Pieces that you don't like

[outin]

Where do you people get the motivation to practice pieces that mean nothing to you? I really struggle with most of my music and I have noticed a pattern:

I can concentrate quite well in the beginning when I am learning the notes and finding out fingerings. It's like an interesting challenge even if I don't really care for the piece. I can practice to make it sound better. But after I have managed to play the piece once correctly in tempo I lose interest, start making mistakes and forget the notes all the time. I should do slow and hand separate practice to make it more secure, but it's useless because I keep forgetting the notes and seem to phase out while practicing.
 
When it's a piece that I really like (a piece that I would actually enjoy listening) I can go on for weeks and it just keeps getting better. Doing more practice makes it better and more secure. But so far I have had very few pieces like that.

I guess the answer would be to just play pieces that I really like. I need to work on easier pieces to get more solid foundation. I just cannot seem to find pieces in grade 4-5 that I care for. I should do more classical for the technique but I don't seem to find anything from that era that I really like except some pieces that are far too advanced.

I guess it is deprimental to my learning that I am so damn picky when it comes to music 

Of course it's not just music, I'm picky about everything 

[davidjosepha]

I guess the answer would be to just play pieces that I really like. I need to work on easier pieces to get more solid foundation. I just cannot seem to find pieces in grade 4-5 that I care for. I should do more classical for the technique but I don't seem to find anything from that era that I really like except some pieces that are far too advanced.

Have you talked to your teacher? I only really starting practicing a significant amount every day and actually consistently liking playing the piano until around grade 8 (I've never done any of the exams so I don't know exactly, but around the time I got interested I was playing mostly grade 8 material), and even then, I would mostly only really enjoy and work hard on my romantic/20th century music. Once I started picking more of my own pieces, it got much better. I think, for one, more difficult repertoire is, in general, more interesting (obviously full of exceptions), and I think my teacher is also more familiar with more difficult repertoire since it's what he mostly plays, so he might not have known as many pieces at a lower level that would be interesting.

Perhaps talk to your teacher and tell him that you don't really enjoy many of the pieces you're playing. Don't make it sound like you're complaining, but explain that you're having trouble getting into practicing these pieces you don't like. As an amateur, you really shouldn't be wasting your time playing things you don't want to play just because they might be "good for you", or because it builds character to hate things

I think you've mentioned that you like Scarlatti, so why not tell him that and see if you can play more of that. Or mention other composers.

Bottom line, I have absolutely no idea how to get yourself to enjoy pieces you don't like. I'm not sure there is a way. You can force yourself to practice them, but you can only keep that up for so long, I've found, before you give up.

[werq34ac]

Try to find meaning in your music. What is the composer trying to communicate? What ideas do you hear? You'll find your music, whether you like it or not, a hell of a lot more interesting. Look at the phrases and ask yourself, what is that?

It may sound silly, but it makes music much more fun. And consequently, your playing will be more interesting.

[outin]

Have you talked to your teacher? I only really starting practicing a significant amount every day and actually consistently liking playing the piano until around grade 8 (I've never done any of the exams so I don't know exactly, but around the time I got interested I was playing mostly grade 8 material), and even then, I would mostly only really enjoy and work hard on my romantic/20th century music. Once I started picking more of my own pieces, it got much better. I think, for one, more difficult repertoire is, in general, more interesting (obviously full of exceptions), and I think my teacher is also more familiar with more difficult repertoire since it's what he mostly plays, so he might not have known as many pieces at a lower level that would be interesting.

I already pick my own pieces, so that's not the issue here. My teacher only interferes if she thinks it's too difficult, but that doesn't happen often anymore, because I can judge pretty well.

EDIT: My teacher doesn't know all the pieces I bring but I am always amazed when she sight reads them perfectly... I guess they are not that difficult, but it's still something I can never see myself doing no matter how much practice.

I think the main reason that I quit piano at 11 was that I never got ot play anything I liked, so I didn't really understand that it could actually be enjoyable.

Perhaps talk to your teacher and tell him that you don't really enjoy many of the pieces you're playing. Don't make it sound like you're complaining, but explain that you're having trouble getting into practicing these pieces you don't like. As an amateur, you really shouldn't be wasting your time playing things you don't want to play just because they might be "good for you", or because it builds character to hate things

She has never forced me to stay with anything, that's why I hardly ever really learned the boring little studies she gave me in the beginning. But I learned something from the all anyway.

So do you think I should just accept the fact that I don't get these pieces to a proper level and go to the next one? After all I do learn something from them all, even though I don't really learn the whole piece.

I just worry that if I cannot polish these pieces how can I learn to polish the ones that I really want to play?

I think you've mentioned that you like Scarlatti, so why not tell him that and see if you can play more of that. Or mention other composers.

Do you think I could become a competent player by spending a few years on Scarlatti only? I wouldn't copmplain
My teacher is really flexible, she'll teach anything I want. It is me that thinks I should be able to learn different styles...

Bottom line, I have absolutely no idea how to get yourself to enjoy pieces you don't like. I'm not sure there is a way. You can force yourself to practice them, but you can only keep that up for so long, I've found, before you give up.

Yeah... so I guess I just need to work harder to find more pieces that I do like...

[outin]

Try to find meaning in your music. What is the composer trying to communicate? What ideas do you hear? You'll find your music, whether you like it or not, a hell of a lot more interesting. Look at the phrases and ask yourself, what is that?

It may sound silly, but it makes music much more fun. And consequently, your playing will be more interesting.

Maybe it's a personality difference. I just don't seem to be able to make something that I find boring interesting no matter how much I try...But I can get really into something that most people would find weird or boring...

EDIT:
Why do I find analyzing the pieces musically so boring...? I think the main reason is that it would be like someone explaining to you how to ride a bike in exact terms of movements when you already can ride a bike.

I have been listening to music my whole life. For the past 30 years or so every single day. Not just like having the radio on but really listening to music that interests me often several hours almost every day. Different styles, classical mostly for the past 3 years or so. So I intuitively know how things are supposed to be, what works and what doesn't and how music tends to progress and how it is phrased. That's why I feel it extremely tedious to start learning the basic theoretic principles when it all is already in my head, just not with the same concepts (which I have forgotten after learning some years ago). I think a newcomer to music has an advantage in learning this stuff because there's novelty in it.

[davidjosepha]

So do you think I should just accept the fact that I don't get these pieces to a proper level and go to the next one? After all I do learn something from them all, even though I don't really learn the whole piece.

I just worry that if I cannot polish these pieces how can I learn to polish the ones that I really want to play?

As you mentioned, you can still learn a lot from a piece without polishing it. If you just decided you needed a new set of pieces, it might be healthy to just quit the ones you've got and move on. I've done that before. You just don't want to make it a habit.

Do you think I could become a competent player by spending a few years on Scarlatti only? I wouldn't copmplain

You'd probably get pretty good at playing Scarlatti. Depends on what your goals are as a musician. If you only ever want to play Baroque music, for instance, you probably don't need to work on Classical, Romantic, 20th century, or beyond, because none of those were around when Baroque music was. I mean, I'd probably suggest spreading things out, but if you really only wanted to play Baroque, it wouldn't be strictly necessary, I don't think.

[j_menz]

As someone who really only playys for my own enjoyment, I'm quite sympathetic about not playing things you don't like.

That said, since you enjoy, or at least can bear, to get a wider range of things up to some sort of standard I would do a reasonable amount of that. You don't need to poliosh everything; you aren't doing them for exams. Thake what you reasonably can from them and move on. There is an advantage to be had from expossure to a breadth of music anyway.  You probably should work on one or two pieces at a time with a view to polishing them, but as regards the rest that is not really necessary.

A lot of the music you have expressed a liking for is in the reasonably to very difficult range, so the above approach will help advance you to that level where you can start to hone in more selectively.

I should also add that there is a world of difference between exploring a piece musically and  doing a theoretical analysis of it.  To do the former, you should listen to other performances and play around yourself with different approaches to the piece. That can be fun.  My own approach to theory has been that I'll bother with anything I need to know in order to play the piece and ignore the rest.  A theoretical analysis of form, transpositions and harmonic structures is not necessary provided you have a natural feel for these things (which you can develop further with the playing around).

[ajspiano]

I try to avoid them altogether.

I'm significantly more tolerant than I used to be when categorizing pieces though..

When selecting repertoire with students I tell them to be brutally honest about whether or not they like the piece. I figure I can always find something that is appropriate and that they actually like..

Far too often they are overly polite and willing to practice things they don't particularly like :/  It can take them a while to figure out that I don't find it offensive when their musical tastes don't match what I first suggest.

[outin]

You'd probably get pretty good at playing Scarlatti. Depends on what your goals are as a musician. If you only ever want to play Baroque music, for instance, you probably don't need to work on Classical, Romantic, 20th century, or beyond, because none of those were around when Baroque music was. I mean, I'd probably suggest spreading things out, but if you really only wanted to play Baroque, it wouldn't be strictly necessary, I don't think.

I cannot say that I like Baroque music more than other eras, only certain composers. Actually I want to play many Romantic composers (Chopin and Scriabin to mention two). It's just that even though I like Chopin a lot, I don't really like his easier pieces (apart from the preludes).

And it's not really about only liking difficult pieces...

For example the pieces in my signature:
I can keep on practicing the Lyapunov piece forever because it is just so beautiful in a hypnotic way, it's not really that difficult but I can always try to make it sound better.
I also enjoy on working on the K208, even though it's not my favorite it has it's moments.
But K32...I find it very difficult to remember what comes next even if I do know the notes and the piece pretty well. I just don't care for the piece that much so that I would really keep the music going in my head.
The Franck piece is really easy (level 2 or something) but I find it very enjoyable to play. I know the notes but I always feel it could sound even better. Maybe because the first time I heard it it was played by Steven Hough  
K434 I enjoy practicing a lot. I don't get bored at all playing the first page slowly or hands separately. It's just a beautiful piece.
The Diabelli is one I cannot master. I have spend a lot of time with it and I feel it has been useful because of the variation in touch (staccato/legato) on different hands. But I see it as something that I would need a year to perfect and it's not really worth it...

Thanks, I really value the opinions of someone who has been in the same situation.

[hfmadopter]

When I had a teacher a lot of years ago she most definately let me work the studies to my level and move on. Or her sellected pieces for me to study and then move on. I think she felt I got what I needed from them. The pieces I enjoyed I worked up to a polished level and she was good with that.

Later on in my study I took a second course about expanding your use of the keyboard from simpler written pieces. I used movie themes or pop music for this and played many of those in my teachers work shops ( we had a work shop one Wed night a month) along with her classical pieces we were working on to include ones l liked to play. There is so much music out there I can't see roping ones self to something they don't like. I'm all for getting the technique from a piece and moving on if otherwise I don't care for it.

[davidjosepha]

When I had a teacher a lot of years ago she most definately let me work the studies to my level and move on. Or her sellected pieces for me to study and then move on. I think she felt I got what I needed from them. The pieces I enjoyed I worked up to a polished level and she was good with that.

Definitely this, I don't think it's necessary to work all of your pieces up to performance level. In fact, I think it's really inefficient. See, the thing is, when you're at level 4, you're going to be working to play level 5 pieces, but they're going to be a tad too difficult. So, you can work hard on them, but it'll take a ton of time to get them "perfect". However, if you came back to that same level 5 piece after you're around level 6, it'll probably take you about one tenth the time to get it to performance level after you've learned the notes since you'll be a much better pianist then.

[asuhayda]

Where do you people get the motivation to practice pieces that mean nothing to you?

I have to agree..  I am at a point with my playing now that I don't do it anymore.  If a piece doesn't speak to me, then I don't waste my time with it.

If it's required repertoire for University, then you just have to concentrate and plow through it I guess.

[starstruck5]

I would say it is insane to learn a piece that means nothing to you -there are always alternatives!  I suppose you sometimes are forced to choose a lsser of two evils for an exam or something -but you can always skip a grade -