentence or two part conversation. "What are you looking at?" "What am I looking at? - those birds!" It did a twiddle-diddle and suddenly there was a "new Do" (it had modulated), danced around there. Then more twiddle-diddles and the old conversation came up in the original key (old Do), "What are you looking at, pray tell?" What am I looking it? - those birds, those lovely birds!" This is how I had absorbed music as a child. A story tells itself in a logical way, and thus it is not hard to remember. Whatever this gentleman proposed seemed abstract, like memorizing a chain of numbers and letters in some code. I could not relate to it.

                                                              Memorized music was also like an unfolding story where you have the key points. That camping trip has packing up stuff, traveling, arriving, setting up, the adventures while camping (maybe a key one), decamping, travel home. As I get to each point, that part "unfolds" - 'setting up' a bunch of things happened. This is also how I experienced music.

                                                              Is starting with the mind, primarily, being in the mind, the best thing to (always) do? I don't think so. I was not aware of technique at the piano, what to physically do; how things worked, or even a real way of reading music. I believe that we need all aspects, and there is a back and forth. If you are strong in one area and have another one missing, then you want to push the missing part more. If Chang or his daughters mostly had technique, but had not memorized and done head-things before, then it would be important to balance that out. Thus "mind" might be important for him or them.

                                                              Also, what you associate with and end up using will also work with your background and makeup. What I wrote described stories, literature, poetry. That's my world. I could add metaphor and imagery that springs up. The same thing may not work for someone else because they have a different mindset.

                                                                Kaydia But part of the discussion was about a passage you specifically quoted (and bolded) - one that is conveying an objectively wrong idea that absolute/perfect (and since he doesn't seem to distinguish between absolute and relative) even relative pitch is a non-negotiable necessary skill to learn piano.

                                                                Guys, what about the idea that imagining music in your head is a non-negotiable skill to learn piano? Thoughts? Because that's what is actually being said here. IMO.

                                                                    ranjit Guys, what about the idea that imagining music in your head is a non-negotiable skill to learn piano? Thoughts? Because that's what is actually being said here. IMO.

                                                                    We cross-posted. My post just above yours (written while you were writing yours) might address some of that, near the end, though maybe not in the same context.

                                                                      ranjit To me, the age brackets look pretty accurate. Some of the things there aren't exactly correct, but those overall align with my experiences looking at learners from various age brackets. It runs counter to the notion that piano must be learned as a young child. Talent absolutely exists, and children too have likes and dislikes. But if someone 13-18 becomes very interested in piano playing and has some talent, they can definitely play at a high conservatory level or maybe even concert level. Above the age of 18 or so, it depends on the individual's specific case. I think it is very possible to learn the piano well in your 20s (I should certainly hope so!). I suspect the reason you don't see this all that much is because people tend to have other priorities at that age. 35+ in the vast majority of cases gets dicey when you're talking about playing Chopin Etudes and the rest of the virtuouso repertoire. (There are some "super-agers" who are exceptions to this but are very rare.) Overall, I agree with most of what he's saying in terms of the age brackets.

                                                                      Do you have any experience with a person's natural physical "demeanor", such as them being stiff, ungraceful, clumsy, etc. as far as how it impacts the learning process? I can picture learning to be more graceful, for example, would be easier the younger you are. I'd be interested in any thoughts on this aspect.