Hello,

I'm 18 years old and have been playing the piano for 9 years now. I'm grade 8 standard and would like to play something challenging and enjoyable. I heard the Rach 3 concerto in the movie Shine 3 years ago. I didn't pay too much attention to it at first but recently I heard a performance of the Rach 3 ossia cadenza and thought it was revolutionary...

For the past 2 years I've been very narrow in selecting composer's works to learn - J.S. Bach was regarded as the greatest composer who lived. However, since listening to Rach, his concerto No. 3 takes me beyond the muddled presence and allows me to touch something timeless and eternal. I've never played any Romantic pieces before. I've always focused on Baroque music and rarely stepped into the classical realm. Although there's something daring me to learn this piece... but... Should I attempt it? I heard only a select few professional pianists have played this successfully with true interpretation and emotion but I believe I can too.

Should I?

PS: I have very large hands if that's useful.

I've never played any Romantic pieces before.

Well, to put it mildly, this is not the piece to start with.

I can understand why people want to play this concerto, but to attempt to play it without any experience of romantic works is like building a skyscraper without any foundations.

Why not keep it as a goal for future years and leave it well alone until you are ready.

Thal

Hi : rather than give you a straight answer.  Think about this.  Those great artists you have heard play the Rach 3 , what do you think they had to do in order to get to the point that they could play it like that.  What makes you think you will have success if you dont follow the regime they did. Maybe you can, im just asking you to think. Ok now here is something else.  Why not learn it  first instead of thinking about playing it. I mean learn it the way a conductor would. Become totally familiar with everything about it. Maybe then you can make a better decison about if you should  try and play it. Just stuff to percolate on. .  best of luck.

Cheers, Becky

Hello,

I'm 18 years old and have been playing the piano for 9 years now. I'm grade 8 standard and would like to play something challenging and enjoyable. I heard the Rach 3 concerto in the movie Shine 3 years ago. I didn't pay too much attention to it at first but recently I heard a performance of the Rach 3 ossia cadenza and thought it was revolutionary...

For the past 2 years I've been very narrow in selecting composer's works to learn - J.S. Bach was regarded as the greatest composer who lived. However, since listening to Rach, his concerto No. 3 takes me beyond the muddled presence and allows me to touch something timeless and eternal. I've never played any Romantic pieces before. I've always focused on Baroque music and rarely stepped into the classical realm. Although there's something daring me to learn this piece... but... Should I attempt it? I heard only a select few professional pianists have played this successfully with true interpretation and emotion but I believe I can too.

Should I?

PS: I have very large hands if that's useful.

If you want to play this piano concerto, one of the most difficult piano concerto ever, you must answer for the questions: how many piano concertos do you play? which? how many etudes (Rachmaninov, Chopin, Liszt), sonatas etc. In my opinion it's strange to play concerto: Rach3 if you don't play many piano concertos in your life.

My teacher played Rach concerto 3 for her Ph.D final recital some years ago,all she tell me about this concerto:tired physically but exciting emotionally.
You're not the only one who is crazy for it! But i really don't think you can handle it now...I ask my teacher's opinio last year and she told me she isn't planning to work on it with me in 20years..

I'd go for it. Rach 3 (at least just the notes) can be learned by someone at your level in about 2-3 months if you're spending around 3 or 4 hours a day on it. It's the music/interpretation aspect that's the hard part about it.

There's no basis for knowing the original poster's level in practical terms, or for speculating that such a project would take "about 2-3 months if you're spending around 3 or 4 hours a day on it," or for predicting how long it would take anyone according to a formula based on hours of practice.

(Edited slightly because I didn't wish to sound harsh, but Becky already quoted the original.  No offense intended!   )

There's no basis for knowing the original poster's level in practical terms, or for speculating that such a project would take "about 2-3 months if you're spending around 3 or 4 hours a day on it," or for predicting how long it would take anyone according to a formula based on hours of practice.

I was quoting what I think is the longest reasonable time someone should take to memorize it if they have been playing piano for as long as the poster indicates he has and is of perhaps average intelligence (I'm sure some people, due to being incredibly stupid, are probably incapable of memorizing even simpler pieces). I'm not saying that people in his shoes don't take longer, say a year and a half or more, to memorize Rach 3, simply that this is due most likely to inefficient and lazy memorization methods rather than their innate capacities.

Frankly, given a time investment of 4 hours a day, talking strictly about the notes, I don't think memorizing Rach 3 in a single month is an all unreasonable. I'm certainly not saying it would be up to speed in all places, and playing it up to speed may take a few more months. Also, the musicality is of course extremely difficult to get right and could possibly take a year or more. What I'm talking about just the notes themselves.

Just do the arithmetic: my edition has 128 pages for Rach 3 with about 14 measures per page, or approximately 1778 measures (not all of them even have notes, because sometimes the orchestra is playing, but let's assume they all have notes). Three months at 4 hours a day is 21600 minutes. 12600/1778 = 12 minutes. Take the hardest measure in the entire concerto. Could you memorize it in 12 minutes if you focused all your energy on that one single measure? Certainly (though of course not up to speed). Ergo, the whole work should be memorizable in around three months, 4 hours a day, even by an average person, provided the chunked it carefully and diligently in this manner. Some people who are naturally better at memorization may be able to memorize measures faster (say, 8 minutes per measure), and ergo would learn it much quicker.

I'm going to learn Rach 3! Am I crazy?

No, you aren't. Sometimes we listen a piece and we instantly have the desire to play it. This is good in some sense because means that we have a taste and music interests to us. But there's a real problem when we want to play a work we are not prepared to yet. Reading your first post, I don't think you are prepared at all to play this monster. You said that you didn't play even classicist music (did I understood well?), no speaking about romantics. So from that point of view, the answer in my opinion is yes, you are crazy.

Difficulty is always relative and subjective, depending on many factors. But if we try to objectify or quantify them, from Rach 3 we have:

- It's a really long concerto. Not only in duration but also in the quantity of pages of music written.
- It's one of the most dense works. There are many passages with many notes per square inch
- Requires a top technique and a full domain of many aspects of it: double notes, ultra complex textures, polyphony, finger independence, octaves, succession of octaves (pulse), big chords, big jumps, fast finger passages, etc.
- It's very difficult to read.
- The complex harmony, form and melodies makes it difficult to be quickly understood.
- If we don't have enough experience, we may focus on the tree while losing the view of the forest, struggling to play all the little notes slow, difficultly, pausing and been unable to make the important things sound.
- The technique required to play something like this must be very well connected to the musical ideas. It's obvious that some mechanical abilities are needed but a musical aim is indispensable. If we don't have a clear idea of the musical result, we could misuse our energy. In my opinion music and technique are joined together.

Its a very grave mistake to attempt a work one is not ready to play. There's a big risk of frustration but even of injury if we try to play a piece for we don't have the adequate technique nor enough background or previous music experience.

I once talked to Bruno Gelber about this concerto (who plays this in a wonderful way) and he said to me that it was one of the hardest things he had to do on his life. He used several weeks only to finish reading the score. He felt like solving a puzzle, reading note by note. I think that if a great and experienced pianist as Gelber suffered to bring out this piece, I have not very much to add.

Just do the arithmetic: my edition has 128 pages for Rach 3 with about 14 measures per page, or approximately 1778 measures (not all of them even have notes, because sometimes the orchestra is playing, but let's assume they all have notes). Three months at 4 hours a day is 21600 minutes. 12600/1778 = 12 minutes. Take the hardest measure in the entire concerto. Could you memorize it in 12 minutes if you focused all your energy on that one single measure? Certainly (though of course not up to speed). Ergo, the whole work should be memorizable in around three months, 4 hours a day, even by an average person, provided the chunked it carefully and diligently in this manner. Some people who are naturally better at memorization may be able to memorize measures faster (say, 8 minutes per measure), and ergo would learn it much quicker.

"LOL!"^1000
Are you serious about this? Like, for real?

It's a wonderful concerto, but look at the score if you have not already. There are a TON of notes in it that you don't really hear when listening to a recording. It's not the most difficult concerto out there (like that stupid movie Shine depicts), but it still is very hard.

I'm working on pieces like Brahms' 1st concerto and Ravel's La Valse, and I would still wait a couple more years myself to play Rachmaninoff's 3rd.

Maybe you can try something easy first, like the Brahms first

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you REALLY Brahms 1st is easy??

Hi Orange. no I dont think it is easy, I was being a brat.

Cheers, Becky

I see. Sorry for not getting it.

"LOL!"^1000
Are you serious about this? Like, for real?

Yes, I am 100% serious.

Despite everyone in this thread calling me an idiot, fool, retard, ignoramus, etc. for my viewpoint on the matter of memorization, I am pretty sure that nobody insulting me here has ever tried to memorize even a short and simple prelude in the highly systematic manner I described, and am pretty sure that such a methodology (if employed in an industrious and diligent manner) would multiply the productivity of most (if not all) pianists (at least in terms of raw note learning) by a factor of anywhere from 10-100.

You don't have to start with Rach 3, I was just using it as an example. Try it with a short Bach prelude and see what happens.

Despite everyone in this thread calling me an idiot, fool, retard, ignoramus, etc. for my viewpoint on the matter of memorization, I am pretty sure that nobody insulting me here has ever ....

I'm not aware of any such epithets being used, but I guess the shoe fits.  In my opinion, you're too convinced of your own infallibility to have a clue how clueless your argument actually is.  Even if all your assertions about memorization were demonstrably reliable, memorization does not confer the skills needed to execute very advanced technical challenges with accuracy and musicality.

This discussion started out about learning a very long and very complex piece of music.  That's a multidimensional process, and memorization is just one component of it.  Knowing all the notes doesn't mean knowing how to play all the notes, and by that criterion all your formulas and predictions are baseless.  It takes way more than memory!

You established your credibility with your own statements.

Just practice it for one month and see how you go. If it's something you REALLY REALLY wanna learn, go for it. Then after that, take a step back. You will then KNOW what you need to work on and what you must do to get there if playing Rach 3 is your ULTIMATE GOAL.

No you're not crazy, it's going with your desire.

Ask yourself questions like
Do I deserve to play Rach 3?
Do I have what it takes?
Do I believe I can play this?
Am I good enough to take on Rach 3?
Am I ready for it?
Am I committed to it 110&?

If you answer no to any of the questions... then you're not as committed to it as you thought. However if you answer yes to all questions, then you know you want it. If you're stuck, you can send me a message if you need any help. 

Boy do I second that. Stevebob has it dead on.  I cant even believe how far off in the ozone some statements are.  This is the Rach 3. Let me say it again, The Rach 3.  Hey maybe one more time the Rach 3. im speechless, and that doesnt happen often.  What can I say its no big deal if you want to try it, but you asked our opinion.  Maybe you can try something easy first, like the Brahms first or the chopin e minor, or the oh so simple  Rach 2 and then try the Rach 3. 

i apologize in advance if I put off any one.

Cheers, Becky

Rach 2 simple? Really?

Oh come on! Her sarcasm isn't that difficult to understand.

HI Ponken. NO I dont think there easy. Its called Sarcasm to make a point. 


Cheers, Becky

Well there are people who actually would make statements like that and be serious about it. Lol. Thank you for explaining!

I've never seen the score of Rach 3, but if it doesn't have any complex cross rhythms like Liszt transcendental etude no12 or Samuel Barber excursion no2, then you should be able to self learn it to the point where you can play it fluently from memory if it's your goal to get the best results from your teacher. 

There's no basis for assuming that polyrhythms are more difficult to learn than the severe and myriad technical challenges that characterize Rach 3.

There are editions of Rach 3 in the public domain.  Do have a look at it.

I can't believe some advices I'm reading here. It's not about "what" do you play but "how" do you play it. The learning process must be progressive, not abrupt. What do you, people, think it's better? Playing very well a Bürgmuller etude/Clementi sonatina or playing awfully Liszt Sonata/Rach 3rd or so on? Impatience is a common mistake, and the consequences are payed with our psychical and even physical health (frustrations, delusions, injuries, etc.).

I think it's an irresponsible attitude encouraging to not listen to the teachers and do whatever one likes to do. Do whatever you like... when you'll be prepared to do it, not before. Shortcuts are never good in music learning (at least that's my opinion).

I cannot judge you on what you can or cannot do.

I'm agreeable with you studying harder pieces if you've displayed the maturity to do so. This includes : restraint (not playing fast/loud just to show off), consistency(tempo) and some other formal terms I don't even know about (who's this jesc anyway huh? you don't even know the proper terms bwahahaha... bwahahaha).

For starters, maybe you can go to youtube, listen to Horowitz, Argerich, etc. If you have the maturity enough to appreciate/notice the difficulty they've overcome to play at such a level, well then, you will know what you can currently play.

If you want' to learn the hard way, play what you want, post it on youtube and prepare for the onslaught of "honest" opinions (minus the trolls of course). That's imposing yourself... but I think there's a better position you can be in.

The better position is the reverse. You, being mature about your limitations and the teacher is the one giving you the difficult pieces you didn't even dream of touching.

YES!!! I'm 15 and at Grade 8 level and I'm trying to learn it. My plan is to learn ALL of the notes, then inject all the vitality and spirit into it afterwards. I hope that this is the right approach 

At the moment I'm listening to a few different recordings of it every moment of the day - and following with the score is very helpful.

I believe if you are extreeeeeeeeemely precise in your learning, then play it until you cannot put a 'foot' wrong (which might affirm your craziness) there is no reason why you cannot play like katia skanavi (who I discovered on YouTube and I think is pretty swish ) There is no denying that this will take you a lifetime and a half, but it's worth it!

It's nice to know that there are also other crazy people too

Hello,

I'm 18 years old and have been playing the piano for 9 years now. I'm grade 8 standard and would like to play something challenging and enjoyable. I heard the Rach 3 concerto in the movie Shine 3 years ago. I didn't pay too much attention to it at first but recently I heard a performance of the Rach 3 ossia cadenza and thought it was revolutionary...

For the past 2 years I've been very narrow in selecting composer's works to learn - J.S. Bach was regarded as the greatest composer who lived. However, since listening to Rach, his concerto No. 3 takes me beyond the muddled presence and allows me to touch something timeless and eternal. I've never played any Romantic pieces before. I've always focused on Baroque music and rarely stepped into the classical realm. Although there's something daring me to learn this piece... but... Should I attempt it? I heard only a select few professional pianists have played this successfully with true interpretation and emotion but I believe I can too.

Should I?

PS: I have very large hands if that's useful.

What is your teacher's advice?

Before attempting Rach 3, I would suggest playing through some of his preludes, etudes, and even his 2nd concerto. It would be a good practice to get to know his harmonies, rhythms...I am surprised that you have been playing piano for 9 years and have not touched a romantic piece..I would go crazy on playing just bach.

Van Cliburn said it took him 10 years of practice to play this piece at the performance level.