About beginners who play difficult pieces...

[sborovic]

Some people who play piano for, let's say, a year [18 months, two or three years -> in all cases a relatively SHORT period of time]  claim that they've "mastered" pieces such as Moonlight Sonata third movement (most frequent), Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet or preludes and fugues by Bach. Sometimes they even don't have a teacher or play by the ear!!!  Some also claim to have finished 7-8 grades in one or two years... What do you think of them, and how is it possible that they manage to actually play those pieces?

In my country we have:
-primary school (grades 1-6)
-secondary school (grades 1-4)
-conservatory (grades 1-4)
 =all summed up - 14 years!!!
You don't even think of attempting, for example, preludes and fugues, Prokofiev Montagues and Capulets or Moonlight third before second or the third grade of the SECONDARY school (before having played piano for at least 7-8 years). So are there really people (and not just those rare, extremely hard-working and gifted exceptions) who "get it" that easily? If yes, HOW DO THEY DO IT? What's the quality of their performances?

I'm really puzzled by this one... Are they most often those shallow people who play piano only to impress others and thus gain respect, the ones who don't really enjoy classical music or play some "pop" songs to be considered "cool"? Please, give me your opinions! Should they be respected or not?

P.S. Use the search button, you'll find plenty of posts like: oh you don't need to spend 7-8 years to finish grade 8.... Well, I've just finished them all in two! ...and similar...

Thank you all, A LOT!

[mike_lang]

It is a rare lot that can play this sort of repertoire (well) in such a short amount of time - generally, we call them prodigies (I had a teacher once who performed the first Beethoven concerto with orchestra after only having studied the piano for a year).

Consider, also, that young ones (4-6, +- a year), especially if they are talented, have very malleable motor skills and a sensitive ear.  This enables quicker progress than the average child.

[sborovic]

Yes, but I'm not speaking of those exceptions...

So are there really people (and not just those rare, extremely hard-working and gifted exceptions) who "get it" that easily?

I mean, why do teachers let their not exceptional (even exceptional!) students play the hard pieces that early (sure they can't master 32 pieces in a year's time as that's how much you play minimum before the aforementioned difficult ones....). So, I'm NOT refering to the extremely gifted.... but to the average students who do that.... What are the consequences of NOT going all the way through the curriculum?

[thierry13]

*This is my personnal experience* I allways skipped steps. My first piece was Chopin's nocturne in C-sharp minor(posthumous). My second was Beethoven pathetique sonata. Then my third was Chopin revolutionnary study. After a year of playing, I performed the revolutionnary study, and yes it was mastered. That caused a lot of fights on this forum when I asked for advice because nobody actually believed me ... Anyways, after 2 years of playing, I got into college in piano performance. For my first semester in college I played among others Mazeppa. I did perform it and it wasn't all that bad by the end. But, you can not do such things without having some holes, problems in the general aspect of your playing, things that do not give you too much problems for the actual pieces tough. Those holes in your technic, you will have to get back at them anyways. I had to do so and worked very hard at the bases even when I was practicing Mazeppa. Now I'm getting into university next year and I finally (4 years of playing) managed to solve most of my problems. At my last semester of college I had to learn Prokofiev's toccata in 3 weeks, and I did manage to do so. Now the problem is that I learned it so quick without giving me the time to assimilate everything that I do not want to touch this piece until I have COMPLETLY forgotten it, since it is learned very well at the moment in my reflexes, hand memory etc., but it is very superficial learning. So in the end, my point is that you can learn hard pieces early if you want, but do not think you will not have to come back at the beginning someday or that you will suddenly become good because you are able to play hard pieces. Doesn't work that way.

[shortyshort]

As I only teach myself Piano for my own enjoyment and have no intention of taking any grades at all, I don't waste my time with pieces that I do not like.

I chose what I learn because I like them, that's it.

I try to make them sound good, but who cares really, as long as I'm having fun.

[rc]

I second Thierry's point that it's possible to pull off these difficult pieces in a short amount of time but the lack of fundamentals eventually catches up.

After about a year of dabbling I began to take piano seriously and the first piece I learned all the way through was the andante of Beethoven's Pastoral sonata, I think I did a pretty good job of it.  After playing it for some friends at a resaturant, the manager tried hiring me on the spot and I had to explain that I would be repeating the same piece for 3 hours if he did  It was to be a 1 trick pony, and after I learned a few pieces I became a 6-trick pony (however much I could keep in my memory at a time). Chances are they were mediocre as well.

The lack of a solid foundation shows as a lack of flexibility.  If I was asked to play the theme in the other hand I couldn't do it, or to spontaniously change the expression.  Sightreading and improvisation are just about impossible without having the basics down.  Weak listening skills.  Playing pieces beyond my actual level made me a charlatan.

I think the grades are a bit too easy to pass just by having the repertoire down and bumbling through the technique/sightreading/ear skills.  The grade system is what it is, and I understand the compromises that have to be made in order to have a standardized system, but we have to take responsibility of our education beyond that...

I'm now a firm believer in having a thorough, well rounded education.  Learning difficult pieces early is alright, I think it was a great motivator, but at some point we need a solid foundation and that's what takes time to grow.

One advantage of starting early may be that kids aren't so far looking and can just progress steadily one step at a time.  Late starters don't have the patience to wait 7-8 years to dive into what they want to learn

[sborovic]

NIce responses! So, in the end, you really have to learn everything. You can just truncate the order of what you learn a little bit if you want to, but it's even better if you follow the curriculum.... Thanks!

[eddie54]

i think there is no curriculum that will get you to that high level of playing....like after I started playing for a few years, I went to a summer piano performance program in Idyllwild, CA and there was this boy (10 years old) who was playing things like heroic polonaise, evolutionary etude, liszt sonata in b minor.....he didn't bother with bach wtc, and a lot of the technique studies, since he didn't need it....however the interpretation of the piece was much like a computer, or very trite where you knew what he was going to do since everyone's heard the piece played that one way.....i mean, i've always been a player who has worried about the interpretation and emotions versus perfect notes though, haha

[thierry13]

You will not become good by playing hard pieces, you will become good by practicing piano, what ever piece it is, as long as you are doing a good practice, being in a state of research and allways be concentrated on what can be ameliorated. You rather learn lots of easier but mastered pieces, that to learn few unmastered monsters. That was my error during my two college years, and am working on correcting that at the moment with a little bit less demanding repertoire for my entrance at university next year ...

[rasteen]

One problem I have noted, that may or may not directly relate to the specific issue here is this: 
I have encountered students who learn one difficult piece a year for competition held at the end of the school term.  Their only goal is to do well on the competition.  Often they do, but they really learn nothing they should of the piano; in four years they have four pieces that they can play, but have no understanding. Many times they learn the first movement of sonatas or Ballads, etc. with cuts in them to accomodate time limits.
Often their teachers encourage this kind of "learning" because they want to have lots of students who do well at competitions so they look good to their peers.
I have been told that this does not cause any damage to average students and that gifted students will naturally persue and more balanced path.  But do we want students to just do well at one performance a year, or do we want them to grow up understanding and appreciating music for a lifetime?

[slobone]

All of which confirms what I've been trying to tell people here -- if you really want to learn to play well, you have to have a teacher. A good teacher will steer students away from pieces that are too hard or too easy, that won't teach them anything new or that they're not ready for, and into repertoire that will build a foundation for their future work. To allow a student to play Chopin Etudes or Liszt without having done any Bach verges on child abuse.

I could without much trouble post 100 clips from Youtube of self-taught or badly taught pianists who are tackling, say, La Campanella or the Winter Wind etude, or Ondine, who have clearly not mastered the fundamentals. And they don't even seem to know it.

[mattgreenecomposer]

To say you've "mastered" any piece of piano music tells me you have much to learn... 

[sborovic]

I second that! (all of you, in fact )

[kghayesh]

I cannot say one has to pass through all grades in sequence in order to improve their technique and play difficult pieces. My personal story is that I only started playing 6 years ago, and now I can say I can play hard pieces such as Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no.2 & Chopin G minor Ballade and Etudes.
Although I can play them, my teacher keeps telling me that what I have done throughout the years has made my technique full of, what you can say 'holes'. I didn't play lots of Etudes and preparatory pieces coz I was just jumping through the repertoire.
So, Yes you can play difficult pieces in a short time after vigorous practice, but I don't think you will play them as someone who has been playing all his life.

[nyonyo]

It is possible to learn difficult pieces in several years. I have no doubt that Thierry must be talented too.  He claims he can play Revolutionary with only one year experience of playing piano. What is the quality? It is a big question. My teacher a Moscow Conservatory and Julliard graduate as well as Van Cliburn contestant told me that it took him 12 years to master Revolutionary up to the professional level. From his background, we can tell that he has tremendous talent and training. Yet, he still purports that Revolutionary is a very difficult piece to master.

A good conservatory (Julliard, Curtis etc), most likely, will not pick pianist like Thierry.
Only desparate music schools that need students pick a pianist like Thierry. There must be a lot of holes in his performance.

[Kassaa]

It is possible to learn difficult pieces in several years. I have no doubt that Thierry must be talented too.  He claims he can play Revolutionary with only one year experience of playing piano. What is the quality? It is a big question. My teacher a Moscow Conservatory and Julliard graduate as well as Van Cliburn contestant told me that it took him 12 years to master Revolutionary up to the professional level. From his background, we can tell that he has tremendous talent and training. Yet, he still purports that Revolutionary is a very difficult piece to master.

A good conservatory (Julliard, Curtis etc), most likely, will not pick pianist like Thierry.
Only desparate music schools that need students pick a pianist like Thierry. There must be a lot of holes in his performance.

what....? did you even hear him...?

[thierry13]

It is possible to learn difficult pieces in several years. I have no doubt that Thierry must be talented too.  He claims he can play Revolutionary with only one year experience of playing piano. What is the quality? It is a big question. My teacher a Moscow Conservatory and Julliard graduate as well as Van Cliburn contestant told me that it took him 12 years to master Revolutionary up to the professional level. From his background, we can tell that he has tremendous talent and training. Yet, he still purports that Revolutionary is a very difficult piece to master.

A good conservatory (Julliard, Curtis etc), most likely, will not pick pianist like Thierry.
Only desparate music schools that need students pick a pianist like Thierry. There must be a lot of holes in his performance.

My revolutionnary study wasn't all that bad really, of course it wasn't professional level, nor was I at the time of that performance. I can admit there were holes in my performances in the past few years, they were totally not professional performances, but that won't be the case in the future. I'm not saying either I'm at the level of entering at Juillard tomorrow, but my music school is DEFINITELY not desperate. Lots of people who went to the university where I'll be going passed in competitions where people from Juillard didn't. Do not judge of things you do not know.

[enderw20]

I had a student who came to me for his first lesson, he had only been playing a couple months and was 22. He sat down and played the first 5 pages of Heroic and  I almost crapped myself. I mean it sounded horrible but thats because he had no technique at all, once that was fixed it was fine. So I'm thinking that people who are playing these pieces after only a year or so of playing can give an adequate performance and then accept that and move onto the next piece.

[sborovic]

So I'm thinking that people who are playing these pieces after only a year or so of playing can give an adequate performance and then accept that and move onto the next piece.

Not following you completely, eh?? Accept what?

[zaba19]

Basing on my own experience "older" beginners have a lot easier on start at playing piano than children.  When you start playing late you have a completely different approach to piano. It isn't something your parents want you to do, you don't go practice out of the pressure that you have a lesson soon and have to show something. You just play cause you want to and it brings you pleasure. Your hands are bigger, you have more self-control, you can work out several things on your own.

I myself started playing at the age of 18 and after a few very easy pieces (a month) my 1st "serious" piece was Chopin's Nocturne 9/2. It took some time but after half year I played it on a level I was happy with and to MY best skills. By no means would that performance be equal to those of real students in music schools but for me it was a finished piece. You mentioned Moonlight 3. mvt and surprisingly I played it too (after 4 years though) and considering my (how to say it... not so worked out) technique, to my judgement, it was fine and I had felt I achieved something big. I accept that it's the best I can do at the moment and move on to next pieces.

It is my opinion though, that to play on a level that you're not the only one enjoying your playing, a good teacher is needed. One that would know what is your goal in playing (so he doesn't push like he would music school students) and knows how to approach and teach such people. And of course you can't play only "show-off" pieces. Some etudes and such have to come along as well.

[pianorin]

well i do face a quite a serious problem.. I can play bach. chopin, listz etc . EXCEPT mozart..
Many think mozart's pieces are easy but for me they are difficult. the pieces look easy but when i want to play it well, they're hard.. somehow i dont really know why..

[pianoplayer88]

Um...just to let you know. Some people have a talent for piano. (Not to brag, but to get to the point I am trying to make), In August, I will have played the piano for 4 years. And right now, I am working on Mozart's "Sonata", "Bumble Boogie" by Jack Fina, (this piece is a take off of Flight of the Bumblebee), and I recently had a recital in which I played "March of the Dwarfs" by Edvard Greig. Bumble Boogie, I just started this piece last Monday, and I am already playing almost the whole thing hands together at a moderately fast tempo.

Lots of people may exaggerate on the internet. They're on the internet. Nobody knows them. They can say anything they want. Not including me. 

[sborovic]

Of course, because YOU say so... I agree that a teacher should "adjust" to non-music school students and give them what they want (quick, little show-off pieces that they'll, although very badly,  manage to play...) They just must know that they cannot compare themselves to real, serious music students... It's just not fair and possible...

[rc]

Lots of people may exaggerate on the internet. They're on the internet. Nobody knows them. They can say anything they want. Not including me. 

I don't see why anyone would want to lie to impress a bunch of stranger but I'm sure it happens.  I think most people here are being sincere, but who knows how accurate peoples perception of their own playing could be?  Sometimes I'm talking about my good days where everything flows easily, other times it's about my bad days where my fingers have rusty hinges and my brain is dead.

I agree that a teacher should "adjust" to non-music school students and give them what they want (quick, little show-off pieces that they'll, although very badly, manage to play...) They just must know that they cannot compare themselves to real, serious music students... It's just not fair and possible...

I don't agree with that, I think a teacher should instill high standards in any students playing from the very beginning.  Even if it's the simplest beginner piece - it should sound like music.  That's much better than a student taking on a piece they can't handle yet and making it sound like broken music.  Otherwise it's kind of like being paid to humour somebody's fumbling attempts, week after week.

[thierry13]

Um...just to let you know. Some people have a talent for piano. (Not to brag, but to get to the point I am trying to make), In August, I will have played the piano for 4 years. And right now, I am working on Mozart's "Sonata", "Bumble Boogie" by Jack Fina, (this piece is a take off of Flight of the Bumblebee), and I recently had a recital in which I played "March of the Dwarfs" by Edvard Greig. Bumble Boogie, I just started this piece last Monday, and I am already playing almost the whole thing hands together at a moderately fast tempo.

Um...just to let you know. Wouldn't want to make a bad comparison but ... is what you describe supposed to sound like a "talented" person  That seems like really slow progress to me dude, honestly, sorry. Well ... maybe not THAT slow, but a talented person would have done much more, IMO. Sorry I'm not trying to be harsh or anything but facts are facts, somebody must bring you back to earth.

[pianoplayer88]

Um...just to let you know. Wouldn't want to make a bad comparison but ... is what you describe supposed to sound like a "talented" person  That seems like really slow progress to me dude, honestly, sorry. Well ... maybe not THAT slow, but a talented person would have done much more, IMO. Sorry I'm not trying to be harsh or anything but facts are facts, somebody must bring you back to earth.

Oh, and I suppose you're one of those "talented" people? You're such a jerk.

[thierry13]

Oh, and I suppose you're one of those "talented" people? You're such a jerk.

Haha. I knew you would react that way. Think whatever you want about me, it's just a fact that your progress is not a quick one. If you want to believe that I'm not any better well that's your decision really...

[queenrock]

ROFL ME AM PLAY PIANO GOOD!!!!!!11

[sborovic]

I don't agree with that, I think a teacher should instill high standards in any students playing from the very beginning.  Even if it's the simplest beginner piece - it should sound like music.  That's much better than a student taking on a piece they can't handle yet and making it sound like broken music.  Otherwise it's kind of like being paid to humour somebody's fumbling attempts, week after week.

Believe me, I also know it would be better that way, but... Some students (well LOTS of them) DON'T want to produce anything better than "broken music" because they are not capable of doing it and don't want to bother (yes, I know -> mediocre!) They also don't consider it broken (they are quite proud of themselves in fact!). Just to make it clear, I would NEVER EVER accept doing anything even similar to that, but not everyone thinks that way (I'm a music school student, by the way...) So, let's accept reality.... People are generally lazy, that want quick, low-quality solutions, they save themselves for some inexistent reasons, they have limited capabilities and they are easily satisfied.... Sad .....
............. but true...
 

[sborovic]

Oh, and I suppose you're one of those "talented" people? You're such a jerk.

Please, be polite!

Um...just to let you know. Wouldn't want to make a bad comparison but ... is what you describe supposed to sound like a "talented" person  That seems like really slow progress to me dude, honestly, sorry. Well ... maybe not THAT slow, but a talented person would have done much more, IMO. Sorry I'm not trying to be harsh or anything but facts are facts, somebody must bring you back to earth.

It's not about WHAT you play, but HOW you play...

[thierry13]

It's not about WHAT you play, but HOW you play...

Exactly, that's why I said he could think whatever he wanted from me since I have no proof that I play well... but if you can play well you can play more difficult and most importantly more interesting music 

[sborovic]

...most importantly more interesting music 

Any music is interesting! Why do you think Glenn Gould bothered with two and three part inventions when he could play fugues and preludes all the time?

[thierry13]

Any music is interesting! Why do you think Glenn Gould bothered with two and three part inventions when he could play fugues and preludes all the time?

Did I say inventions were uninteresting? It is important to understand a composer to explore his whole output. And I do not think he would have programmed inventions in a recital as main pieces ... rather a Partita or Suite or whatever.

[sborovic]

Still, ALL MUSIC IS INTERESTING! Some pieces more, some less but it's the matter of TASTE, not difficulty!

[thierry13]

Still, ALL MUSIC IS INTERESTING! Some pieces more, some less but it's the matter of TASTE, not difficulty!

A beethoven sonata, a Chopin etude, the Liszt sonata, are all more interesting music than the Bach menuet in G, by example, or a burgmuller small piece. You get my point.

[pianoplayer88]

Please, be polite!

Sorry, I usually am, but he's acting like such a know-it-all.

[pianoplayer88]

Exactly, that's why I said HE could think whatever HE wanted from me since I have no proof that I play well... but if you can play well you can play more difficult and most importantly more interesting music 

Just to let you know...(yes I'm saying it again) HE is a SHE!!

[thierry13]

Just to let you know...(yes I'm saying it again) HE is a SHE!!

That explains the attitude.

[term]

A beethoven sonata, a Chopin etude, the Liszt sonata, are all more interesting music than the Bach menuet in G, by example, or a burgmuller small piece. You get my point.

Did you get his? He said that all music is worthwhile, and that is true for a bach minuet as well as for a beethoven symphony. The point was an abstract one, he did not compare individual pieces. -- And did not equate difficulty or size of a work with musical content or quality, like you do. I mean i, for one, rather fall asleep when i listen to beethoven, but bach never ceases to amaze me even with his slow and rather 'boring' works. Thats where taste comes in.
You get my point.

[tds]

there's only two things really:

1. how can we be sure if s/he tells the the truth about the length of his/er piano studies?
2. listen to his/er playing. proof speaks louder.

[sborovic]

Did you get his? He said that all music is worthwhile, and that is true for a bach minuet as well as for a beethoven symphony. The point was an abstract one, he did not compare individual pieces. -- And did not equate difficulty or size of a work with musical content or quality, like you do. I mean i, for one, rather fall asleep when i listen to beethoven, but bach never ceases to amaze me even with his slow and rather 'boring' works. Thats where taste comes in.
You get my point.

Thank you for explaining it more clearly!

[thierry13]

Did you get his? He said that all music is worthwhile, and that is true for a bach minuet as well as for a beethoven symphony. The point was an abstract one, he did not compare individual pieces. -- And did not equate difficulty or size of a work with musical content or quality, like you do. I mean i, for one, rather fall asleep when i listen to beethoven, but bach never ceases to amaze me even with his slow and rather 'boring' works. Thats where taste comes in.
You get my point.

I understood that. The problem, is that we were arguing on whether we could judge talent or progress by  the pieces one plays, and in that case, you simply can. That's the only thing I was arguing about 

[term]

I understood that. The problem, is that we were arguing on whether we could judge talent or progress by  the pieces one plays, and in that case, you simply can. That's the only thing I was arguing about 

Well you implied that more difficult music is more interesting by saying 'if you can play well you can play more difficult and most importantly more interesting music'.

As to progress: Didn't you agree with sbovoric that it doesn't only matter what one plays, but how? Now is it only the pieces which determine progress, how they're played, or both?
I mean, i'd say both. But if i hear a half-assed beginner's chopin etude or a decent easy bach fugue, the one who made more progress is the latter for me, and be it only because he/she chose not to learn a showpiece at first...
And then, if the first beginner spent half a year for his one - let's say perfect - 3 minute etude and the second learned half an hour of easier music, who made more progress?

[thierry13]

Well you implied that more difficult music is more interesting by saying 'if you can play well you can play more difficult and most importantly more interesting music'.

As to progress: Didn't you agree with sbovoric that it doesn't only matter what one plays, but how? Now is it only the pieces which determine progress, how they're played, or both?
I mean, i'd say both. But if i hear a half-assed beginner's chopin etude or a decent easy bach fugue, the one who made more progress is the latter for me, and be it only because he/she chose not to learn a showpiece at first...
And then, if the first beginner spent half a year for his one - let's say perfect - 3 minute etude and the second learned half an hour of easier music, who made more progress?

I agree entirely with you. It is obviously both. We STILL come to the same conclusion about her progress ... As to your first comment about what I said, the "difficult music" was a separate element from the "more interesting music". You know what I mean? I'd say that, in general (often, not allways), interesting music is harder to play. It's not the difficulty that makes it interesting, but the fact that it's interesting often makes it more difficult.

[term]

Fine then, i agree. 
However i wouldn't want to, nor do i feel like judging her process, especially since she hasn't actually posted her repertoire here and, as tds said, we haven't heard her playing.
So lets better not judge anybody.

[sborovic]

Ummm, who are you talking about? Who is she?

P.S. If you are thinking of me (why?) it's he.

[thierry13]

Fine then, i agree. 
However i wouldn't want to, nor do i feel like judging her process, especially since she hasn't actually posted her repertoire here and, as tds said, we haven't heard her playing.
So lets better not judge anybody.

She actually did post her repertoire, and the piece she played in a recent recital. She based the fact that she made fast progress and had talent on this repertoire, and that is why I said that based on the very same infos she gave us, I would'nt find it fast progress...

[cloches_de_geneve]

Generally, individuals play piece that are too difficult. They think they can play them but would be lost in a public performance situation. Doing well in the latter, by general consensus of the public, is what it actually means to "master" a piece.

Martha Argerich said once that to you have to be prepared 140% to give 60% in a performance. The problem with mediocre pianists playing difficult music is that they are usually prepared 60% and destined to produce 0% performances.

Most amateur pianists claiming to play difficult pieces are probably unable to give half-way decent performances of a Schubert impromptu or an early Beethoven Sonata.

[sborovic]

Yes... And we have to point out one other thing... It's not just that they don't know how to perform a piece, but they don't even learn it from the technical/rhythmical aspect! Very, very sad...

[sborovic]

Have a look at this!

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29718.0.html

He/she plays Moonlight sonata which is a VERY HARD piece in terms of expression (it's hard by itself to maintain the attention of the audience or even yourself because of the repeating melody and not to mention that you have to give something NEW having in mind all the available interpretations!!!). All in all, a very difficult to play piece and he/she doesn't even know "what to hit" when B# is written?! This is such an illustrative example! :|