How good can a pianist become in 3 years?

[chopinsetude]

I know it's hard to say because some people have more piano skills in their DNA than others, BUT:

How good can a upper-level beginner/early-intermmediate pianist become if he/she gave full attention and practiced 5 hours a day for three years?  Let's assume weekly lessons with a great teacher and let's assume 3 years of piano boot camp - similar to the dedication of a med school student.

Let's also assume the pianist to be starting from a sound basis.  Not advanced, but being able to play some Chopin Preludes and Mazurkas, and Waltzes. Maybe a 2nd year pianist.

I had this debate with a friend of mine the other day and I wondered what the opinion would be in pianoforum land...

[super_ardua]

Probably very good.

[sharon_f]

I had this debate with a friend of mine the other day and I wondered what the opinion would be in pianoforum land...

I'm curious, what was your friend's opinion?

[scarbo87]

well...

Misha Dichter played piano as a hobby, then heard Beethoven's
9th...decided he wanted to be a concert artist at 15, started
to practice 9 hours a day every day from that age and by age
20 won second in the Tchaikovsky compeition.

[klavierspielerin]

Hey, that's nice to know. Both of these situations are similiar to mine.    Does this situation apply to you or your friend by any chance, chopinsetude? I am about the level mentioned, and am going to embark on the plan outlined; we shall see how it works for someone talented for a normal person but not for a musician, if that makes any sense.

[Derek]

obsession, dedication, and true love for the pursuit of something can often produce very surprising results. I don't think raw talent is quite as neccessary as just the sheer dedication to something, so that your brain rates taking in new pianistic information as much more important than other kinds of information. Hence why I am absent minded and confuse people when talking to them.

[chopinsetude]

I am the original poster, and here is some more info on the subject:

I believed that if you took a person with 2-years experience and threw them in a "boot-camp-of-piano" situation they would get real good real fast.  They would be good enough to wow the average non-playing listener and could tackle most advanced pieces - The Rach Preludes, Chopin Ballades, etc..

But - as my friend and I discussed the issue, we both felt there would be something missing from the person's playing ability.  A certain experience that a 12-15 year early-starting veteran of piano would have inherent in their music. (The same way autistic savants are missing that magic, even though they are technically superior)

There are variables, though.  How old is this player when they started and at what age did they start the effort.  Child?  Teenager.  I am 36 and I am a 2nd-year player.  I would probably advance faster than a child starting at 7 years old and finishing at 10-years old because of hand size and life experience (debatable).  BUT - I would probably not have the ability to advance like a teenager (15-18 yrs) would.  I believe these people are in their prime for learning mind--->dexterity skills.

I just thought of it like verbal language.  I may get good but I'll always have a speech impediment that a native (master pianist) could pick up on.

Everyone is welcome to donate some $$$ to my cause and I will take three years off of work and let you know.  

 

[timothy42b]

I think a parallel question should be asked along with this one.

How good could an averagely talented person get, in the same 3 years, practising 60 to 90 minutes per day, but with absolute maximum efficiency?  (Using total concentration, and all the good habits and tricks noted in the various advice columns;  not the usual approaches which include a lot of time wasting)  

This is really a more important question, because it is within the range of anyone to attempt it.  

I would hazard a guess that for the majority of people, the answer is also pretty impressively good, in the range of 90% of the level of the 5 hour a day candidate.  

(Is it even possible for most people to practice 5 hours with full concentration?  I know I can't.)  

[Maui]

I fit that case.
I'm a beeginer 18 years old who practice 5 hours a day, i have 8 months of piano playing and i'm studying Moscowski op. 72 nš 4 now.
I know that you cant keep yourself concentrated 5 hours, but i think its better to stay playing / listening / reading instead of stop playing
Sometimes i spend 30 minutes or even more with improvisations, or just dreaming awake, but then i woke up and keep my concentrate study.
Its good to study much things at the same time, like the TimR said.
I think the whole thing is about motivation... you have to get the thing, to get involved, then youll practice five hours and end eager to practice again
If you look at the clock everytime to see "Oh im practicing for 3 hours, so i need to hang on 2 more, oh god" then it wouldnt work.

I hope ive helped you :]

[Rach3]

Don't delude yourself with 'maximum efficency' - you'll only disappoint yourself.

edited for spelling

[mound]

I'm not sure I can offer any kind of meaningfull insight to the actual question, other than "it really depends" but this quote got me thinking:

But - as my friend and I discussed the issue, we both felt there would be something missing from the person's playing ability.

This I think maybe points to the "technical" vs. "emotional/intellectual" aspects of musicianship. I'm reminded of my martial arts. I study Taekwondo, I am a black belt, I am an adult. In Taekwondo, if a child starts, and practices all the time, they could easilly move up to the point of testing for their 1st black belt in 2 years time. They may have real nice technique (though the kids are generally lacking in that as well, but not all of them) - however, the Kukkiwon (the headquarters of the World Taekwondo Federation) won't issue a "1st Dan (degree) Black Belt" to somebody who has not yet reached 18 years of age. (I believe that's the age..) - they are awareded a "1st Poom Black Belt" - yes, they tested with the same technical material as an adult who took the same test, but they are not officially recognized as a 1st Dan Black Belt unless they are old enough to have a more mature understanding of the meaning behind what they are doing.  If that makes any sense!

-Paul

[Max]

Well, it depends what you mean by 'good'.

[chopinsetude]

Well, it depends what you mean by 'good'.

That is the POINT - We want to know how good, not the definition of good.

Feel free to use avg pianist "years in lessons" as a metric.

[Max]

Well, you really cant judge. Perhaps you misunderstood; I mean that without a definate way of measuring 'goodness' then you can't tell. For example, you could mean the quantity of pieces learned, how fast you can play scales, etc. Technique or musicality? Fast or consistant? All of the above? Eitherway, it's impossible to tell.

[chopinsetude]

For example, you could mean the quantity of pieces learned, how fast you can play scales, etc. Technique or musicality? .

True, I think generic ability to play large amounts of advanced pieces with quality dynamics and accurate tempo would be our definition for this purpose.

I took this week and practiced a large amount, maybe 3-4 hours per day (which is a lot for me) and I have reached the conclusion that three years of 5 hour piano days would not make someone a master....  I still am in the middle of the 2nd page of my latest piece...AFTER ALL THAT!  

[Antnee]

This question has no definitive answer. I know kids that took lessons for ten years and never were able to play anything more complicated (or anything at all) other than fur elise and some other picked out tunes or exercises. It completely depends on the person. I have been playing for a couple years, but just started seriously early this year when i got a teacher. Around Christmas I will be performing a Shubert impromptu No. 3 OP. 90, The overplayed but still good revolutionary, The appssionata 1st mov. , A bach Italian concerto, A late Haydn sonata and other various smaller pieces. I started playing seriously Just at the beginning of this year! It completely depends on who the person is. We really don't know who you are, and people and the way the are vary WAY too much to answer this sort of question. The only answer would be... as good as they should be.

[chopiabin]

But there's a difference between "taking lessons" and being in "piano boot camp".  I know a lot of kids that have taken for years that can barely play - they don't love piano, they were probably forced into it and have never made a serious attempt to better themselves. Tony, you on the other hand, obviously love piano. You wanted to get serious and better yourself, so you did. I think that if someone has a real love for piano and is a somewhat talented late-starter, they could be playing high-level difficulty pieces in 3 years or less.

[liszmaninopin]

Well, maybe this will tell you something.  I'm 16, and started playing at age 12-so I've been at it about 4 years.  This winter, I'll be performing the Rach 2 with our city's orchestra-and I have been in a number of competitions, recitals, etc. in the past.  I have hardly been rigidly dedicated in my practice (some days lots, other days not at all).  I kick myself thinking how I'd be playing now if I really had good, disciplined practicing habits.

[chopiabin]

I remember when you were just talking about learning that piece - holy s**t!

I've been playing for 2 years, and now that I'm in college I practice productively for about 3-4(sometimes even 6 or 7) hours every day. My teacher is amazing, and I can really feel myself progressing - I'm thinking about starting either the 3rd Scherzo or the 3rd Ballade as my next piece.

[liszmaninopin]

3 to 4 hours is alot of practice for me.  If there's any consistency at all in my practice schedule, it's about 1 or 2 hours a day.  Considering that I'm rarely tackling that many pieces all at once, that works out just fine (although there are alot of pieces that I've "sort of" finished in the past that I intend to get around to polishing)

[chopiabin]

Yeah, when I lived at home, it would be hard for me to practice for more than two hours, but now that I'm done with class by 12:10, I have a lot of free time and I find time in the practice room flies. Sometimes I'll even go back for seconds!

[Terry-Piano]

I'll just add that this is a ridiculous post...It depends on so many things...stop babbling about how it would be and how much time it would take... just get around to it and you will see how much time it takes for you /...again ridiculous post please refrain from asking stupid questions like that..sorry for my bitterness...it just had to come out ... even if it's interesting seeing the others personal experiences...it all comes down to you, your talent and your hard work...not a predesigned time-line which you will follow..sry for my bad english I'm french-canadian

[timothy42b]

It isn't that ridiculous of a post, as it asks two very good questions, though not explicitly.

Why does it take so long to get good?  (and the corollary, is it really because so much practice time is wasted due to inefficiency?)  (and a follow-on:  why do pianists practice 8 hours a day, when no other instrument finds that necessary)

Why do so many people work at piano so many years, and never become good?

Hey, those might be the same question, come to think of it.  

My definition of good is a little more operational.  I trust no compliments or criticisms, from strangers or friends.  Only one method is definitive:  after a gig, do you get called again?  

[mound]

Why do so many people work at piano so many years, and never become good?

Chang's book does a pretty good job of answering that.

[chopinsetude]

I'll just add that this is a ridiculous post...It depends on so many things...

Come on, Terry.  We started the whole discussion by stating that "it depends on many things, and not everyone is the same."

We want to know why it takes so long to get good and what peoples experiences are/were on their goal towards taming this beast of an instrument.  It's unlike any other instrument....

[ThEmUsIcMaNBJ]

Well here's an example for you.  I started from scratch on piano when I was 15.  Now I'm 18.  I'm a piano major with almost a full piano scholarship to a pretty good school down here in orange county.  I've won a couple of local competitions and have passed level 10 in the diploma thing down here in CA called CM(certificate of merit).  I just had a mastercalss with Abbey Simon the other day that was pretty cool.  anyways I've played quite a few recitals and my repertoire so far is...

Bach: Italian Concerto Complete, WTC Book 2 Prelude and fugue in B minor, and some assorted inventions
Rachmaninoff: Moment Musical Op.16 No.4
Chopin: Etudes Op.10 No.4, and 5, Nocturne Op.27 no.2, Fantasie Impromptu, some other assorted nocturnes/waltzes
Beethoven: Moonlight Sonata Complete, sonata op.31 no.3 (almost complete working on 4th movement)
Bartok: Allegro Barbaro

then im working on and getting pretty close to done on 5 or 6 other pieces.

I'm not saying this stuff to brag or anything I just wanted to give you an example of what can be accomplished in 3 years.  I really don't find myself incredibly talented.  Maybe a little above average.  But I think really what has got me so far is the determination.  For those 3 years I've had a teacher for a year and a half of them.  For the last year and a half, I've pretty consistently practiced for 4-8 hours a day.  Lot's of determination goes a long way.  

[Max]

True, I think generic ability to play large amounts of advanced pieces with quality dynamics and accurate tempo would be our definition for this purpose.

In that case, I guess that you could probably be playing a fair amount of pieces, assuming you start easy, about good enough to chop through Ballade 1, but without a particulary excellent performance.

[piano_learner]

I am also curious about this. I officially started learning seriously at the age of 35 (Feb this year, I turned 36 in April) and practice at most only 1 hr/day. I am going to attempt my Grade 1 exam in December.

So it comes down to the question that others have asked - what does "Good" mean. If I continue practicing at my current level, I will be an *extremely* good Grade 1 player in 3 years. If I played for a person who has no understanding of Piano grades or technical difficulty of music pieces they would consider me a fantastic Piano player! (I hope)

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

omg ThEmUsIcMaNBJ u r the precdent
"claps claps"
i was goiner set the path but u r the first

[faulty_damper]

If the only obsta8le for gaining the ability to play is te8ni8le, then a88ording to Bernhard, it takes between 1 to 3 years to a8quire all the te8nique you need.  I will agree that a8quiring te8nique is not as difi8ult a thing to do.  This also assumes the student has fully developed his handspan be8ause showing a 2 year old to play o8taves is physi8ally not possible.  And then  throw in a high degree of interest to this student.

Now by "how good", you mean the ability to play a large repetory ex8ellently, right?  Being able to play  8ouple of Beethoven's sonatas, *hopin waltzes and etudes, Ra8hmaninov preludes, S8hubert impromptus, and Liszt etudes would be 8onsidered "good", no?

If time is the of great expedien8y in 8reating this "good " pianist, then take an absolute beginner whom is an adult and make musi8 learning interesting and do not let him out of the instru8tors sight so to speak.  Lessons should be every single day with an instru8tor that the student feels 8ompletely 8omfortable with and trusts.

Sin8e we are so8ial animals and learning often o88urs most effe8tively with other people, then throw in a few other pianists who 8an play at all levels.  Some should also be absolute beginners, intermediate, and some advan8ed.  Why su8h a vast degree of skill?  Be8ause the student 8an pra8ti8e what he was taught and 8an observe others doing the same things, espe8ially if the other students are at his level.  His learning and a88omplishments 8an be most refle8ted with his immediate peers of his level and be8ause there are other students of greater skill, he will eventually form a template of what he 8an a88omplish.

Now assuming that he re8ieves this setting everyday for even just one year, he'll most likely a88omplish what most students a88omplish in 5 years if not more.


[I have yet to find my "c" so am substituting all the "c"s with 8s.]

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

nice post faulty damper.
faulty damper u say it takes between 1 to 3 years to aquire techniqure wah technique did u learn?
all of hannon?
anyfing besides hannon?
thx in advance

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

>< sorrie for double post...
does learning pieces with technical difficulties and mastering that piece give u better technique?
thx in advance

[faulty_damper]

I didn't say it took 1-3 years to a8quire all the te8hnique you need, Bernhard did, and I would have to agree with that statement based on my own progress.

Most of the te8hnique you learn 8an be neatly written down in one page.  Te8hnique su8h as s8ales are more pertinent in the beginning to intermediate level repetory.  After that, being able to play 8hords smoothly at a fast speed be8omes far more ne8essary as the ability to 8olor with single note s8ales is not as effe8tive with advan8ed pie8es so hen8e 8omposers will opt for 8hords instead of s8ales.

Here are just some of the te8hniques that 8an be easily a8quired assuming it is properly taught and properly pra8tised espe8ially with a8tual repetory:
s8ales (though it is not very 8ommon that the 123 1234 fingering is used it a8tual repetory)
arpeggios
sta88ato
8hords
leaps
o8taves
tremolos
appogiaturas
trills
8hromati8 s8ales
thirds
8rossing hands


You mentioned Hanon?
If there is one te8hni8al exer8ise you should not wasted your time on, it's Hanon.  If you follow his dire8tions te the letter you will not improve your te8hnique mu8h.

exer8ise 1 of hanon:
spe8ifies to start at a tempo of 60 per 1/4 note and then speed up to 108.  Why 108?  If you play this exer8ise his way, you will hit a speed wall and that speed wall is approximately 108 per 8rot8het.  What if you want to play faster than that?  You 8an't a88ording to his way.

So here is where Hanon falls short.  It is very possible to play this exer8ise at 108 per half note, twi8e the speed.  How?  By 8ompletely ignoring his dire8tions of keeping the wrist still, fingers raised high.  So do the opposite of his dire8tions and do move your wrists and do not raise your fingers high.  Then just roll your hands to play it and you have just broken through the speed barrier.  This te8hnique 8an be applied to the other exer8ises and you 8an use it to show where Hanon was wrong.

In my opinion, the reason why it takes so long to build te8hnique is be8ause it is not put to use immediately.  Why would you play a te8hni8le exer8ise if it is not pertinent to any of the repetory you are learning?  And if the pie8e has not be broken down to identify where the potential diffi8ulties are and a student does not even know where it is, will these diffi8ult parts be isolated so that more pra8ti8e 8an o88ur?  Probably not.

Another reason that learning te8hnique is su8h a long pro8ess is be8ause te8hnique is not isolated itself.  If you are learning a pie8e with repeated appogiaturas, and are playing ea8h one differently, some more effe8tive than others, then some will be better than others be8ause you are playing them more effe8tively than others.  This is where te8hni8al isolation is ne8essary.

Another reason a8quiring te8hnique takes so long is be8ause of the length of time it takes someone to learn new repetory.  This 8an be due to many fa8tors in8luding less effe8tive pra8ti8e te8hnique, poor memory, espe8ially the inablilty to sight-read well.  Sin8e most students do not have a88ess to a tea8her all the time or have the 8ompany of other students to help them with what these dots with lines 8oming out of them are and the duration of these dots, it 8an be bloody diffi8ult to play these at an even tempo.  *on8iously 8ounting out the duration is a big impediment.  This la8k of ability to read musi8 effi8iently is a huge reason why learning new repetory is so diffi8ult sin8e almost all of the repetory one will learn is written down in su8h a manner.  This has a far more greater impa8t for the adult learner than the 5 year old be8ause of the physi8al ability of an adult to play advan8ed repetory whereas the 5 year old will be learning very elementary pie8es and gaining the ability to sight-read at the basi8 level.  The adult would probably not want to play these easy pie8es and there is perhaps a stigma asso8iated with using these "8hildren's" books.

But reading is not ne8essary to play at an even tempo and even those with so 8alled "tempo problems" 8an play evenly; it's just that they 8an't read well.

So the easy remedy is to be a blind student.
Then the tea8her will be for8ed to show how to play and not have the student read pie8es and the te8hnique required to play them.

And using myself as the example as an adult learner/student, I have the ability to play very advan8ed pie8es but looking at the s8ores intimidates me to the point where I 8an't even look at it and as a 8onsequen8e try to stay away from them.  But this does not mean I 8an't play it, just that I don't want to look at the s8ore.  It's s8ary!  This is due be8ause I 8an't read musi8 to save my mother's life.    My a8quisition of repetory has been primarily through memorization:  look at s8ary s8ore, look away and repeat the finger movements over and over.

does learning pieces with technical difficulties and mastering that piece give u better technique?

Simple answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: not exa8tly.  If you master the te8hnique in these pie8es, then you have mastered the te8hnique in these pie8es.  But in other repetory, the te8hnique required may be similar but it will not be exa8tly the same.  But having the ability to play them  will make learning these new pie8es mu8h easier be8ause it is similar.  And if you have learned them, then you 8an look at a s8ore and know if you 8an or 8annot play them.

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

nice speech
thx masta!

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

hey...
lets say you  mastered excercises like appregeos and the next week u forget how to play them. is ur technical level still improved even tho u forgot the excercise? or has ur technical skills decreased

[bernhard]

I didn't say it took 1-3 years to a8quire all the te8hnique you need, Bernhard did, and I would have to agree with that statement based on my own progress.

Most of the te8hnique you learn 8an be neatly written down in one page.  Te8hnique su8h as s8ales are more pertinent in the beginning to intermediate level repetory.  After that, being able to play 8hords smoothly at a fast speed be8omes far more ne8essary as the ability to 8olor with single note s8ales is not as effe8tive with advan8ed pie8es so hen8e 8omposers will opt for 8hords instead of s8ales.

Here are just some of the te8hniques that 8an be easily a8quired assuming it is properly taught and properly pra8tised espe8ially with a8tual repetory:
s8ales (though it is not very 8ommon that the 123 1234 fingering is used it a8tual repetory)
arpeggios
sta88ato
8hords
leaps
o8taves
tremolos
appogiaturas
trills
8hromati8 s8ales
thirds
8rossing hands


You mentioned Hanon?
If there is one te8hni8al exer8ise you should not wasted your time on, it's Hanon.  If you follow his dire8tions te the letter you will not improve your te8hnique mu8h.

exer8ise 1 of hanon:
spe8ifies to start at a tempo of 60 per 1/4 note and then speed up to 108.  Why 108?  If you play this exer8ise his way, you will hit a speed wall and that speed wall is approximately 108 per 8rot8het.  What if you want to play faster than that?  You 8an't a88ording to his way.

So here is where Hanon falls short.  It is very possible to play this exer8ise at 108 per half note, twi8e the speed.  How?  By 8ompletely ignoring his dire8tions of keeping the wrist still, fingers raised high.  So do the opposite of his dire8tions and do move your wrists and do not raise your fingers high.  Then just roll your hands to play it and you have just broken through the speed barrier.  This te8hnique 8an be applied to the other exer8ises and you 8an use it to show where Hanon was wrong.

In my opinion, the reason why it takes so long to build te8hnique is be8ause it is not put to use immediately.  Why would you play a te8hni8le exer8ise if it is not pertinent to any of the repetory you are learning?  And if the pie8e has not be broken down to identify where the potential diffi8ulties are and a student does not even know where it is, will these diffi8ult parts be isolated so that more pra8ti8e 8an o88ur?  Probably not.

Another reason that learning te8hnique is su8h a long pro8ess is be8ause te8hnique is not isolated itself.  If you are learning a pie8e with repeated appogiaturas, and are playing ea8h one differently, some more effe8tive than others, then some will be better than others be8ause you are playing them more effe8tively than others.  This is where te8hni8al isolation is ne8essary.

Another reason a8quiring te8hnique takes so long is be8ause of the length of time it takes someone to learn new repetory.  This 8an be due to many fa8tors in8luding less effe8tive pra8ti8e te8hnique, poor memory, espe8ially the inablilty to sight-read well.  Sin8e most students do not have a88ess to a tea8her all the time or have the 8ompany of other students to help them with what these dots with lines 8oming out of them are and the duration of these dots, it 8an be bloody diffi8ult to play these at an even tempo.  *on8iously 8ounting out the duration is a big impediment.  This la8k of ability to read musi8 effi8iently is a huge reason why learning new repetory is so diffi8ult sin8e almost all of the repetory one will learn is written down in su8h a manner.  This has a far more greater impa8t for the adult learner than the 5 year old be8ause of the physi8al ability of an adult to play advan8ed repetory whereas the 5 year old will be learning very elementary pie8es and gaining the ability to sight-read at the basi8 level.  The adult would probably not want to play these easy pie8es and there is perhaps a stigma asso8iated with using these "8hildren's" books.

But reading is not ne8essary to play at an even tempo and even those with so 8alled "tempo problems" 8an play evenly; it's just that they 8an't read well.

So the easy remedy is to be a blind student.
Then the tea8her will be for8ed to show how to play and not have the student read pie8es and the te8hnique required to play them.

And using myself as the example as an adult learner/student, I have the ability to play very advan8ed pie8es but looking at the s8ores intimidates me to the point where I 8an't even look at it and as a 8onsequen8e try to stay away from them.  But this does not mean I 8an't play it, just that I don't want to look at the s8ore.  It's s8ary!  This is due be8ause I 8an't read musi8 to save my mother's life.    My a8quisition of repetory has been primarily through memorization:  look at s8ary s8ore, look away and repeat the finger movements over and over.

Simple answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: not exa8tly.  If you master the te8hnique in these pie8es, then you have mastered the te8hnique in these pie8es.  But in other repetory, the te8hnique required may be similar but it will not be exa8tly the same.  But having the ability to play them  will make learning these new pie8es mu8h easier be8ause it is similar.  And if you have learned them, then you 8an look at a s8ore and know if you 8an or 8annot play them.

Brilliant post!

Now go and fix that "c"



Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[piano_learner]

[I have yet to find my "c" so am substituting all the "c"s with 8s.]

I am obviously missing the joke, but just in case you are being serious.

1) Type your message in 'Notepad' (Windows text program)
2) Come to the forum and copy a "c" from another post
3) In the 'Edit' pull down menu select "replace"

Find what = 8
Replace with = ctrl + v (this will paste the 'c' you copied') or use the right mouse button.

4) select 'Replace all'
5) Copy and paste your message from 'notepad' into the forum.

[mound]

I have yet to find my "c" so am substituting all the "c"s with 8s.

Is your 'c' key broken or do you literally not know where it is in your keyboard? Are some of your key-caps missing or something? It's the 2nd key over to the right from your Z, directly to the right of X and directly to the left of V.  

[faulty_damper]

Is your 'c' key broken or do you literally not know where it is in your keyboard? Are some of your key-caps missing or something? It's the 2nd key over to the right from your Z, directly to the right of X and directly to the left of V.    

In a fit of rage, I threw my keyboard down on the desk and several of the keys popped out.  I found all of them ex8ept the "C" key.

So how did I write the "C" key?  A pencil is small enough to fit into the hole.

So why substitute an '8" for the "C"?  Be8ause the number 8 in right above the missing key.  (I'm on Dvorak layout.)

I really do not know where the missing key flew off to.  I've look for it for quite a while.  Just hope that I do not throw anymore fits and if I do, the keys don't go flying away where I 8an't find them.  Otherwise, I von'r ksov i7 any,ne 8an 9ead this.

An 8 looks like a C, doesn't it? :-/

[faulty_damper]

I am obviously missing the joke, but just in case you are being serious.

1) Type your message in 'Notepad' (Windows text program)
2) Come to the forum and copy a "c" from another post
3) In the 'Edit' pull down menu select "replace"

Find what = 8
Replace with = ctrl + v (this will paste the 'c' you copied') or use the right mouse button.

4) select 'Replace all'
5) Copy and paste your message from 'notepad' into the forum.

Great idea!  But I'm just lazy.
Or just use a thesaurus and avoid using the "C" key altogether!  Let's see how this works out.

So far, so good!

[Egghead]

Great idea!  But I'm just lazy.
Or just use a thesaurus and avoid using the "C" key altogether!  Let's see how this works out.

So far, so good!

faulty_Keyboard, beautiful posts in a funny thread! 8 for c like for cool. Why use a thesaurus. New rules: no more 'c's or 'd's.
Surely, CC (Dr. Chang) will not take insult having to post as (master of the) 88 (keys). What is the key below 6 in your system, faulty? We might have someone very evil amongst us then (think beast).  
so much for spam  

[Spatula]

at first I thought Faulty was starting a new fad like the 1337's running around everywhere and all the ebonics!

IT HAS TO STOP!

cries out and pulls hair (but then again I'm part of the problem) heheeheheh

[faulty_damper]

hey...
lets say you  mastered excercises like appregeos and the next week u forget how to play them. is ur technical level still improved even tho u forgot the excercise? or has ur technical skills decreased

What do you mean by forget?  You mean the fingering?  The movement?

[mound]

In a fit of rage, I threw my keyboard down on the desk and several of the keys popped out.  I found all of them ex8ept the "C" key.

That's great!   I threw a wrench at the garage floor in a fit of rage when I was little trying to fix my bike.. It bounced back up and broke my front tooph in half.  Get a new keyboard my friend.

hey...
lets say you  mastered excercises like appregeos and the next week u forget how to play them

If you forgot it the next week, you didn't master it in the first place, you only learned it.. (Right Bernhard?)

Re-learn it. But are you talking about arpeggious just as an exercise, or a portion of a piece?

-Paul

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

movement...
yeah from a excercises. its hard to try and remmeber 24 appregieos.
thx for advice and wellcome to forum

[piano_learner]

Great idea!  But I'm just lazy.
Or just use a thesaurus and avoid using the "C" key altogether!  Let's see how this works out.

So far, so good!

Pull the '8' key out and put it in the 'C' hole, I'm sure it will fit. Use the Thesaurus to avoid words with '8' in them.

Eg/ I consumed food in a good restaurant last night.

[faulty_damper]

Pull the '8' key out and put it in the 'C' hole, I'm sure it will fit. Use the Thesaurus to avoid words with '8' in them.

Eg/ I consumed food in a good restaurant last night.

That's a great idea!  But instead of the 8, I just substituted the least used letter, 'z' which will now be known as 'v' which will still be known as 'v'.  I'm sure this will just screw up my layout even more as I'm not as fluent in Dvorak as with Qwerty.

[mound]

does your keyboard have a number pad as well? why not use one of those, that way you can keep all of your letters?

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

yo asnwerr me question plz!

[faulty_damper]

Okay, if you can't be patient.  I started a reply but didn't finish it because wanted to be more specific but here is what I started to write:

" Not exactly 24 arpeggios...

Actually there are much less than that if it's just the movement you are focusing on, then there are far less.

C dur arpeggio movement are the same as the F dur, G dur, and A mol, D mol.  The distance between the keys are exactly the same for each of these scales.

A dur, D dur"

And that was all I had time to write as I had to leave for school.

So you see, there are far fewer arpeggion movements than there are argeggios.  The exception of the only arpeggio movement without a complementary key is B dur.  All others have at least one complementary movement.  I think.  And if you would be patient, I could have found out!

But the reason why there seems to be 24 is because each of these 24 makes a different sound which makes it not very obvious that there are far fewer arpeggio movements.  So just because you can play C dur very fast does not mean you can play F dur or G dur or A mol or D moll just as fast because the sound will be different - different unaccustomed stimuli that effects your reaction to playing these arpeggios.  Weird, eh?  Not really.

There is one way that I figure you can eliminate this: use a dead keyboard.  But not very many people have this option.  This way, the sound stimuli is eliminated as the only sound will be that 'dud' when the key hits the keybed and all 'duds' will sound the same.


So is your technical ability improved or no...
Hmm...

Okay, here's a better aplication for learning arpeggios.  Actually being able to apply it to actual repetory.  If you are able to apply it within the context that playing arpeggios are relevent (in music), and be able to play them well, then you have the technical ability to play the arpeggios.

So here is a similar example of learning something that I would forget after not using them: scales.

Why do I need to learn 24 different scales if I'm not going to apply them in actual repetory?  I got upset not too long ago that I learned all the scales, stopped practicing them, and then my teacher asked me to relearn them again.  What was the point in knowing this?  ...  I ended up practicing them again.  I forgot some of the keys in some of the scales, especially those obscure scales that hardly any composers use frequently.  But I relearned the scales rather quickly and have them in my memory.

So does learning 24 different scales and being able to play them improve my technique?  Yes and no.  Yes because it gives practice in moving the fingers properly and the technique of playing scales will trickle down to other technique and improve the ability to play.  No because you don't actually use all of these scales in any meaningful context.

Like I said before, scales are a very elementary technique that is used most frequently in elementary to intermediate repetory.  But when moving to more advanced repetory the actual use of them become increasingly less.  This is also true of arpeggios but to a less degree.

The lack of applicable use of these techniques is what makes memoriving the specific movements so much more difficult.  Why remember a friend's phone number when you never call him?  But you do know how to press the numbers on the keypad, do you not?

So here is where it concerns you.  Yes, you do know how to play them but you just can't remember the movement to each of these 24 arpeggios (actually far less) at this very time.  But, since you are able to play them, all it will take is some practice to put your fingers on the right keys.  It will be much easier than if you never learned them.  However, learning to play arpeggios out of context will not apply directly to actual repetory.  If you do learn repetory that makes use of arpeggios, then you will need to adapt it to the new repetory because rarely will it allow you to apply isolated technique directly without any modification of what you practiced.  But modifying it will not be that difficult.

So a more general concise answer: isolated practiced techniques (scales, arpeggios, etc.) will need to be modified somewhat when applied to actual repetory but the time it takes will be much less than if you never praticed the technique.