How good can a pianist become in 3 years?

[one_wing3d_ang3l]

legend damper legend
"claps claps"
my deepest thx! now its time 4 me to burn these dam isolated exercises

[etudes]

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.

is that true? i read from one web site
Born in Shanghai in 1945 to Polish parents who had fled Europe at the outbreak of World War II, Dichter moved with his family to Los Angeles at age 2 and began taking piano lessons four years later. His principal teachers were Rosina Lhevinne at Juilliard and Aube Tzerko, a pupil of Artur Schnabel. His stunning triumph at the 1966 Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow launched his international career, which currently includes annual recital, orchestral and chamber music performances in the world's major music capitals.
well. how can you went to study with Rosina Lhevinne just for hobby?

[etudes]

another source
When Misha Dichter plays Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto, he can't help but remember the first time he performed the work. It was 1961, and he was 15 years old.

he played Rach2 when he was 15 only for hobby?

[LVB op.57]

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.

What this person is saying (though in a very pretentious, and probably untrue way), is that everyone is different. Mozart was a very good pianist by the time he was 6. However, some people just don't have the ear for music. The arts aren't democratic.

[lagin]

I haven't read all the posts, but I practice 5 hrs a day, most days, and have been playing just over a year and a half.  I'm at the equivalent of gr. 9 RCM or gr. 8 ARBSM (or whatever it is in the U.S.)  What is costing me at competitions is my lack of performance experience and that though my technique developed quickly, my musicality is lagging a bit.  Someone who has played for 8 or 9 years, could naturally put in say Rubato, but I'm so unfamiliar with the concept, I really have to work at where to be loud or soft, fast or slow.  It's not that I can't do it, it's just I'm not sure when best to do it. 
There's pluses and minuses to everything.

[LeoBen207]

newbie sorry.

[LeoBen207]

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.]

Notice how he substituted an "8" for a "c". Most of us in our minds would have made the adjustment without really having to think about it; Since we've been reading or learned to read when we were very young. I would think the same would apply to a pianist who started young. Because they've been at it for so long they can read the music as fast as we read words. Of course I could be wrong. What do you guys think?

[puma]

   At five hours a day, even someone who was not musically inclined would become very good.  All that repetitive movement - it would just eventually sink in.  And assuming they put in that five hours, that also means they are dedicated and hard-working.  And that's a plus.

[bernhard]

Notice how he substituted an "8" for a "c". Most of us in our minds would have made the adjustment without really having to think about it; Since we've been reading or learned to read when we were very young. I would think the same would apply to a pianist who started young. Because they've been at it for so long they can read the music as fast as we read words. Of course I could be wrong. What do you guys think?

Yes, that is the general idea (but it has little to do with the age you start).

However, facility in reading (books) goes hand in hand with intimate knowledge of the subject. Anyone may be able to read fluently pulp fiction or a newspaper, but a textbook of astrophysics may slow a layman considerably, even if the said layman is a fluent reader in other areas (say, legal treatises).

So it is with music. Some music is the equivalent of a newspaper and will be read fluently by anyone who has mastered the basics of sight-reading. Other pieces however are akin to a doctorate thesis on spectral analysis, so even the most accomplished sight-reader may stumble and have to slow down.

However, pianists often specialise, so anyone who can sight-read perfectly a complex Bach fugue is most likely a Bach specialist in the first place, in the same way you would expect a pure mathematician to pretty much sail through a book of number theory, even though a layman may find himself completely dumbfounded.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mound]

I haven't read all the posts, but I practice 5 hrs a day, most days, and have been playing just over a year and a half.  I'm at the equivalent of gr. 9 RCM or gr. 8 ARBSM (or whatever it is in the U.S.)  What is costing me at competitions is my lack of performance experience and that though my technique developed quickly, my musicality is lagging a bit.  Someone who has played for 8 or 9 years, could naturally put in say Rubato, but I'm so unfamiliar with the concept, I really have to work at where to be loud or soft, fast or slow.  It's not that I can't do it, it's just I'm not sure when best to do it. 
There's pluses and minuses to everything.

I would somewhat equate myself to your situation, 1.5 years playing, except that I rarely go more than 3 hours in a day, I don't see a need. I also don't do competitions, but I perform whenever I get a chance.  I think my musicianship and technique have developed equally, my teacher has said to me, and others I've heard ("about this student of mine") - that he's astonished at how fast and how well both my technique and musicianship have developed. How both are light years ahead of my sight reading ability (and I'm sure my knowledge of theory as well)   The pieces I do play, I play *very* well. I don't have a massive repertoir however, but I continue to learn fast and faster and having really solid technique under my belt this early will only be a plus in the long run.

[SDL]

I started "electric" organ (not classical) at age 9-15.  I started piano at 15.  My first piece was the first of Kinderszenen.   And by age 18 I had Grade 8 under my belt (just did grades 5 & 7 before hand).  A year later I was at Huddersfield Uni on a BMus(Hons) course majoring in performance, and 5yrs later I had an M.A in performance and a reserve place at Royal Northern college of Music on the Professional performance course (PPRNCM) where there are so few places, although I never there went because of financial situation.   

[possom46]

Please don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I went from knowing nothing to grade 8 in 2 1/2 years. I was 12 when I first started and practised for probably 2 hours a day. I think it just depends on the individual.

[Prophetic]

I started when I was 11, and now I'm 14 and I'm in Grade 7ish RCM. So, I don't know. It's the general expected around here.  By 18 you're expected to be out of the books, or in Grade 10. My teacher says the upper grades usually take 2 years each though.

[RoyalJoyal89]

In my opinion in order to become great in three years it is near to impossible for many varosue resons. First if you start out you need to have a teacher with out one in three years you may be able to play simple sngs but nothing very difficult. Also when you aks how good can a pianist be in three years, its more then just being able to play a song such as the fur elise, you can play it but can you play it with the correct dynamics. The dynamics of a piece is what makes it "polished" or you peice it will make a world of a difference. Also it doesnt matter if you practice 20 hours a day the piano is very complicated and there is no way you will be able to play rach 3 consistantly with minor errors, unless your a prodigy thats a whole new story. There are too many aspects about the paino that would be able to be "mastered" in a three tear time period. But all of this doesnt eman that you wont be good. You just wont be ready for any serious competitions yet. Hope that helps

[pianowelsh]

Its impossible to answer ! Most of the pianist who are talking here are at colleges or studying quite seriously so 3yrs for them is a lot. for a beginner grade 1 / 2 is probably about as good as you could expect. But depends on a million factors - least being talent!

[C-A]

Well, I'm 15 years old, and studying piano for 3 years, and I've learned a lot of piano pieces lately. The hardest I've learned so far is Mozart's K.570 sonata. The hardest that is still in progress lately- Chopin's Military Polonaise

[musicsdarkangel]

I believe that you can improve boat-loads with proper practice.

I rarely ever practiced in highschool, but near auditions, I found a new passion for classical music, and started picking up cd's everywhere.  I practiced 3-4 hours a day, and was able to attain a full tuition scholarship with a great teacher.

When you have passion for music, the boundaries are limitless.

For me personally, if I had 5 hours (which I actually do, but speaking from your perspective), I would spend that time on at least two pieces (depending on difficulty), and work on scales/excersizes.  I know many people are against the use of Hannon, but I started working on it a month ago, and I already notice an improvement in my agility and sight reading skills.

If you divide this time wisely, and take breaks after each hour and a half, you can do anything.

I also know of students who have much talent, but are too stubborn to understand what their teachers say (I know someone who strains his neck the whole time he plays, but won't admit it, and believes that tensing up helps him).  Remember, no matter how bizarre a teacher's advice might sound, analyze it and follow it if it has the slightest bit of reason.  This is what helped me improve so much.

[raffyplayspiano]

  second post

it seems that this concern of how good one can be so fast is a concern for many of the pianists in this forum.  Yes, its very aggravating to develop a passion for the piano, and not be able to develop at the pace one would like, but ultimately, one's priorities will determine progress.

It is very exciting to listen to a great ercording of a piece you want to learn--but getting started on it, and having to go through passages hands separately or slower than perfomrnace level can be disheartening. 

However, that is how much of us learn.  In three years, any musical individual who devotes himself to the piano, can achieve wonders--but this really has to be a priority in his/her life. 

above all there must be consistency..in the desire and in the practice

raffy

[MattL]

It all comes back to determination yet there are many other things that determine the possible ability a pianist could acquire in 3 years.

I started playing piano last july, without a teacher, and I got good beacuase I dedicated a lot of effort to one or two pieces at a time. This Febuary I statred lessons which ended abruptly at the end of March, because I asked my teacher if I could try a different song from the one she wanted me to play. Lessons aren't the thing for me because I came to understand timing and fingering by my self.
Anyway...

after about 9 months I have completed many pieces including Rach 3/2, Flight of the bumblebee, Lebestraum, and I am now working on Chopin's third scherzo(half way through) and so I believe that any responses are sort of one-sided because each pianists moves forward at the rate they set for themsleves so if you want to be good, and obviously have the talent, it is up to you to decide how good you want to get, and how long you want to practice.