Where are you right now with piano?

[alzado]

One source of miscommunication on the forum, I think, is that different people are at very different places with piano. 

I'm 64 and have been messing around with piano since I was in elementary school.  On the other hand, we see quite a few young persons or even adult beginners visiting the forum.  Naturally, perspectives will be VERY different for people in different places with piano. 

At my lesson last Tuesday, I played about 4 pieces by Erik Satie -- Several of his "Preludes" and some of his Rosicrucian studies. 

I have never heard any of this material, but I got interested in Satie and just buy collections of his music and play my way through the books.  In a month or two, it will not be Satie but someone else.

My music teacher really liked my playing Tuesday, particularly what she referred to as my interpretative abilities with the material.

We went on and had a talk.  She asked me why I persist in finding out-of-the-way material and feel motivated to play it.

I told her, "it's an alternative to playing Fur Elise for the 500th time, or playing the Moonlight Sonata or the Pathetique Adagio movement, or Turkish March or all the rest of this much-played student repertoire."

I told her, "we all played this material.  I played it, you played it.  Likely even Bernhard as a beginning student learned some of this material.  As well as Czerny and Hanon and many other things.  It was part of a path we took to learning piano."

Once we get past our youth, and have lived with piano for a long time, we no longer need these method book favorites.  Not that they are not good music.  They are great.  But they are very tired.

So we move on.  I have moved on.  I explore music through my piano.  I like the closing lines of the sonnet on Milton -- "sailing strange seas of thought, alone." 

Another line I like is from St. Paul.   "When I was a child, I behaved as a child, I thought as a child.  Now that I am a man, I have put away the things of a child."

And so it is with Fur Elise, or Chopin's easiest waltzes, or Turkish March, or whatever.  I have no wish to undercut all the young people or beginners who are very excited about these pieces.  I was excited about them too, when I was where they are now. 

But people move on.  I have moved on.

And if any person -- man or woman -- follows the path of training and study of piano far enough, they will reach a point where it is not extraordinary at all to play long or difficult pieces without ever having heard them before.

So if people find this strange, or find some of my taste in piano music to be odd, well -- it makes sense for where I am at.   You are almost certainly somewhere else.  And what you are playing now -- if you enjoy it -- is right for where you are at.

This is a bit long, but perhaps you all can forgive this ramble.  I do think it makes sense.  But then, who am I anyway? 

Someone may reply to me saying, "what is your question?"  A valid point.  This is not so much a question as a discussion of perspective on piano.  If you wish to do so, feel free to respond or comment.

Best to all of you.  Keep playing!

[lufia]

I think i know what your saying, ur just sick of hearing the same pieces over and over.

[leahcim]

I think you make some good points.

That said, some people have critisised folk playing Rach, Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart and Bach - not just playing early repertoire from them, but advanced pieces - usually for lack of imagination [although where imagination comes into playing any piece someone else wrote from sheet music beats me - if I wanted to explore my creativity, I'd consider composing / improvising, rather than hoping scratching my beard and thinking 'What piece shall I play?' demonstrates it]

e.g If you're going to art college you say "Dali" when asked that question - if you're honest that is - but you won't because you'll be told "everyone does so don't say Dali" - so you pretend to have an imagination and say something else. But picking your fave artist isn't having an imagination.

So there must be more than some idea that children or immature pianists play mainstream whereas adults seek out obscurity.

It's moving, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it moving on, if that implies the same direction that going from being 5 to 50 does.

Personally speaking I usually find it's obscure for a reason - but this is subjective, for e.g Bernhard's suggestion to play Scarlatti as a cure for the drudge that is early pieces is lost on me totally. All his pieces, beginning and advanced sound like dreary baroque to me. Bach isn't ruling the roost there by accident afaict.

I wouldn't want to play Bach more than once, not at all unless a convincing argument that it leads onto something else is made. But some play nothing other than Bach, for decades, and why not? I don't think "I've grown up that's why I've heard enough Bach" is valid.

If you're learning, you're not going to play Fur Elise 500 times as part of that learning process anyway. There's a valid argument for revisiting early pieces perhaps. It's difficult to see why you would have a teacher to teach you if you'd run out of mainstream pieces you haven't played 500 times.

It would beg the question - why not learn something more difficult than Fur Elise during those decades rather than keep playing it over and over? I hope when I'm 64 to be grabbing new pieces I want to play, obscure or not, and learning to play them, and not going to a teacher at all - which seems to be partly what you're saying you do. Although I can see why some will go to master classes and things like that for interpretation and musicality, I don't understand the logic of playing for decades and thus having to find obscure pieces to be taught on the premise that you don't want to play Fur Elise. If someone has run out of the entire mainstream classical repertoire that they enjoy, fair enough, but if that was Fur Elise and Rondo Alla Turka, I'd think they didn't like Classical music, not that they'd matured musically and moved beyond it.

OTOH, I expect to reach a point where the next logical step in repertoire is too hard perhaps [for whatever reason, talent, apathy etc] - so, yeah, if I'm going to play other folks pieces it'll have to be something that's not more advanced and as there is only a finite amount of Classical Repertoire from dead composers eventually it'll be obscure classical or a different genre. But I wouldn't call it "moving on" in a direction that implied the guy playing Chopin for the 500th time had been left behind, far from it.

Bear in mind too that an adult learner may well have listened and enjoyed these pieces for decades before starting to play. Longer than they'll take to learn some of them, and for longer than some of the kids that are playing them have been alive. Why didn't they find obscure music when they started to play? I'd say, to a point, the opposite is probably true, they want to play these pieces _because_ they've enjoyed them for decades as much as because they are fresh or new.

[steve jones]

The piano rep is all very new and exciting to me. Im still fairly new to this instrument, and I would consider myself still well with in the 'honeymoon' period. You know what I mean - Im still in ore of flashy technique and fast scales, Lang Lang and Kissin etc. You know, all the things that experienced players are sick of hearing about!

[rc]

I like this, there's almost too much to respond to

I'm just a newbie to piano, 2 years total and half of that was just dickin' around. Most everything in classical is still pretty new to me (non-piano music is also very inspiring), but I can tell some people are sick to death of hearing certain things. As much fun as I get out of playing Haydn sonatas, it bores my teacher, I won't be subjecting him to any more alberti bass

I have never heard any of this material, but I got interested in Satie and just buy collections of his music and play my way through the books.  In a month or two, it will not be Satie but someone else.

My music teacher really liked my playing Tuesday, particularly what she referred to as my interpretative abilities with the material.

We went on and had a talk.  She asked me why I persist in finding out-of-the-way material and feel motivated to play it.

I told her, "it's an alternative to playing Fur Elise for the 500th time, or playing the Moonlight Sonata or the Pathetique Adagio movement, or Turkish March or all the rest of this much-played student repertoire."

I'd say this is human nature; being attracted to new things, novelty seeking, curiousity. I tend to be the same way in buying collections and being obsessed with some new composer, except it takes me much longer than a few months. Then, this seems to be what you're saying all along, the 'new' composer for me is what is old and tired to you.

Although I've managed to avoid Fur Elise so far (as leahcim said; "everyone does so don't say Dali") I've decided to learn it anyhow, and learn it damn well... Not so much for myself as for all the non-musicians who would like to hear it, again.

It's occurring to me that most people aren't so interested in hearing what I like to hear, no matter how well it's played. There just isn't much of an audience for the less well known music out there. I figure I can appease their 'Fur Elise-tooth' and maybe they'd be more receptive to whatever else I'd like to show them...

Some unknown stuff is just more attention grabbing to the layaudience. Unfamiliar Beethoven sonata movement gets to more ears than any Haydn sonata I've ever busted out. A lot of Bach is especially hard to listen to for non-musicians, I usually like to prepare a listener before Bach (this is the motive, this is an inversion...). Sometimes a person is just more receptive than other times. Randomly.

A more musically aware audience might be more pleased to hear the 'Tempest' or 'Apassionata'. Since we're picking of Beethoven, an audience of pianists might be sick of those, maybe op.90 or op.2no.2 would be more interesting? Like I can play any of those

I believe the audience is important, you must be able to connect with your audience. I can't stand learning all kinds of pieces and forgetting them before having a chance to share it with somebody.

Leahcim mentioned composing and improvisation (in a different context ) and I think those are be great ways of connecting with the layaudience. I've always thought the chorus of Britney Spears 'oops I did it again' would make a great fugue subject. One day I hope to pull it off, it would be hilarious and people would love it... Or a theme & variations on some popular melody. I heard a radio interview where a pianists (can't remember who) was playing a Mozart PC when he'd rather have been at the premier of the second Star Wars, at the cadenza he improvised over the Star Wars theme. Those who caught the reference loved it. I don't think classical musicians pay enough attention to improvisation and composition.

Whatever strangeness my curiousity brings me to, I'll still need Fur Elise, The Entertainer, etc. for engaging the audience.

[mrchops10]

[although where imagination comes into playing any piece someone else wrote from sheet music beats me]

...
That's really sad, what a way to devaluate an entire art form. Let's just say, if that's your attitude, I wonder how you play. The performing arts are totally useless and completely absurd, but uncreative???

Oh, and RC, keep playing those Haydn sonatas, even if your teacher doesn't like them. I don't know, practice them on tha down low.

[leahcim]

...
That's really sad, what a way to devaluate an entire art form. Let's just say, if that's your attitude, I wonder how you play. The performing arts are totally useless and completely absurd, but uncreative???

I didn't say that at all. I said there isn't much imagination used in playing pieces written by other people from sheet music - moreso when any significant deviation in classical music is often, in fact usually, met with academic derision.

Compared with composing or improvising I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Put into the context [i.e, read the whole paragraph, even if not the whole message] where folk are said not to have enough "imagination" to pick which pieces to play, it seems clear that imagination is in short supply generally. If I could pick 4 pieces of music I'd be ahead of the game according to some - so if you need large amounts of it to play those pieces - good luck

People don't remember Beethoven because his chops were good even if they were. He stopped playing well before the Audition room, CDs and Sony appeared. [In fact, I'd be willing to bet a number wouldn't rank him if they heard him play today in a blind test in the various "best pianist" threads around - and one or two might even comment how he didn't understand the composer's music or played such and such wrong etc - it'd be a fun exercise if it were possible]

If to you that means I said there's no value at all - i.e you thought that those elements I claim aren't there in great amounts, are the only value in doing it and it becomes "totally useless"  it's you that's "devaluating" it, not me - whatever that means. What about all the other things you need to play classical repertoire well - why don't you value them or even acknowledge they exist?

[ted]

Alzado:

Well, in short you're right. Music is like a very big landscape and we're all busily wandering over very different areas of it in all sorts of different weather. In a sense I don't think I have ever forgotten my home town though, rather I have incorporated it into a larger vision. I was listening last night, as it happens, to tapes I made of my compositions forty years ago. In some ways I felt a bit like Stephen Leacock ("The Boy I Left Behind Me") but then I realised that nothing had been abandoned, and that I am now perfectly free to visit and learn from my old self.

As for differences on the forum, I think eclecticism and diversity are very healthy  provided we're all broadminded enough to just listen to other people's sounds (e.g. the Audition Room) and to the mental positions others find themselves in without casting our shadows on them. So often it seems that our choice is "either/or" when in fact it is "and" and "both".

This trick of inclusion, as opposed to exclusion , is something which has come on me more in middle age. Unlike most fifty-eight year olds I know, who narrow and consolidate, I seem to experience a retarded adolescence of creativity and appreciation. Broadening is certainly the felicitous way to go as you get older but very few seem to realise it.

[steve jones]

I actually agree with Leahcim on this one.

Ofcourse playing and performing pieces is creatively gratifying. Especially when you manage to find something unique in the music, and make a piece your own. But this isnt the same as actually creating music from the ground up. To compose music is on a completely different level imo. Its the next step in creativity.

But that is another story, and Im sure there are many opinions for and against this school of thought.

[alzado]

Leacim writes: 

"So there must be more than some idea that children or immature pianists play mainstream whereas adults seek out obscurity.

It's moving, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it moving on, if that implies the same direction that going from being 5 to 50 does.

Personally speaking I usually find it's obscure for a reason - but this is subjective."

Hope I am not misunderstanding you, but Erik Satie and Edward MacDowell are not obscure.  They are published by major music publishers -- e.g., Alfred.  Their entire production is readily available. 

There are truly obscure composers -- see my post elsewhere on Charles Bohm.

Enjoyed your thoughts, Leacim, and those of the others.

[leahcim]

Hope I am not misunderstanding you, but Erik Satie and Edward MacDowell are not obscure.  They are published by major music publishers -- e.g., Alfred.  Their entire production is readily available. 

"out of the way" compared with "method book faves", I just used "obscure" and "mainstream"

I'd struggle to see what your teacher was talking about / asking if the music you played is played a lot, well published and recorded. Similarly, you said you'd never heard it. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

[berrt]

Alzado:
As for differences on the forum, I think eclecticism and diversity are very healthy  provided we're all broadminded enough to just listen to other people's sounds (e.g. the Audition Room) and to the mental positions others find themselves in without casting our shadows on them. So often it seems that our choice is "either/or" when in fact it is "and" and "both".

Some years ago, i found people silly who thought that the only "real music" has been written between 1750 and about 1910 - now im in exactly that way of thinking. So my musical horizon seems to narrow....

bye
Berrt

[asyncopated]

Surprizingly I've never played Fur Elise, or playing the Moonlight Sonata or the Pathetique Adagio movement, or Turkish March.  I'm 29 and started playing the piano last year.  All these pieces are within by ability (pretty sure) but my teacher had the foresight to completely avoid giving me these pieces.  I've attempted (not played) fur elise once and will not bother again, and i'm going to try the rest of the stuff mentioned only when I am able the play the complete sonata.  I'm pretty adament about this because I think that only then can musicality be nurtured. 

Anyway, there are a number of short stunning pieces that stretches musicality.  Nowadays, I seem to be working more on that with my teacher than on any other aspect.  I haven't tried satie's preludes, but chopin and some stunning preludes that requires one to really dig deep to find the right sound.  There are also short, beautify pieces by the other romatic composers... schumann's kinderszenen comes to mind.

I think that musical tastes does change over time, more for some than for others.  I can't really listen alot of pop music anymore.  Many friends I know think what I like is boring.  If they arey willing to listen, I try and explain why it is interesting to me.  I don't think it's just the music.  It also depends on how far you have progressed as a person -- perhaps even a measure of maturity of some kind.  When one starts to find beauty in the finer things it's hard to turn back.  The intellectual and emotional abstaction found in music can change a person at the core.

[stormcrow]

Surprizingly I've never played Fur Elise, or playing the Moonlight Sonata or the Pathetique Adagio movement, or Turkish March.  I'm 29 and started playing the piano last year.  All these pieces are within by ability (pretty sure)

How is it that so many people on these forums seem to be able to play what I'm playing after almost five years, in thier first???    I’d really like to know.

[asyncopated]

How is it that so many people on these forums seem to be able to play what I'm playing after almost five years, in thier first???    I’d really like to know.

I suppose your question is directed at me.  So I'll make an attempt at an answer from a personal stand point.  Btw, I an in my second year, not first.

Firstly, let me ask why you are comparing yourself to other people.  Measure yourself against your music instead.  If you are not happy with the progress that you are making, change the way you learn.  I suppose one is never satisfied.  I've taken about 2 weeks to get the notes of a short piece -- An important event  (kinderszenen under) my fingers and am wondering if it is possible to do it more quickly.  Of course it is.

Here, is a bit of background. Played the electric organ when I was young.  The technique does not translate, but I don't get a phobia when I look at a score.  I've played the guitar (classical) between the ages of 14 to 21 and have been singing in choirs for about 6-7 years.  Have had a lot of exposure to music and very good musicians.  I've develop a good sense of what I want in terms of sound, but still need to refine it.

So I actually did not start from scratch.  I do not have a fantastic music background, but I think the basics are there. 

Just a few things that I find crucial for progress.

1.  Learn to listen to your music.  Simple but surprisingly difficult.  Many people I know are blissfully unaware of the sound they are making. 

2. Don't learn things the conventional way.  Learn in a smart way.  Think about what you are trying to achieve and make sure your goals are met.  For example I've been working on legato (or at least portato) octaves recently for one of the pieces I am doing.  I practice the left and octaves separately as a technical exercise to the piece.

There is a ton of information and suggestions on the learning process on this web site!

3. Understand what a good sound is.  Many can identify a good sound, but don't know what goes into producing it.  Understanding phrasing, dynamic contrast, shading etc. is crucial.  I learn a lot from my teacher in this respect.

4.  Go for depth.  It will develop you as a musician.  Try not to let a piece go until you can perform it in a consistent way with as much musicianship as you can muster for the level you are at.  This means hanging on to a piece for a long time to let it distill and not move on once the notes are under your fingers.  The devil is in the details.

5. I try and explore the different ways of doing things and techniques.  I do read quite a bit about technique and theory. I think that exploration is key to developing as a musician.  Your teacher cannot give you technique, s/he can only guide you in acquiring your own technique.  Whatever the case I reject my playing  when the sound is bad or when there is tension in my hands and back, and in doing so hopfully slowy eliminate the problems with my playing.

6.  Practice constructively.  There is no substitute for proper practice.  I practice almost every day for at least 2 hours.    More if possible.  But if I know I am not practicing constructively, I try something else or stop altogether.  No point ingraining bad habits.

I have to stop playing at 11 because of neighbours, so nowadays I compose after 11.

As you can see... no miracles.  Just intelligent, hard work.

al.

[stormcrow]

I suppose your question is directed at me.  So I'll make an attempt at an answer from a personal stand point.  Btw, I an in my second year, not first.

Firstly, let me ask why you are comparing yourself to other people.  Measure yourself against your music instead.  If you are not happy with the progress that you are making, change the way you learn.  I suppose one is never satisfied.  I've taken about 2 weeks to get the notes of a short piece -- An important event  (kinderszenen under) my fingers and am wondering if it is possible to do it more quickly.  Of course it is.

Here, is a bit of background. Played the electric organ when I was young.  The technique does not translate, but I don't get a phobia when I look at a score.  I've played the guitar (classical) between the ages of 14 to 21 and have been singing in choirs for about 6-7 years.  Have had a lot of exposure to music and very good musicians.  I've develop a good sense of what I want in terms of sound, but still need to refine it.

So I actually did not start from scratch.  I do not have a fantastic music background, but I think the basics are there. 

Just a few things that I find crucial for progress.

1.  Learn to listen to your music.  Simple but surprisingly difficult.  Many people I know are blissfully unaware of the sound they are making. 

2. Don't learn things the conventional way.  Learn in a smart way.  Think about what you are trying to achieve and make sure your goals are met.  For example I've been working on legato (or at least portato) octaves recently for one of the pieces I am doing.  I practice the left and octaves separately as a technical exercise to the piece.

There is a ton of information and suggestions on the learning process on this web site!

3. Understand what a good sound is.  Many can identify a good sound, but don't know what goes into producing it.  Understanding phrasing, dynamic contrast, shading etc. is crucial.  I learn a lot from my teacher in this respect.

4.  Go for depth.  It will develop you as a musician.  Try not to let a piece go until you can perform it in a consistent way with as much musicianship as you can muster for the level you are at.  This means hanging on to a piece for a long time to let it distill and not move on once the notes are under your fingers.  The devil is in the details.

5. I try and explore the different ways of doing things and techniques.  I do read quite a bit about technique and theory. I think that exploration is key to developing as a musician.  Your teacher cannot give you technique, s/he can only guide you in acquiring your own technique.  Whatever the case I reject my playing  when the sound is bad or when there is tension in my hands and back, and in doing so hopfully slowy eliminate the problems with my playing.

6.  Practice constructively.  There is no substitute for proper practice.  I practice almost every day for at least 2 hours.    More if possible.  But if I know I am not practicing constructively, I try something else or stop altogether.  No point ingraining bad habits.

I have to stop playing at 11 because of neighbours, so nowadays I compose after 11.

As you can see... no miracles.  Just intelligent, hard work.

al.

I'd like to answer you but it's very hard to say exactly what I mean. Oh well.

[sonatainfsharp]

Hehe, I have a 64 year old student, and she WANTED to play "fur Elise" 500 times.

[asyncopated]

I'd like to answer you but it's very hard to say exactly what I mean. Oh well.

If words are too hard for you, you can try gurgling. 

Hehe, I have a 64 year old student, and she WANTED to play "fur Elise" 500 times.

I hate to sound like a snob, but some how that thought manages to turn my stomach. 

[johnlock]

I'm new to the forum and since I don't have anyone to compre with where I am, am I below average, average, or above average if I am playing the Pathetique first movement after 8 years of learning and am 16 years old.