Listening to a piece before learning it.

[kittyboo]

I was on Amazon.com reading reviews of some Schirmer Performance Editions that include CD's.  I was a little puzzled by a review of one of Schirmer's Kabalevsky books.  I believe it was "24 Pieces for Children."  One lady who reviewed the book thought it was great, but she wished that it didn't come with a CD.  She said that she didn't want her children listening to a piece before learning it.

She's the parent.  If she doesn't want to allow her children to listen to a piece before learning it, she doesn't have to, even if the book comes with a CD.

But what do you think of her idea?

[gvans]

IMO, there is limited creativity involved in the process of interpreting classical music, as compared to composing you own music, writing fiction, playing jazz, etc. What little creativity you get to express comes from reading the score and playing your interpretation. To listen to someone else's interpretation, especially early on, can sap this. I think, at least for advanced performers, one should avoid listening to others until one is ready to listen to several other interpretations and until one already has one's own ideas in place.

Others, no doubt, will disagree.

[dima_76557]

But what do you think of her idea?

It only makes sense to me if she could get a refund on the CDs.

As for the methodological approach: I cannot agree with young people wasting time on trying to create their own ideas in well-known repertoire, which are usually rejected anyway as "immature" etc. Here is a quote from Salvador Dali about the learning process in art:

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.

[j_menz]

I don't see the problem with listening to a piece first. It solves some problems for a student, particularly, in terms of rhythm, speed and sound. If it's done with a view to then applying that, and also learning the "why" behind it it's a positive and useful experience.

One of the things students need to learn is how to interpret a piece - it's not usually something they're born with - and so learning what someone else did i9 coming up with an interpretation can be extremely useful. Not just a "it should sound like this so copy it exactly" approach, but a "at this point this performer made these decisions, why?, and do you agree?".

Of course people should also be able to play pieces straight off the page but we need to learn quite a bit to get to that point.

[outin]

Of course people should also be able to play pieces straight off the page but we need to learn quite a bit to get to that point.

I noticed that when I only played pieces I had listened to before I became lazy to read everything on the page (things like dynamics were already fixed in my head). I can practice a piece for some time and only later notice that there's something written between the staffs...when I finally do I feel like an idiot. So I think it's good to learn pieces from the scratch every now and then, even in the early stages  (just pick pieces that are appropriate).
It's also quite interesting to hear recordings afterwards and notice how different/similar it is.

[j_menz]

I think it's good to learn pieces from the scratch every now and then, even in the early stages 

Agreed.  Both are useful, though.

Not being able to pick something up without having heard it before means there's music out there that will be completely inaccessible. Less so now with YT and so forth, but still true. And there are plenty of gems in that list.

And there's a lot of music out there that one cannot play from scratch, at least without a lobotomy or some such.

[gvans]

There's a lot of music out there that one cannot play from scratch, at least without a lobotomy or some such.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.