Is our hearing of a piece a reliable indication about its difficulty (works in both sides, you think it's easy or you think it's difficult just by listening to it) ?
I guess it would ultimately depend on one’s experience and imagination. I remember many years ago, listening to pieces, and then being totally surprised when looking at the score. The score looked like nothing I had
imagined from the listening. Conversely I remember a time when by looking at a score I had no idea what the piece would sound like.
Sometimes a score may look terribly difficult, and may turn out to be relatively easy to play (e.g. Chopin’s Polonaise in A op. 40 no. 1) and vice –versa (Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 16).
Finally what may be difficult to one person may not be to for someone else.
Nowadays, I can spot straightaway (95% of the time at least) how difficult a piece/passage (that is, how much work and time it will need to turn into easy) will be
for me. But it has not always been like that.
Anyway, we all know that it is not recommended to tackle things which are at a very higher level than yours... But could someone (esp. Bernhard) clarify why it's not good ? I already have two answers :
- it will take you far more time to learn the piece than if you follow the recommended progression
- you might as well "never" finish the piece and that could be morally devastating
Are there other reasons, especially technical ?
Yes. The main reason is time. But then you must bear in mind that my personal bias is towards the acquisition of repertory. I want to acquire a vast and varied repertory. And I want my students to achieve the same. Given that the piano repertory is huge –and musically superlative - at all levels of difficulty, it makes sense to spend one year learning several easy intermediate pieces and in the process acquire the technique/musicality to learn an advanced piece in a fraction of the time, then to struggle for a couple of years with an advanced piece.
If you know what you are doing, you will at the end of the two years learn the advanced piece either way, and acquire a superlative technique either way. The difference is that in one case you will only have your advanced piece to show at the end of two years, while in the other case you will have several other pieces in your repertory as well as the advanced piece. From the point of view of the process, acquiring repertory is also better because you get more motivated by learning quickly several pieces than by getting stuck in one single piece for a couple of years.
However all this changes if your agenda in different from mine. I have come across students who were not interested in a huge and varied repertory. They were interested in just one composer, or just a couple of pieces and they would die happily if they could master just those pieces. In that case, everything changes. It is then best to concentrate on the pieces the student is interested.
Again, if you know what you are doing, you will finish the piece eventually. In fact the only reason you may not finish it is for lack or persistence (some people do give up).
This is really all there is to it.
On the other hand, if you don’t know what you are doing (“I am learning the piano by myself since I cannot afford/do not want a teacher” – or if you have a teacher who does not know what s/he is doing), then of course there are all sorts of technical problems and possibility of injuries, etc., but this will accrue even if you are working in the easy repertory.
On a side note, I usually have the opposite problem: convincing a student that his/her next piece is
not too difficult and that they will be able to manage it fine.
Last question, suppose you learn a piece which in first place you thought to be playable, but as you advance in it, you realize it's more difficult than you initially thought. Should you give up ? If yes, when should you take this decision, what would indicate you that it's not worth continuing for the moment ?
The reason to give up a piece should have nothing to do with difficulty. Difficulty can always be conquered if you know what you are doing – it may just take more time.
The two reasons to give up a piece (either forever or for the moment being) are:
1. You realise you don’t know what you are doing, and that by proceeding the way you are proceeding you are not going to get anywhere. If that is the case, yes, you must drop the piece until you forget it (this will be the most effective way to deal with the bad habits acquired in learning it the wrong way). Meanwhile learn how to do it properly in other pieces (maybe even pieces of similar difficulties), and then go back to it in the future.
2. You loose the interest in the piece to the point you cannot bear to listen to it (= burn out). If the piece is of inferior musical quality it is likely you will not want to ever go back to it. Or you may need a rest from it (a couple of years, perhaps) and then you may go back to it again with fresh ears.
(Of course both of these reasons may be triggered by the piece being too difficult)
Just an opinion, of course.
Best wishes,
Bernhard.
Topic: Could some rate Chopins waltzws (difficulty)?