simplified arrangements vs original

[quebec75]

My question is about simplified arrangements vs original arrangements for new learners:

I'm adult learner who has been studying piano for about 10 months.  My teacher says my sight reading is coming along unusually well. The first pieces I learned were some of  Bachs Minuets, including minuet in G. Then I really wanted to learn Fur Elise. I spent several months with that. I can play it well all the way through, although I'm a bit slow on the last 25 or so measures. I'm doing some boring sight reading text also.  I think it's helpful but very simplified arrangements. It's my least favorite thing to do.  Also I'm practicing scales although we started doing that kind of late and I'm only proficient at C and G.

I also recently learned some "EZ" arrangement of cabaret, and I'm currently learning an "intermediate" arrangement of "The Entertainer".  Trouble is, I hate these EZ versions.  The intermediate version of the Entertrainer (arrngmt: W.T. Skye Garcia - Alfred) is bland and not nearly as full as the original arrangment.  I'm learned most of it in a few months.

I recently looked at the sheet music for Joplin's arrangment and played with it a bit.  It is challenging for my hands but much more rewarding to the ear by it's fullness.

My question is, as a new student, is it a mistake to try and learn a fairly difficult piece like that rather than use a simplified arrangement?

Fur Elise was hard for me at the start...much harder than the Bach and the simplified stuff I've been doing. It took many months, measure by measure. But now I'm so happy I can play it as it was written?

Is it best for me in the long run to do these simplified arrangements early on or can I challenge my self and try something like Joplin's original arrgmt of The Entertainer.  Some of you who have been at this a lot longer than me may have some advice on what's best early on.

Thanks in advance.
Philip

[Saturn]

There is a simple answer which is especially pertinent given that you are an adult learner: you should learn what you want to learn, and not learn what you don't want to learn.  There's no sense in wasting time and effort on something you hate.

I never much liked simplified arrangements either.  It's not necessary to learn them, since there is a lot of good music that is easy to play in its original form.  See this thread for examples:
https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=teac;action=display;num=1075165020

So, if you want to learn the original arrangement of a piece, by all means, go for it!

But, there are several problems with simply plunging blindly into a piece.  No matter how badly you want to play it, if it is too far above your level, nothing good can come of it.  You will only get discouraged, develop bad technique/learning habits, and possibly not finish the piece.  Leaving a piece unfinished is something you want to avoid.

So the solution: consult your teacher.  That's what he's there for!  Tell him that you don't want to learn the easy version, but would much rather tackle the original.  Then, he should be able to tell you whether you are ready to attempt it.  If you aren't, maybe he can suggest some other pieces which are not quite as difficult, but will still challenge you.  If you are ready for it, he'll be able to guide you to make sure you approach it correctly.  All of this assumes that you have a good teacher.

- Saturn

[Saturn]

Actually, that thread I mentioned covers pieces that are probably far too easy for you.  But it's still worth reading.

Anyway, the point is that there's a huge amount of piano literature out there, and you don't have to learn anything you don't want to.

[xvimbi]

First of all, I personally consider it a mistake to learn pieces that are well outside one's capabilities. Those will take too long, which can be quite frustrating, and there is always the risk of getting injured when faced with new technical challenges without solid foundation. I think, one should slowly and gradually move on to more difficult pieces. I found for myself that waiting a while to tackle a more difficult piece is the better way. You said you can play "Fuer Elise", but it took you very long. Instead, you could have accumulated the necessary technical skills through smaller pieces and in a gradual way, then, it would have taken you probably only two months to get "Fuer Elise" down. It all depends on the person. Many people like huge challenges; smaller ones would not encourage them enough. Others are happy with taking smaller steps. Neither approach is necessarily better than the other. You need to decide for yourself.

That said, I personally think there is nothing wrong with simplified versions, reductions, or the like. Many people will disagree and argue that an easier version is a butchered version of the original that does not do justice to the composer, etc. blah, blah. Music is music. Easier versions will give you access to the melodies you want to play (what good is an original piece that you hate), while allowing you to improve your technique.

The only drawback I can see is the fact that when you move on to a more difficult version, or the original version for that matter, you'll have to relearn the piece, which can be challenging, because the easier version might be ingrained in your hands and mind.

[Max]

Sorry, but simplified arrangements get a big fat NO from me, I think that you shouldn't need to rush learning a piece, and if it's too difficult, then you should just be patient and wait!

[quebec75]

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I appreciate your comments.  The reason I don't like what simplified - be it "arranged for the intermediate pianist" or "EZ" arrangements, is that they just don't sound good and the sense of reward I feel when I've learned it isn't so great.  I listen to the full arangements and I think "mine is missing so much."
Fur Elise and the Bach that I've learned, make me very happy to have spent the effort.   I kind of feel I could learn Joplin's original The Entertainer, but that it would take time.  My teacher just went on vacation for a month and I'm wondering about spending that time practicing the original arrangement rather than perfecting the watered down version I've been practicing with her.
When she gets back I'll tell her I'd like to stick with originals that are within my skill level.  

I saw a page on another web site that listed some pieces that it said all pianists should be familiar with at some point. I wish it listed them by difficulty. Are there any resources that rates pieces on relative difficulty? That would be really helpful.

https://pianoeducation.org/pnollist.html

Lastly, do any of you that have learned the Entertainer think it's really difficult and beyond the scope of a motivated beginner?

I'm not afraid of hard work.  I'm a linguist also and have spent thousands of hours in my life studying many languages, practice that can be excruciating, but rewarding....similar to the piano.

Thanks for your thoughts!  I'd especially appreciate any comments on your feelings about the relative difficulty of The Entertainer.

Thanks!
Philip

[bernhard]

Hi Phillip,

I agree with most of what has been posted.

Personally I am completely against simplifications. There is plenty of original repertory at every level of piano playing, so there is no need to butcher a piece.

There is a lot of repertory suggestions in the forum, and several pieces have been graded. It is a matter of taking the time to search. In any case, here are a few threads that may interest you:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=repo;action=display;num=1089664585;start=2
(intermediate repertory)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=repo;action=display;num=1077145772
(A selection of Scarlatti sonatas, graded)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=teac;action=display;num=1061212155
(Grieg’s Lyric pieces, graded)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1090431086;start=0
(Chopin preludes, graded)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=repo;action=display;num=1091144283
(Chopin Waltzes, graded)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1077907916
(Easier Prokofiev pieces)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1083221471
(Easier sonatas)

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=repo;action=display;num=1085722515
(Somewhere towards the end of this thread Chopin’s etudes and Nocturnes are graded)

There are several other threads, but these should get you started.

I would also strongly suggest that you investigate this online book for I suspect that your practice methods may not be optimum (even a total beginner should not take several months to learn Fur Elise if they are practising correctly):

https://members.aol.com/cc88m/PianoBook.html


Finally, the Entertainer is not terribly difficult. It is around grade 5/6, and its major difficulty are the skips in the left hand. I have taught Maple Leaf Rag, which is of similar difficulty to a total beginner in three weeks (one hour session every day). By all means go for the real version.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[xvimbi]

Personally I am completely against simplifications. There is plenty of original repertory at every level of piano playing, so there is no need to butcher a piece.

I think this misses the point. The point of simplifications is to have access to certain melodies that one is interested in and that one would not be able to play in the original version.

I love one of the main themes of Rach2, but I can't play Rach2. So, I turn to a simplified version that Rachmaninoff himself actually wrote. Same thing with Rhapsody in Blue. I can't hire an orchestra, but still like to play it. Luckily, there is a solo-piano version.

And then there are the cases where learning the original version actually seems out of place: What good is it to learn piano concertos, yet never to play them with an orchestra or with piano accompaniment?

I agree, however, that simplifications should not be used purely as training pieces.

[quebec75]

Bernhard,
Thanks for the great links and for the link to the how to practice book.  You are right, I haven't been practicing correctly. That book has some great ideas.  I appreciate your help!
Philip

[bernhard]

You are welcome.

[lani]

"I love one of the main themes of Rach2, but I can't play Rach2. So, I turn to a simplified version that Rachmaninoff himself actually wrote. Same thing with Rhapsody in Blue. I can't hire an orchestra, but still like to play it. Luckily, there is a solo-piano version.

I agree, however, that simplifications should not be used purely as training pieces."]

Yes, we also mostly agree with the comments above, and prefer not to use simplified pieces if at all possible.  My daughter began with childish nursery songs, etc. and came to dislike even sitting down at the piano. She was frustrated that she could not play 'real' classical pieces, so we finally had to change teachers.  Some people just don't give kids enough credit that they are quite capable of discerning the difference!

She loves the Rach2 pieces and Rhapsody in Blue-where might we find the simplified version and solo piano version?  Is it available as a pdf on one of the classical music sheet sites?  Thanks, Lani

P.S. How do I use quote a previous member's statement?

[xvimbi]

She loves the Rach2 pieces and Rhapsody in Blue-where might we find the simplified version and solo piano version?  Is it available as a pdf on one of the classical music sheet sites?

There are two books called "Focus on Melody" from Faber. The pieces in there are short, original and about intermediate level. The one piece from Rach2 is in volume 2. There might be other sources. Google is your friend!

Warner Brothers has the score for Rhapsody in Blue.

https://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/book.asp?ppn=bkwbps0047&sid=697

There is also a version for two pianos. I doubt that the score is available for download for free, as it is most certainly still copyright protected.

P.S. How do I use quote a previous member's statement?

If you click on "Quote" in the upper right corner of a post, the entire post is marked as a quote. You can "quote" any text by putting "[_quote_]"at the beginning of the text and "[_/quote_]" at the end. You have to remove the "_" in the square brackest; I used those only to avoid th etext showing up as a quote.

[lani]

If you click on "Quote" in the upper right corner of a post, the entire post is marked as a quote. You can "quote" any text by putting "[_quote_]"at the beginning of the text and "[_/quote_]" at the end. You have to remove the "_" in the square brackest; I used those only to avoid th etext showing up as a quote.

Thanks, I'm trying this to see if it works! Regards, Lani