do you know any shortcut in piano learning road?

[drazh]

hi
please do not tell me just practice because I am practicing .there are always shortcuts in any road.
thanks

[countrymath]

practice more

[liszt1022]

Keep in mind that the road does not have an ending, nor a banner at some point which says "You now can play piano."

Learn basic theory. The sooner you understand keys and chord functions, the easier it will be to understand what you're playing.

[dcstudio]

applying your theory knowledge to every aspect of your playing esp. how you read and remember your pieces will make you crash through that wall you are up against and bring you into a new understanding about playing the piano.  Things won't necessarily get easier but at least they'll be a lot easier to remember.  this may sound existential but I don't know how else to explain it.  I've been playing for 40 years, professionally for 20 and I've been teaching about 10...the reason I can sit and comfortably play a 3 hour gig w/o repeating a single melody and you can't is because I know how to remember my music -- be it jazz or classical or whatever I am being paid to play that day.

[ramyfishler]

You've got to get a good piano teacher. There's more to piano thechnique than pressing the right key at the right time. The Essence of piano thechnique is relaxing you hands, and the exercises you practice should teach you how to invest less effort in playing. I'd like to say that a right technique is the shortcut you're looking for, but unfortunately, the road is long and no "worm tunnel" will get you to playing rachmaninov's third in a few days. However, a good technique taught by a good teacher can change this road from climbing a steep mountain to a downhill walk.

[thalbergmad]

Everyone has a different road, but none have shortcuts.

Thal

[djealnla]

hi
please do not tell me just practice because I am practicing .there are always shortcuts in any road.
thanks

https://www.playpianotoday.com/

[bleicher]

Learn with a really good teacher.

Practise a little every day rather than a lot every so often.

Get a good grounding in musicianship by learning theory and taking part in other musical activities such as a choir or orchestra, and composing or improvising. Playing in an orchestra also helps your sight reading, which helps you to learn pieces more quickly.

Have regular goals to work towards, such as recitals or performance exams.

If you have bodily tension, do Alexander Technique or yoga or Pilates or other such methods to get rid of it.

Go to concerts to get inspired.

Enjoy playing.

[richard black]

Think about what and how you are practising.

[mike_lang]

hi
please do not tell me just practice because I am practicing .there are always shortcuts in any road.
thanks

How are you practicing?  That's where the shortcut lies . . .

[gerryjay]

Dear Drazh,
I don't know if these qualify as shortcuts, but let me tell you the principal attitudes that improve my learning:
1. work on a single piece each time. Even if you have several pieces to develop, I find always faster results if I focus completely on a piece.
2. know this piece by heart as much as you can. I like to know at least ten contrasting recordings from the piece in question before even trying it at the piano. And I mean knowing them completely, with its minute details of interpretation.
3. analyse your score in many ways: harmonic, contrapuntal, schenkerian, semiotic...whatever you can handle. If you don't know how to use an analytic tool, learn to use it with a new piece.

So, the question is to know everything about the music you will play before playing it. This makes everything much easier and faster. And that's the way I really enjoy making music. Otherwise, it seems to me a waste of time.

Best regards,
Jay.

PS: an excelent teacher is the outstanding shortcut.

[mike_lang]

3. analyse your score in many ways: harmonic, contrapuntal, schenkerian, semiotic...whatever you can handle. If you don't know how to use an analytic tool, learn to use it with a new piece.

What is semiotic analysis?

Thanks,
Mike

[dcstudio]

What is semiotic analysis?

Thanks,
Mike

think he just wants everyone to know he went beyond the traditional 4 semesters of theory/sight singing in college.  what a thing to tell a beginner...  semiotics is the study of signs in music-- which is not generally taught in your basic undergrad theory classes

[drazh]

practice more

I am practicing at least 4 hours a day
thanks

[drazh]

practice more

dear countrymath
I am practicing at least 4 hours a day
thanks

[drazh]

You've got to get a good piano teacher. There's more to piano thechnique than pressing the right key at the right time. The Essence of piano thechnique is relaxing you hands, and the exercises you practice should teach you how to invest less effort in playing. I'd like to say that a right technique is the shortcut you're looking for, but unfortunately, the road is long and no "worm tunnel" will get you to playing rachmaninov's third in a few days. However, a good technique taught by a good teacher can change this road from climbing a steep mountain to a downhill walk.

dear ramyfishler
I have a teacher may be not a good pianist but he has about 30 years experience in piano teaching . is he a good teacher or you recommend it is better to find  a top pianist ?
yhanks

[drazh]

Everyone has a different road, but none have shortcuts.

Thal

dear Thal
so you dont have any advice for other people in their own way ?isnt there any common feature?
thank you

[drazh]

Dear Drazh,
I don't know if these qualify as shortcuts, but let me tell you the principal attitudes that improve my learning:
1. work on a single piece each time. Even if you have several pieces to develop, I find always faster results if I focus completely on a piece.

dear Jay
working on a single piece each day will be boring . I am practicing on several pieces at one day but every hour on  a single piece .do yo think that is OK?
 

[gerryjay]

What is semiotic analysis?

Thanks,
Mike

Dear Mike,
it is a kind of analysis that deals with how little chunks of information (such as a motive) are combined in meaningful expressions. Although Dcstudio thinks I am just showing off, I am not: I use semiotic analysis with my students from almost the very begginning. Actually, when they start Bach's two-part inventions (normally, at the beggining of the second semester of studies), I think it is a good time to consider semiotics as a tool.

If you want to go deeper into that, I should recomend the works of Molino, Nattiez, and Tarasti. Well, to read those guys you need time and patience (the texts are quite complex), but the output of this effort is worth.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

dear Jay
working on a single piece each day will be boring . I am practicing on several pieces at one day but every hour on  a single piece .do yo think that is OK?

Dear Drazh,
You are probably not going as fast as you can/want. Try an experience, next time you start a brand new piece: focus only on that. Normally, I'd recommend to use two or three hours daily on this new piece, provided you split these hours in 20-30 minutes sessions (the brain can't take more than that at once).

If you have more time, some suggestions:
1. Play the repertoire you already have "concert-style" (I mean, no stops, no whining). If you are able to record yourself (audio and/or video), do it. If you have friends that are interested in your music, ask them in a regular basis. The point is: why do you spend so many time studying? Just for the sake of it? I think not: music is communication, and to communicate you must play with confidence what you already play. Simple, isn't it?  

2. Prepare your future works. While you are at the piano with the new work (which takes a week or two of absolute focus), listen to recordings of your next piece. As many as possible (when I worked on a Beethoven sonata, for instance, I listened to more than 100 recordings of it before starting the physical practice). Fundamentally, do analysis of your score. Which analysis is irrelevant: do what you can. The most important answers are the most immediate ones: tonality and principal tonal centers, division into parts and phrases, noticeable motives and figures.

3. Listen (and analyse, if possible) non piano music. Go for opera and string quartets, ancient and recently composed, music you know and music you don't know. And if you are really committed to being a musician, listen to music you don't like as well. It is important to know everything you can.

4. Read about music. The forum is a good start, but buy a couple of books about piano (Amazon is a must), subscribe to a magazine, google the internet, go to the local library.

The list could continue, but these are the main points. Easily, you can fill a day up with them. In the end of two weeks doing that - perhaps one if the piece is not too long -, you will see for yourself the quality of the results in the new piece. By the way, notice the two week limit: if the piece is not ready by then, either you choose a piece you can't handle, or you didn't study it the right way. And I mean ready and done: memory, appreciable speed, control.

Of course, after that you have a couple of years to really play it well...

Best regards,
Jay.

[dcstudio]

Dear Mike,
it is a kind of analysis that deals with how little chunks of information (such as a motive) are combined in meaningful expressions. Although Dcstudio thinks I am just showing off, I am not:



no Jay, I know your intentions are very noble--and now you've explained yourself more fully and in more layman terms--I understood you the first time, but then I went to music school. hey, I love theory too--but sometimes when we speak music fluently we forget that others don't     

Laurie

[mike_lang]

Dear Mike,
it is a kind of analysis that deals with how little chunks of information (such as a motive) are combined in meaningful expressions. Although Dcstudio thinks I am just showing off, I am not: I use semiotic analysis with my students from almost the very begginning. Actually, when they start Bach's two-part inventions (normally, at the beggining of the second semester of studies), I think it is a good time to consider semiotics as a tool.

If you want to go deeper into that, I should recomend the works of Molino, Nattiez, and Tarasti. Well, to read those guys you need time and patience (the texts are quite complex), but the output of this effort is worth.

Best regards,
Jay.

Thank you very much!  This may be something I already do, and was unaware of the name, but am certainly interested in investigating further.

Cheers,
Mike

[gerryjay]

no Jay, I know your intentions are very noble--and now you've explained yourself more fully and in more layman terms--I understood you the first time, but then I went to music school. hey, I love theory too--but sometimes when we speak music fluently we forget that others don't     

Laurie

Dear Laurie,
I don't know if my intentions are in general that noble (), but I thank you for your post.
Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Thank you very much!  This may be something I already do, and was unaware of the name, but am certainly interested in investigating further.

Cheers,
Mike

Dear Mike,
there is a small yet informative book named "A guide to musical analysis", written by the famous Nicholas Cook. It is an approach of many analytical tools, from schenkerian to semiotics. It is full of musical examples, which makes reading/listening it a delight.
Best regards,
Jay.

[fleetfingers]

hi
please do not tell me just practice because I am practicing .there are always shortcuts in any road.
thanks

Hi drazh

Where do you want your piano learning road to lead? There has been discussion on the forum lately of what comprises traditional lessons and also some discussion on how to bypass the traditional/classical route and learn to play basic music by ear. There can be shortcuts, but you will not reach the same destination as someone who took the more "complete" route. And that's fine. However, if you want to be a very accomplished, well-rounded player who can play concert-level classical repertoire, memorize music, play by ear, analyze scores, collaborate with other musicians, sightread and transpose on the spot, it takes a long time. But that time can vary depending on some factors like the quality of your teacher and the efficiency of your practice. Some posts mention that learning theory can help, and that's true for a lot of things like reading, memorizing, playing by ear, improvising, etc. But, don't forget that you will still have to develop the technique to play the instrument. No amount of theory will teach you how to move your hands and fingers (and otherwise use your body) to make music. It sounds like you're dedicated - four hours is a lot of time - just use your time wisely.

[countrymath]

Gerryjay = benhard? o.O

[gerryjay]

Gerryjay = benhard? o.O

Dear Country,
I'll take that as a compliment . I am not Bernhard, but he was an important influence in my teaching turning point, about five years ago.
Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

Dear Mike,
it is a kind of analysis that deals with how little chunks of information (such as a motive) are combined in meaningful expressions. Although Dcstudio thinks I am just showing off, I am not: I use semiotic analysis with my students from almost the very begginning.

? That doesn't exactly clarify anything. Semiotics is a very broad term. If you're specifically referring to "semiotic analysis" could you clarify what is specifically involved that differentiates it from "analysis" in general?

[gerryjay]

? That doesn't exactly clarify anything. Semiotics is a very broad term. If you're specifically referring to "semiotic analysis" could you clarify what is specifically involved that differentiates it from "analysis" in general?

If you can define what you mean by "analysis in general", I'll be glad to try an explanation.
Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you can define what you mean by "analysis in general", I'll be glad to try an explanation.
Best regards,
Jay.

I mean "analysis". I didn't extend the quotations beyond that single word.  By "in general" I mean to clarify that I am referring to analysis that is not specifically narrowed solely to the "semiotic" kind- whatever that involves. What is specific to "semiotic analysis" that differentiates it from mere "analysis"?

[gerryjay]

I mean "analysis". I didn't extend the quotations beyond that single word.  By "in general" I mean to clarify that I am referring to analysis that is not specifically narrowed solely to the "semiotic" kind- whatever that involves. What is specific to "semiotic analysis" that differentiates it from merel "analysis"?

Excuse me, but let me ask you again: what do you mean by analysis? There are so many approaches, so many theories, that I can't compare semiotic analysis to all of them. And if you refer to analysis as a field of musicology, well, then semiotic analysis is just another trend inside of this field.

[nyiregyhazi]

Excuse me, but let me ask you again: what do you mean by analysis? There are so many approaches, so many theories, that I can't compare semiotic analysis to all of them. And if you refer to analysis as a field of musicology, well, then semiotic analysis is just another trend inside of this field.

Any accepted definition of the word. That's my point- it's not specific. It's anything that is defined as analysis. To refer to "semiotic analysis" is to introduce specificity and narrow it down to something. So what is that something that such a specific term refers to? What differentiates the subset that you refer to as "semiotic analysis" from the broader set of analysis?

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not looking to be rude, by the way. I'm just genuinely interested to know what is being referred to.

[gerryjay]

I'm not looking to be rude, by the way. I'm just genuinely interested to know what is being referred to.

I didn't take your post as nothing less than a polite question, but I have a problem formulating my answer because you asked me to compare analysis and semiotic analysis. It is not possible, but let me try to answer it the best I can.

1. The field of musicology knows as music analysis is a complex web of theories and theoretical tools. I use to say that there are as many approaches as there are analysts out there, but of course we do have main trends. For instance: schenkerian, phenomelogical, semiotic, psychological, motivic. Furthermore, you can extend these notions and "group" theories (something I think that lacks a point) in formal, psychological, traditional, usw.

2. In the end, we have a lot of labels and very little use for they but a remarkable one: the need of a theoretical framework. As a branch where the scientific method is a primordial need, you must define your references before proceeding. That is why I made that question twice: analysis is a word that have so many meanings that in practice it have none. I can't say I make an analysis of a piece, because this have neither a beginning nor an end, let alone methodology, scope, etc.

3. So, I can't compare semiotic analysis to analysis, but it have several things in common with other trends. For instance, Retian analysis is noticeable similar in both starting point and graphic structure, although its intention is completely different. From Meyer, we have the notion of structures of listening and the role of the listener. From Schenker, there is some similarity in the existance of layers, but their meaning are another thing.

4. The semiotic music theory comes directly from the semiotic theory in general, and thus we have basic similarities. The fundamental question is the distinction between the composer, the work, and the listener. Actually, Nattiez proposes several distinct analytical approaches regarding each one and their combinations. This is quite complex, but the most general notion is simple: music is communication, i.e., it is a living thing.

5. So, we turn to the basic tools in semiotic analysis: every thing that have a meaning is composed of small chunks that individually are closed but don't have a precise meaning. Or have too many possible meanings. In the very beggining, the process is similar to motivic analysis: you slice the score (it looks so much like Reti that sometimes you may end up in confusion). But what you do with these slices is that matter.

6. In a piece of music, basically there are two forces working: contrast and recurrence. After slicing your piece, you reconstruct it in a timeless way, where the relationship between every single slice and the others and the whole become apparent. Actually, it is more complicated to describe than to do the job (). The process arises three questions: what did the composer wanted to express? what does this work mean? what will an audience understand of it?

7. Here is the difference I notice between Retian (and motivic in general) and semiotic analysis. To the former, these three questions are one and only (Schenker is a very radical approach to that, also because he puts into the equation the question of validity of the work of art). To the semiotic approach, they may have - and normally do have - three different answers at least.

8. To my purposes in teaching, it helps me show to a student that there are no easy answer in music interpretations, but many ways to think about that. Also, the mechanics of slicing up the score is useful in many levels, specially in learning how to divide chunks that one can handle in the study.

I hope this is not messy. What do you think about that?
Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't take your post as nothing less than a polite question, but I have a problem formulating my answer because you asked me to compare analysis and semiotic analysis. It is not possible, but let me try to answer it the best I can.

Not to compare, but to clarify what distinguishes this particular style of analysis. An act of analysis is simply an act of analysis. Any more specific styles of analysis can surely be defined? For example, motific analysis is a very specific thing that is analysis of recurring strands and how they are developed. To be quite honest, I'm still not any clearer what semiotic analysis is, or what its defining features are. Could you give a few examples of it, maybe?

Semiotics refers to symbols and how they can mean different things. I believe that talking about how different Schubert's G flat Impromptu might likely be played were it written enharmoically in F sharp (likely being far less subdued than usually played) would be an a type of semiotic analysis. The choice of symbols clearly affect how the interpreter interprets. However, I'm really not clear as what notable semiotic issues are going to come into play within the average piece of music, to warrant analysis. Are you talking about issues of interpreting symbols subjectively? Motific analysis, for example, is pure. Ir deals in symbols with absolute meanings- and hence is totally separate from the semiotic issues that come into a real-life performance. I don't easily follow how you can readily conduct extensive musical analysis on semiotic grounds- rather than analysis that is based on the clear and precise meaning of musical notation. The interpretation is certainly a semiotic issue, but traditional musical analysis rarely has a thing to do with semiotics.

"That is why I made that question twice: analysis is a word that have so many meanings that in practice it have none."

I really don't follow your point here. ANY act of analysis is analysis. Anything that involves no analysis is not analysis. The meaning is totally clear- on the terms that are set out. It doesn't need to be any more specific because it was not presented as being in any way more specific. Anything that involves analysing is analysis by nature- regardless of what particular type. Anything that narrows itself down to a particular style of analysis (by designating it "motific or "semiotic" or whatever else) needs to demonstrate what characteristics it has been narrowed down on. I still have no idea whatsoever as to what analytical procedures you are referring to with the term "semiotic analysis". I see a subset being referred to but I have not the slightest idea as to what characteristics define the style or procedures of analysis that go into the subset.

[gerryjay]

I really don't follow your point here. ANY act of analysis is analysis. (...) Anything that involves analysing is analysis by nature- regardless of what particular type.

I can't agree with your opinion that an act of analysis is simply an act of analysis. Analysis is nothing until you define its background. There is no actual meaning in saying anything in an analysis if you don't rely on a clear basis. But that is a whole new discussion, let's get over it because it is not our topic.

I still have no idea whatsoever as to what analytical procedures you are referring to with the term "semiotic analysis". I see a subset being referred to but I have not the slightest idea as to what characteristics define the style or procedures of analysis that go into the subset.

The better way to get acquainted with that is reading an analysis by Nattiez, or Tarasti. There you will find the trend in its most perfect presentation. Notwithstading, perhaps I can contribute a bit.

Semiotics refers to symbols and how they can mean different things. I believe that talking about how different Schubert's G flat Impromptu might likely be played were it written enharmoically in F sharp (likely being far less subdued than usually played) would be an a type of semiotic analysis.

Well, that's not an example. The exact notation is immaterial to semiotic analysis, because it is not concerned about the graphic but the acoustic dimension. It is almost impossible, but let me try to present a semiotic analysis as an example. Let's pick up...well, let's pick up the impromptu you just mentioned (D. 899 n. 3).

1. The first thing is to slice the score until we reach the smallest chunks with a defined existance (so, we will not treat notes, but sets of notes). It is of uttermost importance to realize that there is no defined way to do that: every analyst will do that in a different way, because defining these little pieces is already a matter of interpretation.

2. I think that the first element is the first beat (considering we have a double binary here), i.e., the first b flat on the melody with the notes below (arpeggio and bass with its doubling). I mean, this is the main unit of construction of this impromptu, and I'd now write it in the right and top of a clear score.

3. Everything that is related to this unit I'll write below it, trying to show the correspondences. In this particular case, it will result in a huge vertical list, because almost every single unit of this impromptu is directly related to this primordial one. If I was in a more radical day, I could say that every single note is directly related, but let me open up for the sake of this example.

4. Let us consider, then, that the development of a bass melody from bar 25 on is something new in this discourse. Well, then I must identify the fundamental unit of that and write it to the right of the first unit. I mean, everything until now was written down in the first column, in many lines. Only now I'm starting the second column, using its first line. I proceed putting on the second column every entry of this second unit of construction.

5. And that's it for the first part of the job. Not even for this example I can figure out another unit, so we can go on. What we have now is a score with many chunks that cannot be read in a traditional way, because we removed time from the equation. In semiotic terms, we are talking about the work itself, with neither intentions nor perceptions.

6. A parenthesis: although a motivic analysis may look similar in the graphical aspect, there is a fundamental difference. We are not talking about motives here, because the word motive implies development and this is an assumption of the way the composer did write the work that go beyond our current proves.

7. Now, it is time to understand the rules that connect every unit to the fundamental unit, and different units one to another. This is quite a mess, because it is normally presented as a list of compositional procedures, but there are no standards. In a sense, it is useful, because you may pinpoint the aspects you want to. In this Schubert example, I consider the rest of the first compass as a time compression to propel forward the movement (alteration of durations), while the second measure completes the notion of stillness (maintenance of the first unit with a slight change of harmony).

8. After you complete this second task, it is time to evaluate the work and to answer the three basic questions. What did Schubert want to express? What does this impromptu means? What an audience will understand of this work of art? Without working through the analysis, it is impossible to answer, but as an exercise let me evaluate these two first measures.

9. Schubert limit himself to the bare minimum: a long breadth melody, a sustaining bass, and an inner part that fills the gap. All the impromptu is made of that, with no constrasts, no developments. On the other hand, there is no need to contrast because this basic material is already made of an intense contrast (though it sounds like a quiet beggining) between the impossible long line (how to connect the full archs of this melody on a fortepiano?) and the incessant, almost annoying arpeggio. Writing this down makes impossible to me not to think about his personality: a serene outside with a boiling inner self.

10. The impromptu itself is, by definition, the development of a very simple material. The idea is to create a piece that seems improvised though it is not, so it must not resemble an overcomplicated thinking. Thus, the use of a minimum material. The first two measures introduces this material for further exploration.

11. Finally, the listener experience. How do I respond to a performance of this impromptu? What do it means to me? Exploring this a bit more, how do my audience respond to a performance of this impromptu? What do it means to them? I feel a sensation of peace and rest every time I listen to this impromptu. As far as I know its original environment (the other three impromptus of the set), this impression is enhanced.

I hope this is more clear now, and this exercise was of a little help. As I said before, the most powerful aspect of semiotic analysis is its open end: there are many options and possibilities. Nevertheless, I must find and understand my own. That is what interpretation is all about, and music analysis is a way to work that.

Best regards,
Jay.

[dcstudio]

Jay, buddy.
my analysis of this situation is that you are a teacher of class piano or perhaps secondary lessons to music majors who need to pass the piano barrier.  Further analysis, that you really have the best of intentions by trying to explain yourself.  However, I get the feeling this student is not very versed in theory, is not a music major learning piano to pass a barrier, and is just starting late. maybe i am assuming to much and we should just ask both the originator of the string and the student your explaining yourself repeatedly to, exactly what their background is before you type yourself silly.

I enjoyed your explanation very much, and I haven't heard anyone so passionately discuss theory since college..   I agree with everything you have said--I too understand, and apply my theory knowledge daily.  I applaud you for teaching your students this!  however, I don't think either of these guys is at the level of your 2nd semester music majors--not even close.

then again I could be wrong--we'll see won't we

[gerryjay]

Jay, buddy.
my analysis of this situation is that you are a teacher of class piano or perhaps secondary lessons to music majors who need to pass the piano barrier.  Further analysis, that you really have the best of intentions by trying to explain yourself.  However, I get the feeling this student is not very versed in theory, is not a music major learning piano to pass a barrier, and is just starting late. maybe i am assuming to much and we should just ask both the originator of the string and the student your explaining yourself repeatedly to, exactly what their background is before you type yourself silly.

I enjoyed your explanation very much, and I haven't heard anyone so passionately discuss theory since college..   I agree with everything you have said--I too understand, and apply my theory knowledge daily.  I applaud you for teaching your students this!  however, I don't think either of these guys is at the level of your 2nd semester music majors--not even close.

then again I could be wrong--we'll see won't we

Dear DC,
thanks for your post. And I think you are right, I went too far in that direction, but my point was the same. I really think it is not a matter of an advanced analysis class, but a handy tool for any musician (beginner or not).

Btw, you came close: I was an undergraduate teacher of theoretical matters.

And I can't prevent myself of acting silly... Well, perhaps I should try at least!

Best regards,
Jay.

[dcstudio]

Btw, you came close: I was an undergraduate teacher of theoretical matters.


[/quote]

and I began as performance, then music ed, then finally jazz studies--and that should tell you all you need to know about what kind of player I am -- and what music school was like for me...lol.  when it comes to theory, faith may divide us in genre--but as a jazz person, you are preachin to the choir about the importance of knowing advanced analytical tools! 

[drazh]

...the reason I can sit and comfortably play a 3 hour gig w/o repeating a single melody and you can't is because I know how to remember my music -

dear dcstudio
what do you mean by 3 hours gig ?
thanks

[drazh]

How are you practicing?  That's where the shortcut lies . . .

dear michael_langlois
how should i practice what is your recommendations?
thanks

[drazh]

. By the way, notice the two week limit: if the piece is not ready by then, either you choose a piece you can't handle, or you didn't study it the right way. And I mean ready and done: memory, appreciable speed, control.

Of course, after that you have a couple of years to really play it well...

Best regards,
Jay.

dear gerryjay
you mean in that way 2 weeks is enough to memorize eg 10 pages sonata of mozart or beethoven?  if yes that would be fantastic .   promise?
best regards

[nyiregyhazi]

"I can't agree with your opinion that an act of analysis is simply an act of analysis. Analysis is nothing until you define its background. There is no actual meaning in saying anything in an analysis if you don't rely on a clear basis."

To refer to an "apple" does not mean nothing if you fail to specify which variety of apple. It's still an apple, if you don't know what type.  Likewise, analysis means analysis- not nothing.  Just because full specifics are not disclosed does not make it meaningless. However, if someone referred to a particular variety of apple I'd never heard of, I'd be interested to know what particular characteristics about that apple  distinguish it from the wider range of what constitutes apples. What about it stands out for them to be specific- rather than just say it's an apple?

Anyway, I found your explanation quite interesting. To be honest I'd somewhat dispute that the first steps are in any way semiotic, though. Rather than being about interpretation of symbols, it's more of a process of dealing in absolute meanings from the score. Also, motific analysis need not relate to development in any inherent way. The motif is merely the basic strand. Thematic transformations need not necessarily play the slightest role in use of motifs.

The issue of sharps of flats/sharps is very much a semiotic one. Visually, most pianists tend to see enharmonic equivalents differently. F sharp major looks far less calm than G flat. The meaning in terms of notes on the piano is identical. However, the way the symbols create impressions in the performer's mind can be completely different. It's the epitome of semiotics. Did Schubert choose G flat over F sharp major casually- or did he actually have this calmness in mind?

What would you do in a more complex piece- say Scriabin's 10th sonata? It would be impossible to analyse in the way your describe if the first steps without first separating the voices. To carry out the type of procedure you describe in a useful way, you'd have to isolate separate strands. It would require standard motific analysis first. In the Scriabin, you could not make sense of it in whole chunks, without breaking down the individual voices and then thinking about the combinations of motifs that they are built from. I don't see any semiotics in that.

However, there's clearly plenty involved in the later stages. It got me thinking that semiotic analysis is basically the next step after an initial requirement of purer (less subjective) analysis. For example, an analysis of intervals in harmonies means nothing much in itself. It's just a series of absolute values. However, if you carried out such analysis in dry academic terms, you then have the option of then thinking of such intervals as minor seconds and major sevenths etc. as containing more musical tension and seeking to bring out that musical tension. Similarly, understanding that a suspension note falls outside of a harmony is just academic. However, when you know that, semiotics comes into play in terms of how you choose to voice the chord. To most (good) performers, suspension-resolution will tend to signify tension to release that they will try to evoke in the execution.

Would it be fair to say that semiotic analysis basically starts from a whole range of traditional analysis techniques- but then goes on to seek the more subjective implications about performance, that can be found within such analysis? Personally, I attach such thinking to any form of analysis that  would I ever do. I just see it as the natural reason to be analysing in the first place- rather than as a separate form analysis. Any analysis that has no semiotic implications just doesn't have any relevance to interpretation (by very definition). For me, the semiotic issues are an inherent part of any performance related (as opposed to solely academic) analysis. I don't personally make any distinction between what you'd refer to as "semiotic analysis" and what I'd simply think of as analysis. I'm seeking semiotic implications from each and every one of the various specific analysis techniques I'd bring in (be it harmonic, motific, intervallic or any other type of analysis).

[pianisten1989]

Don't you ever get tired of destroying people's threads with your useless arguments about apples and over-killed physical analysis? 

[lostinidlewonder]

Interesting posts, one thing I find about the approaches to musical analysis is that we have to know how to use the tools to work for us personally. Some analysis is more important for those more interested in composition rather than those interested in learning to play a piece at an efficient rate.

Some analysis comes from your own logical observation of pattern and sound, you must build upon what you see not some analysis which does not prompt you to think about more with less thought. For instance, when studying a piece with a beginner, to give them an exhausting account of all the musical analysis possible is simply confusing and in fact slow to their learning progress. We must prioritize what the student personally needs and usually it is more of technical issues not the use of analytical tools to catalog the notes of a piece.

With advanced students wishing to fine tune or broaden their tools to analyse a piece they may find it interesting to study into the various methods some of which gerryjay mentioned. However I find this endeavour useless unless one has already an established musical analysis method which should be acquired through years of memorized repertoire. Some may indeed find that when studying analytical tools some are rather inefficient for our taste (but how can one tell this if they have no sense of how they personally use music analysis?). For instance I do not catch myself writing in all the harmonic structure of a piece, I know the sound of the piece I do not need to label it constantly, sometimes it might help but the point is it has a restrained usage. We don't want cover a score with analysis it in the end makes it no simpler, we need to know which parts of the score needs to be analysed to help us understand trouble spots or help us absorb parts more efficiently, they simply must have an obvious improved effect to our own learning rate.



The best short cut in the learning road is to find music that you most enjoy and feel passionate about (this is true for whether you have a teacher or not). This requires that you explore music that you could achieve that you enjoy. There are thousands upon thousands of piece to guide a beginner through to advanced piano playing/learning ability, the time may take a month to a lifetime for the given individual. But you may find that if you learn music that excites you, that inspires you and you can make constant progress through these piece (not stagnate for months on one piece), you will feel a more natural path through music.

The problem I find with many students who say they love piano music is that the piece they are passionate about are often much too difficult for them to achieve. They want to have a short cut to be able to learn their dream piece. I never disallow students of mine to learn pieces they are very passionate about even though is it too difficult for them. I think extending a student is a very important part in teaching, but at the same time you need to interest the student to make steps towards making these difficult pieces more standard works. This requires that you build their knowledge on actions on the piano that is relevant to their playing.

I teach some students who love pieces where the Lh plays arpeggios and the Rh plays melody. So I focus on LH technique to deal with arpeggios through easier repertoire that use these tools, I help them to analyze arpeggio patterns and give them tools how to sight read these types of works etc. You don't just in the first lesson throw all the tools at them and swamp them with the information, that just doesn't work well although is the standard teaching technique of lectures at universities (not that I agree with that one bit but it is hard to treat a large group individually).

The application of teaching analysis and really music on a whole should be in terms of the students interest. Some people may find other things much more important than others, it is such a personal issue. It would be short sighted to say all tools are important for everyone, the fact is, they are only important for teachers and academics who might be interested to know about the various tools that have been established as effective musical analysis techniques, but when we are trying to learn a piece we must use the tools that work more effectively for us and when we really require it.

This is not to say that we couldn't map a general usage of analytical tools that would benefit most people, being able to observe chords and scales for instance are a basic tool, when we first see a Cmajor we can analyise its shape and patterns of all sorts, but eventually it becomes an old friend and we know it well enough no longer requiring the need to consciously analyize it, some people however find certain observations more powerful than others, it depends on their thinking styles. Analytical tools that require constant constant observation and do not encourage us to eventually forget about them are inefficient tools and these of course differ from person to person.

[gerryjay]

dear gerryjay
you mean in that way 2 weeks is enough to memorize eg 10 pages sonata of mozart or beethoven?  if yes that would be fantastic .   promise?
best regards

Dear Drazh,
It depends.

1. A complete sonata is made of three, four movements. So, every movement must be regarded as a single work. And so, each will take a couple of weeks to be done, which will give you a two months period to complete the sonata (a standard period when you focus only on a sonata). However, there are two main issues.

2. Sonata-form movements are tricky. The fact you have a recapitulation that maintains some information, alter another slightly and, sometimes, introduces new material, is the exact thing that mess up with our brain. Perhaps it is one of the reasons this compositional procedure is so important. But I digress. In some sonata movements I'd like to add a third week, and so I can focus on each main part a week. It normally does the trick.

3. Of course, some sonata-form movements are absolutely uncomplicated and can be solved in a week.

4. The next major problem is the question of length. You give me the example of 10 pages, let's assume it is a single movement. Depending on many factor, it can last long. And here is a thing you must consider: the duration of the piece is a complexity factor, as much as its mechanics, speed, coordination, usw.

5. That said, a long and difficult sonata-form movement can easily challenge the two week "rule". But in my opinion, if it challenges two much it means only you can't handle that at the given time.

By the way, what is your current repertoire?

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

"I can't agree with your opinion that an act of analysis is simply an act of analysis. Analysis is nothing until you define its background. There is no actual meaning in saying anything in an analysis if you don't rely on a clear basis."

To refer to an "apple" does not mean nothing if you fail to specify which variety of apple. It's still an apple, if you don't know what type.  Likewise, analysis means analysis- not nothing.  Just because full specifics are not disclosed does not make it meaningless. However, if someone referred to a particular variety of apple I'd never heard of, I'd be interested to know what particular characteristics about that apple  distinguish it from the wider range of what constitutes apples. What about it stands out for them to be specific- rather than just say it's an apple?

Anyway, I found your explanation quite interesting. To be honest I'd somewhat dispute that the first steps are in any way semiotic, though. Rather than being about interpretation of symbols, it's more of a process of dealing in absolute meanings from the score. Also, motific analysis need not relate to development in any inherent way. The motif is merely the basic strand. Thematic transformations need not necessarily play the slightest role in use of motifs.

The issue of sharps of flats/sharps is very much a semiotic one. Visually, most pianists tend to see enharmonic equivalents differently. F sharp major looks far less calm than G flat. The meaning in terms of notes on the piano is identical. However, the way the symbols create impressions in the performer's mind can be completely different. It's the epitome of semiotics. Did Schubert choose G flat over F sharp major casually- or did he actually have this calmness in mind?

What would you do in a more complex piece- say Scriabin's 10th sonata? It would be impossible to analyse in the way your describe if the first steps without first separating the voices. To carry out the type of procedure you describe in a useful way, you'd have to isolate separate strands. It would require standard motific analysis first. In the Scriabin, you could not make sense of it in whole chunks, without breaking down the individual voices and then thinking about the combinations of motifs that they are built from. I don't see any semiotics in that.

However, there's clearly plenty involved in the later stages. It got me thinking that semiotic analysis is basically the next step after an initial requirement of purer (less subjective) analysis. For example, an analysis of intervals in harmonies means nothing much in itself. It's just a series of absolute values. However, if you carried out such analysis in dry academic terms, you then have the option of then thinking of such intervals as minor seconds and major sevenths etc. as containing more musical tension and seeking to bring out that musical tension. Similarly, understanding that a suspension note falls outside of a harmony is just academic. However, when you know that, semiotics comes into play in terms of how you choose to voice the chord. To most (good) performers, suspension-resolution will tend to signify tension to release that they will try to evoke in the execution.

Would it be fair to say that semiotic analysis basically starts from a whole range of traditional analysis techniques- but then goes on to seek the more subjective implications about performance, that can be found within such analysis? Personally, I attach such thinking to any form of analysis that  would I ever do. I just see it as the natural reason to be analysing in the first place- rather than as a separate form analysis. Any analysis that has no semiotic implications just doesn't have any relevance to interpretation (by very definition). For me, the semiotic issues are an inherent part of any performance related (as opposed to solely academic) analysis. I don't personally make any distinction between what you'd refer to as "semiotic analysis" and what I'd simply think of as analysis. I'm seeking semiotic implications from each and every one of the various specific analysis techniques I'd bring in (be it harmonic, motific, intervallic or any other type of analysis).

I think we've been talking about different things.

1. When I talk about analysis, I mean its musicological approach, so it must be defined to have any value. It is a basic assumption of both scientific method and academic research, and that is what I am about.

2. I did not invent semiotic analysis in music. I just apply it. When you say that the first steps are not semiotic, or that the issue of flats is a relevant musical semiotic topic, I don't know what to tell but to discuss this topic with Nattiez or Tarasti themselves. Because they have developed semiotic analysis in music and they developed the main methods that are used.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

For instance I do not catch myself writing in all the harmonic structure of a piece, I know the sound of the piece I do not need to label it constantly, sometimes it might help but the point is it has a restrained usage. We don't want cover a score with analysis it in the end makes it no simpler, we need to know which parts of the score needs to be analysed to help us understand trouble spots or help us absorb parts more efficiently, they simply must have an obvious improved effect to our own learning rate.

Dear Lost,
this is so important. However, so unconsidered. People often mix up studying analysis and using analysis. When you do study an analytical theory, it is a very good idea to analyse complete scores, compare these analysis, look for analysis made by the important theorists, usw. On the other hand, it is complete meaningless to use analysis this way.

As you wrote, if you do know your work, analysis might only confirm what you already know.

Best regards,
Jay.

[angeleyescj]

I find when teaching myself a new instrument I progress faster when I know what I want to be able to play on that particular instrument. Make some goals for yourself. What do you want to be able to play on the piano, and how well do you want to be able to play it?

If, however, you are planning to continue with piano seriously (doing performances and such) the only thing I CAN suggest is (sorry!) practice...

Always remember not to expect too much of yourself. Practice well every time you practice, committing yourself fully to the area you are focusing on. Also, break the learning up into sections.

Hope this helps.
All the best!!!
CJ

[dcstudio]

dear dcstudio
what do you mean by 3 hours gig ?
thanks

I have 18 years of formal piano training and I went to music school--but I make a living mainly as a jazz pianist and teacher.  I work in the classical genre as an accompanist--which anyone will tell you can be grueling...  so I have the unique opportunity to be a part of both worlds..  When I say a 3 hour gig--I mean someone is paying me to play.  standard booking is 3 sets for jazz--that means 3  45 min sets of me on the piano--sometimes all by my lonesome, and sometimes with a combo. (jazz band)  --usually the only music I have is a leadsheet--if I have that.  (melody and chords only) at times, esp. on some church gigs, I get "lyrics and letters" and  no recognizable notation whatsoever.

my last big accomp. gig was in Austin at the allstate music festival where I accompanied for 17 events in trials and had to play again for 5 people who had won at the winner's recital. All classical, and I had to tote binders full of music around all day--  the duration of that event was 11 hours.  not to mention tx in late May is really HOT!  nothing like having to play Mozart bathed in 11 hours worth of sweat in front of a bunch of my "stuffier" colleagues.

trying to let you know about the life of a "blue collar" working musician.  I'm not great at anything but I do lots of stuff "well"     and because of that I work--and I get to play music.  what else can I ask of life?   
since you are starting late people will say you can't do this...
not everyone here is going to make it as a concert pianist--but that doesn't mean they can't be a happy pianist