Measuring how long it takes to learn a piece.

[lostinidlewonder]

Many students of music simply do not know how long it takes them to learn a given piece. They merely work on the piece until it is completed. This to me is not the best way of learning your music and leaves you open to waste time.

From my own experience as a child and teenager I would not know exactly how long it takes me to learn a particular piece. I simply worked and worked until it was solved. When however I started doing concerts and had to work on a deadline this changed things completely. This is what made me realize the difference between amateur and professional. The amateur has all the time in the world the professional must work on a timetable.

But why can't we impose this professional time management on our students? With my advanced students I have encouraged estimations of a timeline as to how long it will take to learn a piece. "What gets written gets done" as the saying goes. I have found the majority of my advanced students do not like working with this pressure but those that submit to it have increased their learning rate a great deal.

What we do is segment the piece they are learning into easy, moderate and difficult parts. They must learn all the easy parts first, then move up to moderate then difficult. They must always have experience playing their pieces from beginning to end no matter how good or bad they are at doing so. We estimate how long it will take for each part and write up a timetable determining when the piece should be finished by. Of course the exact method of writing up a timetable is personal and I couldn't write a formula that would work for everyone, but everyone certainly can try to timetable out how long it would take to learn a piece and certainly everyone can highlight what is easy, moderate and difficult in their pieces, and certainly everyone can play pieces from beginning to end in its entirety.

I firmly believe playing through a piece from beginning to end is so important to accelerate your learning speed. Too many people segment their practice into tiny parts and can fall into traps studying a handful of bars for weeks on end. There are many ways to play a piece from beginning to end, perhaps doing 2 hands is next to impossible immediately but why not simplify one hand, why not just play one hand and accompany the other, there are many ways you can experience an entire piece, you could even listen to a CD recording and follow the score (although this is probably one of the weaker ways to study a piece as a whole).



How do you pace yourself when studying music? Do you actually have a deadline to work from? Don't you think if you worked from a deadline you would progress a lot more rather than just leaving the time open? Almost all of my students who seriously consider these questions and start working on deadlines find their rate of learning increases a great deal. Deadlines are a catalyst for efficient progress.

[chopin2015]

Generally when under a dead line, you would work only on the material that is to be learnt/mastered within a specific time period and I do not recommend extending practice time to accomplish both the deadline and your favorite material. I agree that playing through whole piece is essential as well, especially at a solid tempo. However, that does not always come easily and when there are breaks in phrasing and clarity, which cause confusion and results in poor, unprofessional sound. I seriously suffer from this, because I do not force myself to work under pressure, but even if I did, I cannot help how long it takes me to learn something until I improve what I am working on right now, in the most detailed manner.

[keypeg]

How to approach a piece is one of the central things I am being taught presently.  It is the opposite of what you wrote.  First there is an overview to get a gist of what the piece is about, and find sections.  The most difficult is worked on first, and that is done in layers.  The first layer is notes, fingering which is also easy movement.  The second layer is timing, and the third starts going into dynamics and expression.  Of course your level and skills play a role too.

A section is subdivided into smaller sections, and they are "pyramided" - m. 49, m. 48-49, m. 47 - 49 - or larger chunks depending on difficulty.  You are always  playing toward what you already know.  When you finally perform, the end will be the easiest instead of the hardest, and that builds confidence.  I like to end my practice with a playthrough of the whole thing, or at least large sections.  Working this way, my pieces are more solid faster, and they are learned in a fraction of a time.  Each session brings progress and builds on something solid from the time before.  

[p2u_]

How do you pace yourself when studying music? Do you actually have a deadline to work from? Don't you think if you worked from a deadline you would progress a lot more rather than just leaving the time open? Almost all of my students who seriously consider these questions and start working on deadlines find their rate of learning increases a great deal. Deadlines are a catalyst for efficient progress.

Learning the "raw material" of a piece reasonably up to tempo and in a more or less acceptable artistic fashion is done in the first or first two sessions and I stick to that task until it is accomplished. As Neuhaus says: If you want to boil water in a kettle to have a cup of tea, you heat the kettle until the water boils and you do that RIGHT NOW because you're thirsty. If I can't do that, I just put the piece aside as "temporarily impossible". Calling it "difficult" and work longer on it to get that "raw material" ready would be self-deception.
EDIT: Needless to say that I recommend the same regimen to my "junior colleagues" (I prefer to not call them my "students").
P.S.: Creating the artistic end result, though, may take years and years of slow practice for some pieces. Therefore, "deadlines' are NOT really part of my philosophy.

Paul

[outin]

If I may give my point of view as a student:
Deadlines may be good when there's enough time to reach them. But many amateurs who have other obligations have a limited time to practice and it may vary. So the deadline easily becomes a stress factor and for me stress does not help the learning progress (it does make me efficient as a worker, but learning is a different thing). Whether I want it or not I already have two "deadlines" hanging over my head all the time. The Monday deadline means I cannot go to my lesson on the next Monday without having made some progress with the pieces I am working on. I simply would feel like an idiot if I could just do the same thing as the week before and we couldn't go further. The second dealine comes from within: I feel I must progress at least a little bit on every practice session, I cannot stop until I feel I have accomplished something, no matter how small a thing. Maybe deadlines are more useful for those students who do not have this type of "internal pressure" already?

With all this in mind I do think about about how long it takes to learn a piece, but I feel I just cannot speed the process of learning the notes and memorizing, it takes what it takes. It can be measured in hours/times of practice, and it seems to be somehow constant, as in notes per hour, but it's not possible to measure in days or weeks because of the variation of practice time and quality.

[p2u_]

Deadlines may be good when there's enough time to reach them.

I think that pushing for deadlines is inherently harmful, - always. Healthy discipline, though, using the max of your capabilities is always good. The problem is not to confuse those two.

Paul

[pianoman53]

I both agree and disagree.. If I don't have any type of deadline, I don't really work detailed, or concentrated. However, when I don't have a deadline, I do exactly like you suggested - play from beginning to end, without having time to focus on details. It's the same when the deadline is too soon.

I really don't agree on the absent of details that you seem to suggest. Obviously, if one sits with a few bars for a week, there's something wrong. Though, I don't think it's too many details, but rather not focusing on what really should be done.

I usually learn the notes of a piece in a week or two, generally. After that, however, I don't put a deadline. I don't believe in pushing when the time of understanding of a piece may vary a lot.

[keypeg]

I was thinking about this some more, and reread the opening post.

...This is what made me realize the difference between amateur and professional. The amateur has all the time in the world the professional must work on a timetable.

But why can't we impose this professional time management on our students?

You are actually not talking about amateurs and professionals here, though.  You are talking about professional musicians and students.  That's the first important thing.

So what about these two?  The professional already has the need skills, and has a roster of pieces under his belt, to which he can add some more.  The professional will be performing, so he has to prepare for that performance.  The student is acquiring technical skills, and is generally in the process of learning on all fronts.  As a student when I am working on a piece, it is not to be able to perform it, but to learn from it by working on it.

If as a student for some reason I have to get a piece ready in a hurry in order to perform it soon for some unknown reason, I won't be working in the same way.  I might take shortcuts, and maybe jeopardize technique that's coming in, in the short run.  Generally I don't care to do that.  The professional already has the skills, so he isn't undermining anything.  As a student, I need to work methodically and toward a different set of goals.

I've already listed some of the kinds of things that I am learning.  To analyze a piece first to understand its nature, break it up and plan how to approach it in stages, and solve the problems or areas of difficulty - this kind of planning is what I understand is how professionals work.  So in a way it comes down to the same kind of thing Lostinidlewonder was talking about.  We have to have some kind of plan so that progress is not a random chaotic unpredictable thing.

I sometimes see teachers write about telling students to "practice 30 minutes/day" or "play these measures 10 times each day".  I think that could lead to some poor habits.  You watch the clock rather than working intelligently and with purpose.  You count how many times you did something rather than looking how you're doing it.  Is the real answer that of teaching students to work efficiently and intelligently?

[lostinidlewonder]

Thoughtful comments from everyone, great work!

Generally when under a dead line, you would work only on the material that is to be learnt/mastered within a specific time period and I do not recommend extending practice time to accomplish both the deadline and your favorite material.

Of course a deadline must be constructed to suit your lifestyle. I certainly think that extending practice time to accomplish your work faster is in fact a good thing if you can fit that into your life. Many people simply cannot give more time and that is ok.

You do not necessarily have to give more time but instead work in a more structured manner ensuring that you take notice of what you are actually accomplishing. Some people simply play through and might focus on small parts but if you asked them exactly what they need to complete it can be a little hazy for them to explain.

I agree that playing through whole piece is essential as well, especially at a solid tempo. However, that does not always come easily and when there are breaks in phrasing and clarity, which cause confusion and results in poor, unprofessional sound.

Yep that is when it is important to use tools to allow you to play through a piece with some degree of clarity. Many people slow down the tempo, but of course simplifying the music is not limited to just that.

How to approach a piece is one of the central things I am being taught presently.  It is the opposite of what you wrote.  First there is an overview to get a gist of what the piece is about, and find sections.  The most difficult is worked on first, and that is done in layers.  The first layer is notes, fingering which is also easy movement.  The second layer is timing, and the third starts going into dynamics and expression.  Of course your level and skills play a role too.

I don't think what I am saying is the opposite of how people normally study their music. What I am interested in is how you put this study into a timeline. Often with art if you do not make this a part of your work you can often spend too much time with the material. Some teachers expect students to play this perfectly before moving on, many people are like this when they learn peices, it must be to their satisfaction before they move on. This is a security blanket I have found, where it might be better just to move on once you can play something near acceptable and understand how to improve it. Often in time it will naturally improve itself the more you simply play through a piece (not practice small sections). Of course I do not suggest that you remove studying small parts but put this study into a timeline also so that you do not waste too much time looking at the leaf and forgetting about the tree and forest so to speak.

Learning the "raw material" of a piece reasonably up to tempo and in a more or less acceptable artistic fashion is done in the first or first two sessions and I stick to that task until it is accomplished. As Neuhaus says: If you want to boil water in a kettle to have a cup of tea, you heat the kettle until the water boils and you do that RIGHT NOW because you're thirsty. If I can't do that, I just put the piece aside as "temporarily impossible". Calling it "difficult" and work longer on it to get that "raw material" ready would be self-deception.

This is what I am talking about, the "raw material" learning the fingering, the notes and the basic technique to play the piece comfortably. To express the music with mastery takes time, once a piece is very very well known then you can say it is mastered. There are many pieces I know which I have played for over 20 years and I consider them really well known and truly mastered, but at the same time I can learn pieces in short time and play them at concert standard very fast because I can draw from past experiences. Of course if getting the raw material is evasive this will make mastering the piece very difficult.

Creating the artistic end result, though, may take years and years of slow practice for some pieces. Therefore, "deadlines' are NOT really part of my philosophy.

Certainly it takes many years to craft something that is totally effortless and expresses near to exactly what you want. But is this necessary? There are plenty of pieces I have played in concert that I only learned months before the event, but now of course I have played them for many many years.

Music grows and changes with you, we do not have to bring it to the utmost pinnacle of our ability and our expressive dreams all the time. So long we maintain contact with it, it will develop, improve and become our own. This process of course cannot be rushed, but you can certainly work harder to make it faster, you can certainly learn other pieces which help you master these. I can look back to when I was a child playing certain pieces which took me months to master, but now I can do it in one sitting, simply sight read and play with all the expression I want. It is instantly at the top class level that I want it to be. Of course I could memorize and remove the sheets but that would take time, there is no need for this all the time.

As performers we need to play not when we are ready but when the music is ready. To me there is a big difference. If we wait for ourselves to be ready this might take forever especially if you are a perfectionist and almost all serious musical students are perfectionists. So we must perform when the music is ready, that mean that it can be expressed effectively to others and does indeed reflect you as a performer. Timelines for me force us to abandon when WE think we are ready and forces us simply to allow the music to determine when we are ready or not.

I think that pushing for deadlines is inherently harmful, - always. Healthy discipline, though, using the max of your capabilities is always good. The problem is not to confuse those two.

Maybe you could elaborate why you think it is harmful I'd like to read about that.

Creating a timeline actually encourages discipline because if you miss out on practice sessions or practice lazily or ineffectively you might waste time and reduce your discipline. When I have a concert to work for I practice so damn hard because I am petrified to present something of bad quality to the public. Thus my timetable becomes a factor pushing me and urging me to do my best because there is no ifs or buts, the time is short and I have to beat it.

When you study with a teacher it is the same as working on a deadline. The teacher will leave you with work to solve for the next lesson and you have to work towards that, it is like a timeline in itself although not breaking down the work in a detailed fashion all the time. Most students improve with a teacher because they are working on some kind of deadline, but the thing is most lessons teachers do not focus the students attention to the fact that there is a deadline, and perhaps does not even elaborate on the micro steps or the time management to achieve it.

If I don't have any type of deadline, I don't really work detailed, or concentrated. However, when I don't have a deadline, I do exactly like you suggested - play from beginning to end, without having time to focus on details. It's the same when the deadline is too soon.

I am sure you mean "However, when I DO have a deadline...."

Yes it is difficult to focus on details if the deadline is short that is where we need to have good judgement as to what is the most important aspects of the piece that needs to be effectively mastered. It is a scary situation to put yourself in and it took me a while to get used to it because I am an extreme perfectionist. I had to simply play to a good level but not my utmost best level, because my best level taxes too much time. As I get older my best level will become more apparent when playing pieces I have known for years or pieces which reflect actions I have much experience with.  As an extreme example I was amazed when my own teacher would sightread piano concertos with super short notice for public performance (even though he had performed them before it still flabbergasted me!).

I really don't agree on the absent of details that you seem to suggest. Obviously, if one sits with a few bars for a week, there's something wrong. Though, I don't think it's too many details, but rather not focusing on what really should be done.

It might be a little confusing what I exactly mean by not focusing on small amounts of bars. Of course we need to do this but how much do we actually do this is important. I have found some students of mine can get overly focused on small parts and forget the larger picture. Where if they simply maintained the entire picture their detailed problems might indeed solve themselves. The entire picture for me is being able to play the piece in its entirety and also at an acceptable performance level. I find some students simply do not want to move on until they have completely mastered a passage or play it exactly how they want to, this to me is wasting time and at the end of your life you might have missed out on hundreds of works because of it. As a perfectionist this was the most difficult bridge to burn but once I did it it opened up my learning rate and sticking with it for some 15 years now I have found it was one of the greatest changes I ever made to my musical approach.

I usually learn the notes of a piece in a week or two, generally. After that, however, I don't put a deadline. I don't believe in pushing when the time of understanding of a piece may vary a lot.

I think this is a good way of working, get the notes and fingering out the way with a deadline. As highlighted by p2u  if this stage is takes a long time you are fooling yourself into learning the piece in an effective manner.
I was also in the same boat as you believnig that I should not push the time it takes me to master a piece and make it my own. Of course with many years passing and constant contact with a piece you will improve upon it constantly, but when do you stop? When do you get to a level where you say it is ready to perform? When do you move on to other works?

One other issue I found is that if you play a piece over and over again for many many years it certainly loses its "freshness". This is a strange situation but over practicing and connection with a piece can make you actually play the piece worse compared to if you simply moved on and brought it up to scratch when required.

But what is bringing a piece up to scratch? What is enough? This is an important question, once you determine it then you can go about creating timelines for mastery. It is important for performing artists to have a good idea of this otherwise they will never complete their projects and never perform. We don't perform when we think we have all our pieces at our maximum best, but certainly we perform when we are proud of our effort and confident our audience will enjoy it. Personally I am NEVER happy with how I play something, even things I have played for many years, but that is the perfectionist in me and I have found it is not important, especially for my audience.

...You are actually not talking about amateurs and professionals here, though.  You are talking about professional musicians and students.  That's the first important thing.

I don't really understand what you mean or what the difference is.
 

The student is acquiring technical skills, and is generally in the process of learning on all fronts.  As a student when I am working on a piece, it is not to be able to perform it, but to learn from it by working on it.

Many of my students who sit for exams have a deadline to work with and all my exam students I have a very detailed layout of their timeline. The majority of my exam students get the "A" marks because of this time pressure I put onto them to perform. A few students of mine also enter competitions and we follow the same strict routine. Some advanced students of mine who don't do exams or competitions however do not like to be given deadlines because they have no reason to work with it. There is no urgency in their work thus they can take all the time in the world to master something if that even interests them at all. The problem I find is that if you have no urgency in your work you simply will waste time. Humans are naturally lazy beings so it is often good to go against our nature in this respect, even if it goes against ever cell of our body!

I sometimes see teachers write about telling students to "practice 30 minutes/day" or "play these measures 10 times each day".  I think that could lead to some poor habits.  You watch the clock rather than working intelligently and with purpose.  You count how many times you did something rather than looking how you're doing it.  Is the real answer that of teaching students to work efficiently and intelligently?

This is a weak form of creating a deadline with very few little details. Like I said in my initial post I could not give a generalized form as to how to create deadlines because everyone is different and also I really do not want to write a thesis

[p2u_]

I think that pushing for deadlines is inherently harmful, - always. Healthy discipline, though, using the max of your capabilities is always good. The problem is not to confuse those two.

Maybe you could elaborate why you think it is harmful I'd like to read about that.

Deadlines imply FORCED GROWTH. Something as multi-faceted as growth and development in piano playing CANNOT be forced. NATURE won't allow you unless you are ready to suffer the negative consequences.
P.S.: If we are both talking about "taking pieces by storm", then that is a SKILL you can teach in the lesson. No deadlines required. No punishment for not meeting them.

Paul

[pts1]

This is a very interesting subject to me.

Having been badly damaged by "forced learning" in my youth, I am very much against deadlines and such.

Deadlines, classes, courses, home work, practice, etc., are artificial man made constructs mostly for the benefit of institutions and teachers, IMO.

You cannot learn faster than your mind and body can assimilate and absorb material.

Attempting this is rather like watering flowers in a pot and demanding they grow faster.

Neuronal growth in the brain goes at its own rate given optimum stimulation of repetition, and that's it.

Trying to maximize this to unrealistic levels only creates negative outcomes -- which get "learned deeply" along with the "good stuff".

I think competition -- which is really what deadlines are -- are inherently bad for  learning to play an instrument.

I have very long experience with the effects of forced learning, their negative consequences -- physically and psychologically -- and the great effort it takes to correct these things.

Students, IMO, should be able to grow at the rate that is natural for them without the threat of force or coercion and its implied punishment.

Of course, this is inconvenient for the teacher, since that teacher is going to have to truly be flexible and innovative regarding his/her students, instead of using the traditional meat grinder approach which has been and remains the mainstay of many institutions and individuals.

[p2u_]

Creating a timeline actually encourages discipline because if you miss out on practice sessions or practice lazily or ineffectively you might waste time and reduce your discipline.

I want to react to this in a separate post and from different viewpoints for you to think about.

"Laziness", also called "sloth", is thought of as one of the seven deadly sins in our culture. I see this phenomenon differently though. I believe that laziness is one of those crazy self-protection mechanisms human beings have for their own benefit. The problem is, of course, to take responsibility for the consequences of that laziness in a society that abhors it, but that's an entirely different story.

"Discipline" is supposed to be the secret weapon against the deadly sin. I have nothing against discipline as long as it is healthy and positive. I've said that before.

"Deadlines" are supposed to enforce discipline. No results means punishment. I am convinced, though, that deadlines do not necessarily encourage healthy discipline. On the contrary! The people that come to me for comfort are basically all victims of the "deadline" culture. They have either injured themselves through unhealthy hyper-activity or, at the other end of the scale, have developed laziness and apathy in an attempt to protect themselves from the aggressive system, and they no longer believe in their own abilities.

Paul

[keypeg]

Of course, this is inconvenient for the teacher, since that teacher is going to have to truly be flexible and innovative regarding his/her students, instead of using the traditional meat grinder approach which has been and remains the mainstay of many institutions and individuals.

I would have thought that in private lessons, of all places, an aware teacher could teach exactly according to what is needed, both for what the music and instrument hold, and according to the student who is right there.  And then we have this culture that is saturated with its grades and comparisons and the pressure is there again for the same kind of nonsense.

[j_menz]

Measuring how long it takes to learn a piece suggests that there is a point where one has finished doing so.

I have never managed to learn a piece if that is true. Anything I have ever played has continued to yield new meaning, things I hadn't noticed, changes in perception and resonances. As I grow and change, so the piece grows and changes.

[keypeg]

Keypeg: How to approach a piece is one of the central things I am being taught presently.  It is the opposite of what you wrote.  ...
I don't think what I am saying is the opposite of how people normally study their music.  

I was referring to approach, and on the surface the approach I'm taught is opposite to some of the approach you are proposing.  For example:
- You start with the easiest part first, I'm learning to start with the hardest first
- You have students play the piece through, I'm learning not to do that on the whole
These are superficial details, because if you're avoiding people being hung up on small details, while I'm moving past skimming, we'll meet in the middle.  The approach I've acquired ends up making progress faster, which is your goal.

Some teachers expect students to play this perfectly before moving on, many people are like this when they learn pieces, it must be to their satisfaction before they move on. This is a security blanket I have found, where it might be better just to move on once you can play something near acceptable and understand how to improve it.

Agreed.

Often in time it will naturally improve itself the more you simply play through a piece (not practice small sections).  

The way I'm working as a student, when I let go of a piece, I go on to other things which give me more skills.  When  I go back later to the piece, then I have more skills with which to approach it.

Most students improve with a teacher because they are working on some kind of deadline, but the thing is most lessons teachers do not focus the students attention to the fact that there is a deadline...

I prefer to work toward goals, not deadlines.  For example: Know these notes and be able to play them smoothly.  Solve the technical problem in this measure by applying the approach that was shown, using these stages.   go through these steps over 5 days along a plan.  You see things develop, and that is encouraging.

...You are actually not talking about amateurs and professionals here, though.  You are talking about professional musicians and students.  That's the first important thing.
I don't really understand what you mean or what the difference is.

Seriously?  A student is somebody who is learning how to play.  An amateur is somebody who plays for the fun of it.  A professional musician might be a student with an advanced teacher.  An amateur might not be studying with anyone.

The distinction is important because of the GOALS.  As a student, the purpose of my practising and my lessons is to gain skills.  The completion of a piece in and of itself is not a goal.  What I can learn from working on the piece in a particular manner, along goals provided by my teacher, is the important thing.  The performer, however, is working on the piece in order to perform it.  The amateur performer, likewise.

 Humans are naturally lazy beings  

I disagree.  If it were so, no baby would learn to walk or talk.

However, when you start imposing exams, competitions, grades in school, rewards and such things, then you can destroy the motivation and interest that is natural to human beings.

[kujiraya]

Can I get a concrete example of how this works, ie, how you'd work out how long you'd give someone to learn a piece? Eg, if someone can already play the Chopin Ballades, how long (approximately) would you give him/her to learn the Chopin Barcarolle? Or choose your own repertoire examples if you prefer. Cheers.

[p2u_]

Measuring how long it takes to learn a piece suggests that there is a point where one has finished doing so.

I have never managed to learn a piece if that is true. Anything I have ever played has continued to yield new meaning, things I hadn't noticed, changes in perception and resonances. As I grow and change, so the piece grows and changes.

What you say is true for the artistic end result. I don't think LiiW is talking about that. What he has in mind (if I understood it correctly) is very much like sightreading, but a level further: doing everything "right" and with a more or less acceptable result as quickly as possible; the water boiling thing I talked about. How to make a piece ready (=boil the water in a kettle) for a masterclass (=to brew tea) so to speak. To my mind, this is clearly a SKILL that needs to be learned and is NOT served by imposing deadlines. Sending a student home with 5-6 pieces that have to be ready in X days assumes that this skill of "taking a piece by storm" is already present in the student, while it is not most of the time.

Paul

[keypeg]

I had lessons on another instrument first, and from that experience I got specific ideas of what kinds of things I'd want to learn when I started piano.  Now piano was something I had played self-taught as a child without having learned anything formal, and I didn't want to base myself on that thirty years later.  So it was like being a beginner, but harder in some ways because you have habits.  I think the kinds of things I was after also give answers to the goals in this thread.

I wanted to learn technique in the sense of having efficient ways of moving at the piano, and a decent setup so that this wouldn't block things.    Some understanding of music (theory etc. in a practical way) which helps in working on the music.  Reading abilities.  But above all, how to approach a piece to develop it, how to practice, how to work on problems or goals, how to organize this - strategy, etc.

If you try to "play piece X nicely by a given date", that goal is overwhelming and fuzzy.  If you plan to work on this group of measures, then that group of measures, achieving  a given first thing, then you know what you are doing.  If you then know HOW you will proceed to get there, then it's more refined.  Some of the things I learned seem slower at the onset, but when there is something solid underneath, then the rest of it comes together rather fast.

I've been mulling over LiiW's dislike of detail.  I think I see it.  One can obsess about a tiny little corner forever and never get anywhere, except for that perfect tiny corner.  I think you have to have an overview - an overall plan - and then go into details up to what you can afford to do according to the plan - and then resurface back to the overall thing.

I also think that students have an extra component.  A performer has all the skills, and then he uses them.  A student is still getting skills.  Like supposing that I don't read music well, but I have a good ear and could speed up the process of learning the piece via recordings.  The piece will be faster, but my reading will stay weak.  As students we sometimes have to focus on our greatest weakness, which takes a lot longer, in order to get it all in balance.  Otoh, if I were performing and had a deadline, I would NOT do that.  This is also the difference in my mind between students on one hand, and performers - both professional and amateur - on the other.

[danhuyle]

What about the technique to learn a piece they teach at university?

A lot of university teachers here in Australia are accomplished pianists, and what they teach is

- Bach Prelude and Fugue or 2 Scarlatti Sonatas
- Complete Beethoven Sonata
- Chopin Nocturne
- Debussy Prelude

Basically what you do is learn those same piece from February to your the day of your exam in November.

Get everything perfect and with their guidance, you will "blow the examiner away". That's all a student is taught in a one year time frame.

Same procedure applies to those going through AMEB or ABRSM. It's always been that way and many virtuoso pianists are created because of this powerful method.

The truth is - classical music is extremely is hard music to learn and "get right"

[j_menz]

What about the technique to learn a piece they teach at university?

A lot of university teachers here in Australia are accomplished pianists, and what they teach is

- Bach Prelude and Fugue or 2 Scarlatti Sonatas
- Complete Beethoven Sonata
- Chopin Nocturne
- Debussy Prelude

Basically what you do is learn those same piece from February to your the day of your exam in November.

Get everything perfect and with their guidance, you will "blow the examiner away". That's all a student is taught in a one year time frame.

Same procedure applies to those going through AMEB or ABRSM. It's always been that way and many virtuoso pianists are created because of this powerful method.

They may do that for grade 7 or 8, otherwise what you say is complete rubbish.

I also note that you don't practice this method, going by your signature.

[danhuyle]

I don't like the method I was taught at University. Too repetitive over a span of 35 lessons.

It's subjective to say how long it takes to learn a piece.

On the 1st page of the music, write a date when you started to learn the piece, then measure from that.

I make zero progress on pieces I learn in the first 6 months of learning a new piece. In this time frame, I look for the hardest passage and tackle that first while playing the other parts slowly. It's the hardest passages of a piece that make the entire piece worth learning. 

That's how long I take to learn pieces, if not longer.