Best Practices and Lessons Learned

[selsa]

Hello, everyone.

This is a new topic that could help us all.

Let me start by listing my difficulties and asking you all to provide tips on how to overcome them efficiently and with the elast pain:

1-Difficulty in playing with both hands, and in reading both clefs at the same time. A note appears different on the clefs. You sort of have to switch gears in your mind between the two 'systems' of representing notes. That is giving me a great deal of trouble as a beginner player. Any ideas??

2-What is the best procedure for quickly learning a piece? Do you try to memorize the notes from the sheet music first and then play them from memory, or do you play it as you read the music, and eventually you will have memorized it??

3-For a one-page medium-difficulty piece, these are the steps I take now and the time it takes for each step ( I have only been playing for an hour every day for a month):

-Intial reading of the sheet music ( 5 minutes)
- Playing the music as I read it (30 minutes)
- Playing it a second time ( 20 minutes)
- Playing it again and memorizing the entire page (1 Hour)
-In general, I get a one-page music sheet memorized in a three day seating (1 hour per seating.) What about you?

Sorry for the length of my message.

Thanks for any thing you want to suggest.

Selsa.

[benedict]

You will find many answers plus a coherent approach on practice there :

https://members.aol.com/cc88m/preface.htm

Good luck !

[selsa]

Benedict,

Thanks for the suggestion. I have read the entire material you suggested, abd it's very usefu. However, there is one thing  there I do not agree with.

It stresses in many f its passages about playing musically rather than technically, and playing by ear and memorizing first, then improving sight reading after that.

It's an idea projected by many in this forum too.

But that is at least a few steps ahead of where I (any many beginners in this forum) am now.

I can not think of playing musically if I haven't learned to play the piece in the first place, and to do that I need to sight read well, and play the notes fast and with the right fingers.

I need to learn to read the score effectively, and play music with the right fingers ( both hands at the same time.)

That is the immediate step for many of us in this forum, so please help!! Thanks.

-Selsa.

[MzrtMusic]

Selsa,

When I first started taking lessons, my first teacher was very adamant about memorizing where a note was on the staff, and being able to sight-read well. She kept trying to drill things into me, and wouldn't let me move on very quickly, because I had trouble memorizing everything. I moved to another teacher after having spent like three years getting through the first level of John Thompson. My new (and current) teacher assured me that as long as I could play the notes correctly, the instant recognition would come in time. He really encouraged me to write the letter names of the notes above or below them. That just helps you speed up the learning process.

I've also found this method works well with my students. I doubt that anyone really expects you to be able to sit down, and sight-read a piece perfectly after playing for just a little while. As long as you can learn the right notes from the beginning, the speed and musicality will come. Learning music is a life-long process, not something that you sit down one day and can suddenly do.

I hope that this will help you some...

Love,

Sarah

[selsa]

I have kind of a primary question.

To a beginner like myslef, the purpose of learning the Piano is primarily to be able to 'make music', playing music that has already been created/composed.

But some of you remind us about expressing oneself through music.

My question is, how can one express him/herself unless by composing the music? Or do you mean that merely playing a certain created music is considered self-expression?

Or are we referring to ways (timing, tempo, touch, etc.) of playing music? If so, then we can only become better musicians due to the way we play, even if that may not be the approved way.

I know this may be an awkward question, but ...

-Selsa.

[Colette]

no, it's actually an interesting question. i believe that all pianists should strive to be composers when performing.  i don't mean composing in the traditional sense, but rather making music by being "composers" through interpretation. just as the great composers invented new music, pianists are able to do something similar, taking this music, and freely adding (tastefully) their own interpretations (which can include tempo and dynamic changes, sound quality....) piano performance is one of the most creative and spontaneous fields to explore, because pianists are able to shape and add many approaches to the way music is played. if you listen to horowitz, rachmaninoff, richter...etc. in comparative performance, you will hear that they play the very same pieces, even some you'd think have been interpreted to death (like beethoven's moonlight sonata) entirely differently. they express themselves through the music by making the compositions uniquely their own, adding subtleties to the text that are unexpected and fresh. that's why people say that certain pianists are recognizable for their style of playing.  of course, that's the difference between simply playing the notes and truely playing, where expression gives meaning to technique.

[selsa]

Colette,

Thanks for the reply. I got it - composers create patterns, and pianists (pro or amateur) interprete it differently.

I have two questions about that:

1-The tempo, note length and touch (load, soft, etc.) are already defined when a piece is composed. And sound quality is a function of the piano. In other words, when played right, all pieces should sound the same. Therefore, pianists can only be creative in creating a variation of a piece.

2-Secondly, I also have a problem with variations - they don't sound right to me if I have alredy heard the original piece. It's a natural behaviour for humans to internalize the sound patterns once we hear it (especially if we like it and hear it a number of times.) If they are varied, I personally feel that they don't express the emotions, cultures, etc. they were intended for, that they lose originality, and therfore do not sound right to my ears either, which is another natural reaction, I believe. I tested myself with some variations and boy, I would rather hear it the same every time.

What do you think?

-Selsa.

[selsa]

I have yet another question, but please try not to ignore the previous questions.

Is Piano learning really like learning to ride a bicyle?

If so, that would mean that once I have learned a piece, I can play it ten years from now.

Or is it something that needs constant practice? And can be lost without it? In other words, a piece has to be re-learned evry now and then.

I suppose the knowledge of music theory and the ability for automatic recognition of notes and patterns in music take much longer to lose.

What do you think?

-Selsa.

[Colette]

hmm...i guess i'll try to answer these two also....you said that because of the inherent nature of the piano, all pieces will sound the same if played "right". for one thing, there is no way that two pianists can play the same piece exactly the same way because of the limits of human capabilities, and there is no one correct way of playing a particular compostion, but those are just superficial answers. if every pianist had your viewpoint, what would be the reason to play the piano? as i said, each pianists interpretation of a piece should add something styalistically, or pianistically new and creative, no matter how small the contribution is. playing the piano really has nothing to do with the technical make up of the instrument. yes, the tempo, note length and dynamics are certainly defined on paper, but the composer expects pianists to take those notations and mould them by their own craft. despite what many may think, classical music is flexible to an extent, and is not so static that its performers are restrained by what is written on the music. even "strict" composers like bach, mozart and beethoven leave room for interpretation, although the learned pianist should stay within the styalistic period. also, i'm not sure what you mean by saying that pianists can only be creative by making their own variations. do you mean a variation they compose themselves, or a "variation" in terms of interpretation?......from what i think you mean about the second question on vartiations, (pianists or composers who create variations on a theme of a tradtional piece...) i do agree that some "vartiations" are not vital or interesing contributions to the piano repertoire, such as the godowsky-chopin etudes (but thats just my opinion) but others, like, of course, rachmaninoffs many transcriptions or variations and his variations on a theme of paganinni are endlessly imaginitve, and not just a rehashing of more brilliant material, but music of his own personality and temperment. or, if you mean variations like the ones u find within a mozart or haydn sonata, i they are interesting exercises exploring every possible way a theme might be looked at or listened to, or written.
for the second question, the piano is definately not like learning to ride a bike, i tell you this from hard learned experience. i thought that if i learned a piece, even if it was challenging, i'd be able to pick it back up once i was "done with it". that was a wrong and musically immature notion. once you learn a piece, you should think of it as going directly into your repertoire. you should continue to practice and grow with it, it will only get better with time, this way you'll have it forever and be able to play it in your sleep so to speak. you should never try to ressurect or re-learn a piece, or think of it as absolutely finished. that will just back fire when the time comes to dig up that chopin etude or mozart sonata you forgot about. phew.

[selsa]

Thanks Colette. All ypur points are well taken.

Let me clarify my question, since I am still not completely satisfied.

For me, at least at this point in my pinao learning as a beginner, being able to play a piece as it's written is more than enough. That will make me infinitely happy. So I won't be unhappy if I can't play creatively.

But like you said, for a pianist, creative playing is important, unless they are technical or vistuoso pianists.

What I mean is there are pianists called great not because of their creativity, but because they can play some difficult pieces, and they play then with accuracy ans speed.

For example, I don't believe that Horowitz was creative when he played. Playing with the accuracy and virtuosity some classical pieces demand is what made pianists like that great.

In addition, when I listen to a piece by different pianists, they all sound the same. The same, meaning the difference is very small of course, I don't mean identical ("no two things are identical"), and in their minds, they all intended to play that piece in the same way. So how are these pianists creative players?

I don't think some differences in some areas (such as the length of the rests) will qualify as creativity. One will always play a piece slightly differently at two different times, even myself, does that mean I am being creative? I am only trying to play as suggested.

I appreciate any feedback about these thoughts.

Thanks for your explanation that learning to play the piano is not exactly like leaning to ride a bike like some teachers tell us.

-Selsa.

[88keys]

Actually, what makes pianists such as Horowitz so great, is that they are able to trick you into thinking they are not creative... There performance seems so natural, that you can't help thinking that this is the only way it can be played.

But this is only an illusion. A good pianist, adds a great deal to his performance aside of the written notes. A slight crescendo here, a slight ritardando there, these things mark the difference between a mediciore pianist and the great masters. Moreover, two different masters might play the same piece at a totally different tempo, and using different neuances in their performence. In certain extreme cases, two pianists might give the same piece a totally different mood. And guess what? Both are equally in accordance of the music written by the composer!

Of-course, this is a lesser degree of creativity than the kind involved in actually composing your own music. But nevertheless, it is still genuine creativity. And without it, the music will be dry and uninteresting.

How do I know? Because it is easy to teach a computer to play a piece of music "by the book", and I've seen the results...

[selsa]

88keys, thanks for the explanation. I get that pianists can be creative, to a degree.

I have a problem which maybe I expressed before in this forum. Once I hear a piece and I like it, I won't like it when I hear its variations of tempo, etc.

I can tolerate some tempo changes or tweaks for more contunuity, and so on, but if it's a lot varied, it sounds unoriginal to me. I like it the way I first heard it , since after that it clings to my memory, and I can't stand it being varied, I fear that I will fall out of love for it, if it didn't communicate the original feeling to me. That's because when I love a piece, I love it so much that I decide that there is no better way to play it.

On an unrelated subject, it seems to me the naming of classical pieces is difficult to memorize. I can remember what chopins' "revolutionary etude", "berceuse" or "raindrop sound like, but pieces like "opus ..., No. ...", "K..."(Mozart), "concerto no ..." and such are har to remember. Why are they named like that.

Couldn't someone have come up with names from like the message of these pieces?

-Selsa.

[88keys]

Well, usually no.

This is because, usually, classical music does not have any "message" which can be expressed in words. This is even true for most pieces which do have names.

Exactly what is so revolutionary in Chopin's "Revolutionary Etude"? Nothing, except the fact that it stirred a certain association in the person who invented the name.

Here is another example: there is an etude by Chopin (Op. 25/1 in Ab major) which has two different nicknames: "Aeolean Harp" and "The Shepard Boy". So which of these two names really capture the "message" in the music? Clearly, the "message" is created in the mind of the listener, rather than in the music itself.

And there is nothing which stops you from inventing your own nicknames for pieces, as a mnemonic aid. Just remember that when you talk with other people about the music, you'll need the opus numbers (or some equivalent) to understand what you are refering to.

[selsa]

88keys,

Right. I will remember to use Opus numbers to refer to a piece, but don't you think names like "the revolutionary" are easier than Opus numbers? So why aren't there some nicknames instead of numbers for all pieces, some name, it doesn't have to mean anything or have a relation to the piece, but names are easier. There must be a reason why we're using numbers, I just don't know it. Can you or anybody help?

BTW, I read somewhere that the revoluationay etude was written to inspire a revolution when Russia cruely invaded Poland, Chopin's homeland.

-Selsa.

[MzrtMusic]

Selsa,

I have two things that I'm going to say here... The first one is about pieces not having nicknames. Think about how many hundreds of composers there have been, and how many thousands of pieces they have written. If every piece had a name, then all of the names would be just as hard as all the numbers. Plus, sometimes things are hard to translate from one language to another. Having Opus numbers, or Kochel numbers or whatever eliminates that.

Secondly, about a pianist being creative. Like 88keys said, the "creative" differences from one pianist to another are very slight. They are extremely hard to pick out. You really have to sit down, and analyze a piece, unless you know exactly what to listen to. You said that you are just starting to play piano, and I think that it's great that you are listening to classical music, but I would encourage you not to lock yourself into a box. Don't get so caught up in trying to hear that "artistic differences" of performers that you get frustrated and give up. For now, I think it would be better if you listened casually, instead of trying to analyze everything. What I have my students listen for at your level is how the different period styles sound. Once you can hear 30 seconds of a piece, and identify the style, start trying to do that with composers. That's much harder that it sounds. After you have that down, then you can start listening for creative differences. I bet then you'll hear a lot more, because by then you will have incorporated some of them into your music, and be able to listen for them better.

I hope that this made sense, and that it answered your questions...

Love,

Sarah

[NetherMagic]

hey selsa,

sry I should've replied earlier to your question about sight-reading and reading 2 clefs at once... Well the way how my teacher taught me was that she would make me sing the highest note of either the treble clef or bass clef when I play (songs were slow at lower grades so it was easy) and you keep on doing that for a while.  It might not have THAT much of an effect, but I think it should at least help a little in your rate of improvement.

and 2nd selsa you seem to be listening to a lotta classical music and wanting to get very musical.  That's always good, but I just want to stress an important point.  When you're a beginner, it's nice to be musical, but you havta develop your techniques more before you start getting into the musical and creative stuff.  Because if you don't develop very strong technical hands, it's going to kill you when you get into harder songs like Moonlight 3rd Movement and Pathétique and those Chopin ones.  So I recommend you practice a bit more technique stuff for now (maybe get that technique book by Hanon, it's very good) and yes every pianist has probably experienced the long, enduring hours of technical practice, but I guarantee you that it's all gonna pay off later.  I noticed the importance of this becuz I have 2 other friends who started playing piano as the same age as each other, and after a few years one was way more skilled than the other, and I asked him why and he said he practiced a lotta technical stuff and the other dude didnt.  Of course I didn't really believe that simple reason, so I got them both to play Bb Minor Scale, and my friend with the better skills just banged it off extremely fast with clarity and dynamics, while the other had some troubles shifting the fingers around

anywayz that was a bit of a long message but this is just my recommendation, you should be the one deciding

and good luck being a pianist  

[selsa]

NetherMagic and MsrtMusic,

Thanks. I gather these from your replies:

-Performers can be creative, but only to a small degree, almost unnoticeable.
-most of the sight reading and virtuosiity problems can be overcome faster with smart learing strategies, but most of the time, there is no substitute for experience and practice. It'll come to you.

When I said the thing about how I don't like variations is only to stress the point that I don't really need to be creative to enjoy music.

If I can play it, that's good enough for me. I don't worry about being musical or even identifying the musical era. I just wanna play.

So like you suggested, I need technique, sight-reading ability and good memory, these all come with practice. I find that myslef every day.

Thanks for all your help. You're really helping me fast-forward to a degree to playing my dream pieces.

-Selsa.

[MzrtMusic]

Selsa,

I just need to say that pianist are creative, to a large degree. I don't know how else to explain this, with what has already been posted on this thread. You just can't grasp the scope of performers artistry until you are more familiar with your instrument. Right now, all you need to do is learn to play the pieces in your lesson book (or whatever method you are using) and keep listening to good quality recordings. Whatever you do, don't judge what you hear. Keep an open mind, and then in time, you will understand about artistry!!! DOn't worry about your sight-reading. That will come in time too... Just learn your songs, and before you know it, everything will make sense!!

Love,

Sarah

[selsa]

Thanks for the advice. I think I am getting ahead of myslef. But these concepts kept making me curious.

You told me not to worry much about sight reading. But I just can't get over the its great usefulness. I am trying to learn the "Pathetique." It's not that technically challenging, but the patterns/progressions are difficult to memorize. Even after two hours on just the first 10 bars, I haven't memorized it. Even if I did, I know I will forget it soon.

Therefore, I think sight reading is the first thing to be mastered before one can learn a piece. Pieces like "Pathetique" are hard to play from memory; they evaporate quickly. But anyone with sight reading ability can sail through it. Right?

[88keys]

Actually no.

There are very few pianist, if at all, who can sight-read through a piece as complex as the Pathetique Sonata. It is simply impossible, for most people, to process so much information in so little time.

The trick here, is to give oneself more time - enough to get one's fingers and mind to know the piece. Go through the music slowly, note by note if you must, and make yourself familiar with it. This is how pianists learn to play most of their repertoire, because the typical recital pieces are virtually impossible to sight-read. Of-course, they must memorize it all before the recital, but this is usually done only after being able to play the piece well from the sheet music.

And another thing:

Sight-reading, while being both fun and useful, is a skill which usually evolves very slowly. Unless you have a special talent for it, sight-reading would not be very useful for you in the next few years.

Don't try to rush into it, and don't get furstrated about it. As said before, there are much better ways to learn piano pieces.