Is finger strength a myth?

[lostinidlewonder]

That's fine for her. The problem is you only made one rule for all.

It is a rule for all that the more piece you learn the better you will become.

I used to play in the same approximate way she did, when I was a teenager- playing tonnes of repertoire without attention to quality of detail. It didn't give me technique

This is where you are delusional. Learning lots of pieces with suboptimal technique is a key part to everyones learning experience. You then can improve. You don't just play perfectly immediately, nor do you aim to attain perfect technique  with all your pieces, rather play them somewhat controlled and increase your experience base.

- so apologies for aspiring to more than butchering my way through loads repertoire, as I did at that stage of my life.

You should not deny others the experience too as it will damage their musical journey.

If she enjoys what she does that's fine by me. But if you think tearing through loads of pieces works for more professional technique, you've missed the point and need to open your eyes. Quality dictates whether quantity is beneficial.

You need to open your damn eyes, you have no idea where this lady came from or how far she has progressed. You are making yourself look more and more stupid thinking that looking at how a random plays means anything at all.

[pianoman53]

You have to see what an hypocrite. But I guess you don't, which is both funny and sad... But mostly sad.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok you pay all the attention you like on one piece and become a master lol. QUALITY AND QUANTITY and Quantity is much more important than quality by comparison. Someone who has mastered 3 pieces to expert level will play AND LEARN (very important its not all about playing) worse than someone who plays 100 pieces at an average level.

I had 100s of pieces sloppily learned in my teenage years. Who defines average and why those particular numbers? What about having 10 pieces learned to a good standard vs 100 sloppy ones? And at what point does that pianist ever play something well? Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't trade three expertly mastered performances for 100 ordinary and sloppy ones. If you learn 100 pieces without getting beyond average, there's not much hope for the future until something changes drastically.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is a rule for all that the more piece you learn the better you will become.

Not my experience. I played sloppily until I slowed down and went for quality. I became more polished in my best playing and also a finer sightreader. If you're not backing down- give evidence and reasoning, not mere assertions that you are a voice of fact. Why do you suppose I actually got better by looking for quality? Maybe quality actually counts? Or not?

I told you- if you want to see her progress look at the more recent videos of hers. No obvious sign that her wide repertoire has developed her technique, whatsoever. Throwing sh*t doesn't make technique stick.

[lostinidlewonder]

I had 100s of pieces sloppily learned in my teenage years. Who defines average and why those particular numbers? What about having 10 pieces learned to a good standard vs 100 sloppy ones? And at what point does that pianist ever play something well? Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't trade three expertly mastered performances for 100 ordinary and sloppy ones. If you learn 100 pieces without getting beyond average, there's not much hope for the future until something changes drastically.

Where did i say SLOPPY PLAYING should be condoned? I said somewhat controlled. Your fingerings and accuracy should be there but one should not push for perfect technique, an efficiency where it feels like you are doing no work at all, this touch comes in time the more music you learn and the more you feel this in action.

Give me a student with 100 pieces under their belt any day, they will pulverize any student who has only done 3 to a high standard in terms of learning capability.

[lostinidlewonder]

I played sloppily until I slowed down and went for quality. I became more polished in my best playing and also a finer sightreader. If you're not backing down- give evidence and reasoning, not mere assertions that you are a voice of fact. Why do you suppose I actually got better by looking for quality? Maybe quality actually counts? Or not?

Why should I give evidence if your experience base agrees with what I am saying anyway? You have learned many pieces already and played them suboptimal, then you improved. That is the action that occurs with all good teaching. No one learns perfectly from the start, we do things not completely right and improve it. Unless you want to be a parrot?

I told you- if you want to see her progress look at the more recent videos of hers. No obvious sign that her wide repertoire has developed her technique, whatsoever. Throwing sh*t doesn't make technique stick.

You are missing the point, no one knows how much her technique has improved unless they are her teacher or observed her ability from the start of her journey to now. You taking this lady under the microscope really highlights your short sightedness and rudeness.

[nyiregyhazi]

Where did i say SLOPPY PLAYING should be condoned? I said somewhat controlled. Your fingerings and accuracy should be there but one should not push for perfect technique, an efficiency where it feels like you are doing no work at all, this touch comes in time the more music you learn and the more you feel this in action.

Give me a student with 100 pieces under their belt any day, they will pulverize any student who has only done 3 to a high standard in terms of learning capability.

Sure- I learned pieces quickly. But never played anything truly well or comfortably. Who wants to hear that? And maybe we could dispense with your figures and try for 10 to a high standard? I don't believe aiming for quality means that only 3 pieces are possible. Why are you choosing such skewed figures- and ignoring such obvious scope for middle ground in which better attainment is possible via less than 100 pieces? How about if that pianist practised 50 pieces twice as hard and with twice as much guidance? 100 still wins because it's more?

[nyiregyhazi]

You are missing the point, no one knows how much her technique has improved unless they are her teacher or observed her ability from the start of her journey to now. You taking this lady under the microscope really highlights your short sightedness and rudeness.

On your premise, she should learn all the rest of the Beethoven sonatas. Personally, I think she could start by aiming for quality articulation on that one, before adding another 31 sonatas to her schedule.

Why should I give evidence if your experience base agrees with what I am saying anyway? You have learned many pieces already and played them suboptimal, then you improved. That is the action that occurs with all good teaching. No one learns perfectly from the start, we do things not completely right and improve it. Unless you want to be a parrot?Huh

Most if occurred under no teaching. Is that the best route?

[lostinidlewonder]

Sure- I learned pieces quickly. But never played anything truly well or comfortably. Who wants to hear that?

It is a matter of development not performance so it wouldn't matter who wants to hear it.

And maybe we could dispense with your figures and try for 10 to a high standard? I don't believe aiming for quality means that only 3 pieces are possible. Why are you choosing such skewed figures- and ignoring such obvious scope for middle ground in which better attainment is possible via less than 100 pieces? How about if that pianist practised 50 pieces twice as hard and with twice as much guidance?

The number is irrelevant, the idea of focusing on small amount of pieces to play them to master level is not the most efficient way to learn your music. This is not to say you shouldn't do it but your main focus needs to be experience base, learning as much as you can, getting to know the general procedure at the piano and the general way in which we learn music and how it improves over time. This action is important not just focusing on technique.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is a matter of development not performance so it wouldn't matter who wants to hear it.
The number is irrelevant, the idea of focusing on small amount of pieces to play them to master level is not the most efficient way to learn your music. This is not to say you shouldn't do it but your main focus needs to be experience base, learning as much as you can, getting to know the general procedure at the piano and the general way in which we learn music and how it improves over time. This action is important not just focusing on technique.

And then you go back and relearn how to really play from scratch? I wouldn't recommend what I had to go through to anyone- and I was supposedly at distinction level for grade 8, not among those who scrape through with a narrow pass based on "average" attainment. It would be terrible for someone in such a position to start understanding what quality actually means so late on.

[lostinidlewonder]

On your premise, she should learn all the rest of the Beethoven sonatas. Personally, I think she could start by aiming for quality articulation on that one, before adding another 31 sonatas to her schedule.

No my premise is that you should not be looking at how other pianists play and pretend to think you know exactly their musical journey and capability and make statements on piano learning based on videos from another pianist who you don't even know.

She can learn many pieces easier than Beethoven Sonatas to make Beethoven easier for her for sure, i could suggest many pieces from so many composers. That is what a real music teacher does, they know so much of the repertoire out there they can give many pieces which will help a student play pieces they desire. There would be no harm sight reading through all of Beethoven Sonatas, it would certainly help playing his style but it is not the only approach as I have mentioned already.

[lostinidlewonder]

And then you go back and relearn how to really play from scratch?

No, go learn how to teach piano and you might understand I am not going to give a lecture on how to teach.

I wouldn't recommend what I had to go through to anyone- and I was supposedly at distinction level for grade 8, not among those who scrape through with a narrow pass. It would be terrible for someone in such a position to start understanding what quality means so late on.

You can learn about quality while learning many pieces, in fact your concept of quality is much better because you have more pieces to describe quality with.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can learn about quality while learning many pieces, in fact your concept of quality is much better because you have more pieces to describe quality with.

Actually, my concept of quality was skewed by spreading myself so thin that I had could not possibly have both paid attention to details and maintained so many pieces. Constantly asserting these things as if factual is not the way to discuss things. You certainly won't persuade someone who experienced the opposite of such a subjective assertion for themself by asserting something that did not happen.

Use some common sense- you didn't even set a boundary. Will a pianist who is learning 100 programmes of virtuoso repertoire at once understand quality better? No. So you need to stop emphasing quantity and establish a realistic and meaningful level of compromise between quality and quantity, to even begin to have a meaningful (rather than grossly one-sided and unrealistic) case. Shouting quantity from the rooftops will not lead anywhere, when reality is about compromise and balance.

[j_menz]

Isn't our concept of quality something that develops over time? Not just our ability to achieve quality, but our understanding of what it is? How do you learn to do something before you know what it is you're supposed to be learning to do?

[lostinidlewonder]

Isn't our concept of quality something that develops over time? Not just our ability to achieve quality, but our understanding of what it is? How do you learn to do something before you know what it is you're supposed to be learning to do?

Exactly true!

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly true!

How is practising loads of pieces which are not understood the answer? I find it helps to show the beginner student how to understand the goal for smaller quantities- rather than send a beginner to go and practise 10 pieces without even knowing what they are practising torwards. That becomes useful only if they do understand what they are striving for. What use is getting rhythms wrong in ten pieces you don't understand when you can show them how to understand what rhythms actually mean for themself in a smaller number?

[j_menz]

What use is getting rhythms wrong in ten pieces you don't understand when you can show them how to understand what rhythms actually mean for themself in a smaller number?

Using this as an example, rhythm is a general concept, and can't be learnt just by doing one or two examples - you need quantity to get the general solution and start to feel the beat, and the varieties of beats. That said, concrete examples need to be worked on so that they are correct. Just doing lots of pieces with no sense of rhythm won't get you anywhere either. The approach I would advocate is to learn some small number of specific examples so that they were right - perhaps not perfect, but pretty damn close. And then apply that to a wide range of examples - both to get it to really sink in as a general thing, and to show up instances where what you have learnt is inadequate.

The quantity/quality matter seems to me something of a false dichotomy. One should aim for both, but both within reason. Quantity without sufficient quality is just wasted effort, and aiming for quality beyond what experience - breadth of experience - allows is bound to lead to frustration and futility.

[dima_76557]

Isn't our concept of quality something that develops over time? Not just our ability to achieve quality, but our understanding of what it is? How do you learn to do something before you know what it is you're supposed to be learning to do?

Quality is not something to wait for until you can play lots of repertoire. It should be there from the very start and never leave you. Yes, the perception of quality GROWS with time, but it doesn't come by itself unless we constantly focus on it. As an example of early quality achievement (the repertoire is in itself not impressively difficult), here is Daniil Trifonov at 8:

[j_menz]

Quality is not something to wait for until you can play lots of repertoire. It should be there from the very start and never leave you. Yes, the perception of quality GROWS with time, but it doesn't come by itself unless we constantly focus on it.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, though the raw materials may vary from person to person.

[dima_76557]

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, though the raw materials may vary from person to person.

But doesn't that depend a lot on the teacher who continues pressing on with repertoire without requiring a minimum kind of quality? Here is a clip of a conservatory student in Valencia who (thinks he) can play wild pieces by Liszt and Rachmaninoff, but who can't seem to follow straightforward instructions in "simple" Mozart stuff. I'm sorry that there is no English translation available for this clip, but everything speaks for itself. Bashkirov almost loses his temper, but then later admits that everybody should learn quality in Mozart and Chopin, so that their Rachmaninoff won't sound like the work of a second-rate composer:

[outin]

ooops!

[ahinton]

Ye gods! WHAT a thread! And what a lot of ******s therein, seasoned only occasionally by little soupçons of good sense.

OK, so time for a non-pianist to throw in his two cents' worth (if indeed it IS worth that much).

Whilst merely reading as intelligently as possible through sheaves of repertoire from composer/pianists for the purposes of discovering as much as possible about what makes them and their work tick (as I spent hundreds of hours doing during my student days) is obviously not the same as practising such material with a view to performance, one thing that my experience did not teach me is how it might be possible to do as I did without developing (albeit somewhat unmethodically and fragmentarily) some aspects of mécanique (a term that I prefer to "technique" in this particular context), not least the subject of this thread, finger strength.

Despite having no natural gift for piano playing, I determined to plough through all this material because I wanted to discover as much as I could about piano writing from the great performer/composers so that, hopefully, a little of it might rub off on me as a composer. To this end, I made myself trawl not only through hours of Liszt and Chopin but also everything of Alkan that I could lay my hands on, as well as the Lyapunov studies, Rachmaninov, Medtner, Busoni and - perhaps above all (well, it certainly felt that way given how long it all took!) the complete Chopin/Godowsky studies; I defy anyone to try to do all of that, however badly and then tell me me that finger strength (and, of course, much more besides) is a "myth" and of little comparative importance in the greater scheme of things! No, I didn't do all this to develop finger strength, but then by the same token I rather doubt that Alkan and Godowsky did that kind of thing with just that goal in mind either.

OK, back to all you pianists! - but please try to keep the discussion civil, honest and realistic otherwise it will help few but bore many.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

How is practising loads of pieces which are not understood the answer?

I don't think anyone said learn heaps of pieces in a sloppy, misunderstood way.

I find it helps to show the beginner student how to understand the goal for smaller quantities- rather than send a beginner to go and practise 10 pieces without even knowing what they are practising torwards.

No teacher gives 10 pieces to a student and not explain what they should do. Fantasy situation of your creation again.

That becomes useful only if they do understand what they are striving for. What use is getting rhythms wrong in ten pieces you don't understand when you can show them how to understand what rhythms actually mean for themself in a smaller number?

Who is talking about rhythm? Who is saying that people go off and learn many pieces but totally not understand anything they are doing?

[thalbergmad]

My piles have returned.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

My piles have returned.

Thal

Share pictures of it here, would be more interesting lol

[kevin69]

What? You've honestly never once had the experience of hearing a piece of music and feeling a burning urge to play it at any cost?

i suspect that this is a major difference between those who learnt to play an instrument as children and those who learnt as adults.

If you learnt to play as a child, you probably can't remember listening to music with no thought as to how it could be performed.

I, however, listened to music for over 30 years before picking up an instrument, and so i only think of playing music that i'm listening to though an effort of will. And so no, i've never had a burning urge to play a piece of music while i'm listening to it. If i enjoy listening to a piece, i want to listen to it again. If i enjoy playing a piece, i want to play it again. The feelings are quite distinct for me and there are pieces i enjoy playing that sound quite uninteresting when played by others (even when they play it much better than me).

[ahinton]

My piles have returned.

I'm sorry to hear this; do you think that this might be affected by your finger strength?

Actually, I initially read this as referring to piles of scores for scanning, but then I saw what you meant.

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think anyone said learn heaps of pieces in a sloppy, misunderstood way.
No teacher gives 10 pieces to a student and not explain what they should do. Fantasy situation of your creation again.

You said before:

It is a rule for all that the more piece you learn the better you will become.

I'm afraid that such an attitude (without ANY clarification of the manner in which pacing occurs) promotes slopiness by proxy. When I played tonnes of pieces poorly, I don't recall deciding I'd do them sloppily. I just did because I wasn't properly focussed on what it takes to achieve quality. The problem is that most teachers don't give their students 24 hours of lessons per week in which to achieve quality in reams of repertoire. So they aim primarily for quality and don't push quantity to the detriment of quality.

So, maybe this is the point where instead of shouting on and on about quantity alone- you could give a rational and thought-out explanation of how you would pace quality and quantity against each other (which is the only area even worthy of debate)? Preferably without either cackling to yourself or making insults.

[nyiregyhazi]

I, however, listened to music for over 30 years before picking up an instrument, and so i only think of playing music that i'm listening to though an effort of will. And so no, i've never had a burning urge to play a piece of music while i'm listening to it. If i enjoy listening to a piece, i want to listen to it again. If i enjoy playing a piece, i want to play it again. The feelings are quite distinct for me and there are pieces i enjoy playing that sound quite uninteresting when played by others (even when they play it much better than me).

I must say that it surprises me that you'd never go on to want to play music you've loved. One thing that particularly pleases me is when I find transcriptions of music for orchestra, which isn't even supposed to be played on the piano. I find it immensely satisfying to discover music that I could only enjoy listening to can also be played.

It's an interesting point that are examples of pieces I like listening to that don't inspire me at all to if I play them and vice versa- but I couldn't imagine a world where they were separate issues and I never heard music and then felt I had to experience it for myself.

[nyiregyhazi]

Using this as an example, rhythm is a general concept, and can't be learnt just by doing one or two examples - you need quantity to get the general solution and start to feel the beat, and the varieties of beats. That said, concrete examples need to be worked on so that they are correct. Just doing lots of pieces with no sense of rhythm won't get you anywhere either. The approach I would advocate is to learn some small number of specific examples so that they were right - perhaps not perfect, but pretty damn close. And then apply that to a wide range of examples - both to get it to really sink in as a general thing, and to show up instances where what you have learnt is inadequate.

The quantity/quality matter seems to me something of a false dichotomy. One should aim for both, but both within reason. Quantity without sufficient quality is just wasted effort, and aiming for quality beyond what experience - breadth of experience - allows is bound to lead to frustration and futility.

Yes- of course. The only thing worthy of even debating is the matter of balance.

On the rhthymic issue though, I think students should have their own understanding early. It's what allows them press on forwards without having to copy from the teacher. I wouldn't want a student to even be trying something they didn't understand the rhythm of. Absolutely agreed on  getting small numbers of things right. Quality must be expected from day one- in both this area and others. Once basics are down, it may turn out that the student can go off ahead and do the majority of a method book for themself. But if they try to force that without mastering pieces on the way then the results are terrible.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on Today at 06:51:03 PM
I don't think anyone said learn heaps of pieces in a sloppy, misunderstood way.
No teacher gives 10 pieces to a student and not explain what they should do. Fantasy situation of your creation again.

It is a rule for all that the more piece you learn the better you will become.

I'm afraid that such an attitude (without ANY clarification of the manner in which pacing occurs) promotes slopiness by proxy.

Only YOU are afraid, it is not something that is true for everyone else. Learning many pieces will help develop you unavoidably even if you are doing it badly. If you are doing it badly then your ability is bad to start with as you play more pieces you will improve upon it as your experience base grows. This is not to say simply learning heaps of pieces is all you do, yes it will improve you but you can do many other things to act as a catalyst to your improvement, that is not what I am discussing. It is a simple fact that the more examples you learn the better you will become. What the exact definition of "better" is is unimportant, compare how you play when you know 1 piece to when you know 10 pieces you will be better.

When I played tonnes of pieces poorly, I don't recall deciding I'd do them sloppily. I just did because I wasn't properly focussed on what it takes to achieve quality.

What is this "proper focus"? You must shape your technique and musicality through the pieces you play. You understand your own two hands the more pieces you play, you understand how to learn music and how music is constructed the more pieces you learn. Even if your playing is sloppy your music thinking is improved by far, you can read better, you can memorize your notes more effectively etc etc etc a whole list of important skills. Just being able to play well should not be the main focus if you want to be a complete musician rather than a parrot who just plays a small amount of pieces well.

So, maybe this is the point where instead of shouting on and on about quantity alone- you could give a rational and thought-out explanation of how you would pace quality and quantity against each other (which is the only area even worthy of debate)? Preferably without either cackling to yourself or making insults.

Go learn to teach im not going to teach you how to balance quality and quantity that is not the issue. The issue is that quantity alone will improve you no matter how bad you are. Quantity allows you to then appreciate quality better. Who is to say that your only learning experience in piano should be to study quantity? There are many ways in which you should improve yourself and studying quantity alone is certainly one which will improve you unavoidably in many ways not just playing ability.

[nyiregyhazi]

No teacher gives 10 pieces to a student and not explain what they should do. Fantasy situation of your creation again.

So clarify what you ARE suggesting.

It is a rule for all that the more piece you learn the better you will become.

So why not give 10 pieces? Such strongly worded statements do nothing to clarify what you are trying to say for yourself. talk about pacing.

Only YOU are afraid, it is not something that is true for everyone else. Learning many pieces will help develop you unavoidably even if you are doing it badly. If you are doing it badly then your ability is bad to start with as you play more pieces you will improve upon it as your experience base grows.

So why waste time playing a piece a second time? Why waste time on talking about quality in teaching? Why not do another piece badly right away? Are not realising that until you soften the extremity of your stance and appreciate the nature of needing to balance quality and quantity- there is no way to interpret such strongly worded statements, other than that you should jump straight from one piece to another without polishing anything.

What is this "proper focus"? You must shape your technique and musicality through the pieces you play.

By doing them "badly"? Talk about having your cake and eating it...

Just being able to play well should not be the main focus if you want to be a complete musician rather than a parrot who just plays a small amount of pieces well.

Silly me for caring about quality.

[lostinidlewonder]

So clarify what you ARE suggesting.

Fine. Lets scratch the surface a little

How does one measure their ability at the piano? I wouldn't say it is measured by the amount of music memorized or even the difficulty of the music you can play, although these are good indicators. I find a better reflection of ones ability is the rate in which they master their music. Quality and Quantity is a reflection of an advanced piano ability.

What is advanced Quality and Quantity?
Quality is defined as concert standard pieces, that includes pieces could fit in a concert hall of a paying audience. Someones Quality could be defined by looking at the programs of music that could be created out of their repertoire.
    Quantity is a more difficult term to give an exact number to. I would say if it took you on average 9 hours to initially memorize (not master or play at tempo, and with at least a very high % accuracy without dependence on the sheets) a single Chopin Etude this is an advanced Quantity rate.

Quality and Quantity but produced without mastery.
What if there is Quality and Quantity but is produced with inferior technique and/or with poor musical expression? One can argue that you can always improve on how you play a piece, but there is a certain level that one can reach where their ability starts to entertain most people. But what if you do not play at this level and that people who hear you play cannot stand listening to you? Certainly if one has the ability to learn music at a fast rate the can now start to sacrifice rate of learning and start developing expressive/interpretive musical ability.

Quality and Quantity but produced with mastery.
Pianists who learn their music fast and produce it with very high musical quality are certainly in the advanced region. Someone who has an encyclopedic memory of all piano styles and can sight read almost everything with great expression would be considered a grandmaster of piano. Advanced pianists have to make improvements and important decisions with their Quality and Quanitity output to further develop themselves towards the ideal grandmaster state.

Quality or Quantity alone restricts your musical development.
Many people who consider themselves advanced pianists consider themselves so because of how well they can express their quality. They do not worry about how long it takes for them to learn a piece so long it is done right and played the way they want it to. This is a big insecurity that needs to be overcome to produce greatest musical improvement. One will have to sacrifice fine tuning musical expression and start simply memorizing their music faster.

Simply learning a lot of music but playing them without mastery will hinder your technical and musical interpretation development. As you get older you simply will not be able to deal with technical inefficiencies, one has to develop an efficient effortless technique that can last a lifetime. As musicians we should be interested in presenting our music in a musical way, people are not just interested in the notes, but the way in which the notes are expressed. It is like a public speech, imagine if Martin Luther King spoke monotonous and without any rhythm or pause! As a musician you look very limited if your “musical talk” is simply dictated without expression. You also seem limited if you look very tired or your body moves inefficiently as you play the piano.

One may also learn a lot of easy music in a fast rate (this fast rate depends on the exact difficulty of the pieces learned). In this case they should aim to increase the difficulty level of their music to improve the quality of their pieces. This will not require them to slow down on their Quantity output, rather the tools used to produce their Quantity will be tested upon more difficult quality work grounds.

Striving for balance in Quality or Quantity.
There is a balance of Quality and Quantity that needs to be struck up if one wants to achieve an advanced level. If one gives bias to one or the other they will limit their lifetime musical development. To achieve balance we need to sacrifice our effort we are comfortable with and focus on the other side which we have been neglecting. We simply must act against what we are giving bias to. Once a balance is somewhat struck up then we can increase both together, however as the difficulty level of Quality increases it naturally slows down the output of Quanitity, that does not mean that the Quantity rate has slowed down, the tools are simply used in more difficult grounds which take take more work to complete.

Lacking in both Quality and Quantity.
If you cannot play any concert standard pieces and you learn your easier music at a slow rate then you are lacking in both Quality and Quantity. A beginner would be someone who learn easy music but it takes a long time. Of course the intensity of beginners vary, if someone struggles with one handed pieces then they are a very early beginner, if someone struggles with a easy/moderate Mozart sonata they might be a beginner/early intermediate, it depends on the pieces you play and the length of time needed to learn them.

Quality of your work is related to what would be considered acceptable in a public concert. A 4 year old for example would get away with performing "easier" pieces in concert than a 20 year old. So this means that the quality of a young child is different to that of an adult.

Also quality level changes depending on your your physical makeup. I doubt a 4 year old could play a piece that requires large intervals correctly because their hands couldn't reach what is asked for. Adults who can barely reach an octave perhaps could also get away a lessened "Quality" standard but some that are advanced learn to deal with their size and can still produce the illusion of controlling positions which are impossible for their hands.

Improvement to sight reading skills is essential to develop an efficient learning rate. However how we use this sight reading is important. We cannot be slaves to the sheet, every time you read you are encouraging your muscular memory to associate with what we read. How does it feel when you play this phrase of music you are sight reading?
      The more and more you sight read that passage the less you have to read to consciously tell your hands what to do. We can simply skim read the passage and our hands and ears control the rest. You can immediately sense this process, the brain making new connections which can happen with all ages. I find as you get older you make connections to what you did before more than make new connections, but our brain is constantly learning something new.
      Our sound memory is immense, some of us simply know what the right notes should sound like, there is no logic statement for it, we simply can hear it in our minds eye. The same applies for muscular memory, I do not believe that with age you can lose or be unable/restricted to learn new movements of the hand. Our conscious memory (Sight reading skills and logically observing a phrase that we read and transferring it to an action in our hands) can only be strengthened with age as we can draw from years of experience.
       If this experience has not been acquired then I would say the older student has a more difficult challenge ahead of themselves. They have to get through more work with less time which produces a difficult learning curve. However older students often have a good understanding life skills such as discipline and hard work. This can prove a major advantage over a young student who has no discipline but soaks up knowledge like a sponge. It is like the turtle and the hare fable Smiley Slow and steady will always win.
       As the adult improves they also know how to use past knowledge to help them, the child usually does not associate it with past experience in such logical terms, they just "feel it". But the adult observes everything they do, this allows them to control their musical quality and quantity more directly with good instruction. The adult may also pick up sight reading skills easier than the younger student and be able to approach it with more focus and discipline.

A complete approach to memorizing your music is required if you want to maintain it your whole life. Of course I cannot say that a good approach will cure against brain diseases that might rob you of mental capability. It certainly defends against it I believe, making new connections constantly is important to keep our brains healthy. It is complicated activities that keeps the brain working, in piano we have the Conscious (sight reading, logical statements, pattern observations etc), Muscular (hands memorizing a group of notes with a particular movement of the hand) and Sound (using the sound in our minds eye to aid our decision making with our muscular memory)  memory always working together as a whole.

I believe that being an advanced musician is also defined by the music you have already memorized and play at concert standard. So an older student who has a large repertoire might be excused to learn any new material and merely sharpen the huge amount of works they have already learned. But to keep the brain active and working you must learn new material and make new connections in the brain. Neurologists who study brain exercises note that repetitive work in grounds that are familiar to us (like crosswords)is not as beneficial to the brain as working in situations which require us to strategically approach a constantly changing situation.
       Someone who trains their brain to work at an advanced musical rate will be able to encourage the brain to maintain this rate even in older age. It may slow down, but we never work at maximum effort every day of our lives anyway. As you get older you may even have more time for yourself and thus your discipline towards your music may increase. As you get older you may also learn new tricks and understand how your own brain works so that you can learn things faster. If we find ourselves  memorizing our work through brute force then we will find that as we age and our brain slows down, we cannot deal with this inefficient approach.

Someone who plays the piano very well but does it without any discipline would admit that the music they produce is second rate. They will not admit that the work they produce is the best they can possibly do because they know they have not worked the best they possibly could. I don't think that we can ever admit that the work we produce is the best we can do, we will always be insecure with how we play when comparing it to what is the "ideal" sound in our minds eye.

I believe someone is limiting themselves if they approach music without discipline and without regard to the rate in which they learn. Although they may produce wonderful works their output is very slow and thus they are limiting themselves and others of the wonderful music they could be producing!

A lot of people are undisciplined in their approach to music, I know this very well as a music teacher! It is the keystone to someones progress, as a teacher I find that I am unclogging this problem in students much more than anything else. They can learn all these efficient ways to learn their music and it will increase the flow of their learning rate, but if they have no persistence to their approach it their progress merely leaks out. Likewise if a student works hard at their music but refuses to improve their approach to learning their music they will founder and take the long way around. Many teachers work on simply Quality in a student and forget about the Quantity so it is not always the students fault.

Sometimes we like to study pieces that takes us a long time and to which there is a slow learning curve. I believe this is a slow way to approach your musical study. You should be learning more easier pieces than one large difficult piece. The process of learning is no different in an easy piece than in a difficult piece, the technique and what the fingers have to do is more difficult but the way in which our brain learns music is the same in all instances. We must practice this learning multiple times and as many times as possible instead of simply focusing on "difficult" pieces.

As you improve the pieces that might have been difficult for you 3 years ago now are a normal level for you. Then you can go ahead and learn these efficiency and with control. This is why Quality and Quantity is a reflection of an advanced ability at piano learning. As you heighten the bar which you consider "difficult" music you are improving yourself as a musician. If when you play you consider much of what you play difficult, then you are somewhat lacking in your abilities.

So why waste time playing a piece a second time?

Revisiting a piece with more experience will prove to you how much better you have become since relearning the piece is much easier and playing it becomes more comfortable compared to your first study of the piece.

Why waste time on talking about quality in teaching?

No one said it was a waste of time.

Why not do another piece badly right away?

What is badly though? No one should strive for complete mastery of each and every piece before they move on, it is inefficient and mind numbing.

Are not realising that until you soften the extremity of your stance and appreciate the nature of needing to balance quality and quantity- there is no way to interpret such strongly worded statements, other than that you should jump straight from one piece to another without polishing anything.

No its just your way of seeing how things are written, its not my duty to write in such a way which makes you feel happy lol.

By doing them "badly"? Talk about having your cake and eating it...

Ahh and you still cannot clarify your smokes and mirrors as to what what this magical  "proper focus"

[nyiregyhazi]

What if there is Quality and Quantity but is produced with inferior technique and/or with poor musical expression?

ahem, I see a paradox. I'm not aware of any definition of quality in which the above is not self-contradictory. How are you defining quality- if it's doesn't include technique or expression?

What is badly though? No one should strive for complete mastery of each and every piece before they move on, it is inefficient and mind numbing.  

So why shouldn't they play every piece once and only once? It would be consistent with the hyperbole of your suggestions. If you don't discuss what DOES need to be expected in quality, before going on to the next piece- then your argument, as you presented it, would suggest that we should only ever play a piece once because we would learn more by covering more material.

Simply learning a lot of music but playing them without mastery will hinder your technical and musical interpretation development.

Thankyou for stating as much, finally- after having previously made the baffling contradictory claim that simply playing tonnes of music badly would actually improve technique.

[lostinidlewonder]

ahem, I see a paradox. I'm not aware of any definition of quality in which the above is not self-contradictory. How are you defining quality- if it's doesn't include technique or expression?

Definitions are defined at the start of the post (and clarified throughout) I will not repeat myself. If you understand the definitions you will see no contradiction at all.

So why shouldn't they play every piece once and only once? It would be consistent with the hyperbole of your suggestions. If you don't discuss what DOES need to be expected in quality, all you have is an argument for quantity.

No one just learns a piece once, we always revisit pieces why deny students this experience? It is in fact quite instructional when you compare how they tackled the piece differently or more efficiently and what same challenges faced them.

Thankyou for stating as much, finally- after having previously made the baffling contradictory claim that simply playing tonnes of music badly would actually improve technique.

It does though it should not be the only method of improvement.

[nyiregyhazi]

Definitions are defined at the start of the post I will not repeat myself. If you understand the definitions you will see no contradiction at all.
No one just learns a piece once, we always revisit pieces why deny students this experience? It is in fact quite instructional when you compare how they tackled the piece differently or more efficiently and what same challenges faced them.

If you can define pianistic "quality" independently of technique and musical expression- you really need to say what else there is.  I'm not clear what else can even remain after ignoring those.

As for the second paragraph, you speak as if you're not preaching to the choir. Funnily enough, I already noticed that working at a piece more than once is actually conducive to improving a student's ability. I thought that might have been implied by the fact I value quality more than quantity. I was simply curious as to why a pianist would want to hold back their technical development by playing a piece twice- if sheer quantity were the most important issue, as you suggest.

It does though it should not be the only method of improvement.

Indeed- so it's just as well you were the only person making a polarised argument and that the idea of having only three pieces learned was merely a number you plucked out of thin air, rather than representative of any argument anyone arguing for sensible balance had ever made. Maybe you should acknowledge balanced reality next time you state that the best way to build technique is to learn 1000 pieces (genuinely your figure, and not one I am falsely attributing to your camp)?

[lostinidlewonder]

If you can define pianistic "quality" independently of technique and musical expression- you really need to say what else there is.  I'm not clear what else can even remain after ignoring those.

The definition of "quality" was made clear at the start of the post. (clarified throughout)

[lostinidlewonder]

Indeed- so it's just as well you were the only person making a polarised argument and that the idea of having only three pieces learned was merely a number you plucked out of thin air, rather than representative of any argument anyone arguing for sensible balance had ever made. Maybe you should acknowledge balanced reality next time you state that the best way to build technique is to learn 1000 pieces (genuinely your figure, and not one I am falsely attributing to your camp)?

The exact number is unimportant or are you too thick to realize it?

[nyiregyhazi]

The definition of "quality" was made clear at the start of the post.

What if there is Quality and Quantity but is produced with inferior technique and/or with poor musical expression? One can argue that you can always improve on how you play a piece, but there is a certain level that one can reach where their ability starts to entertain most people. But what if you do not play at this level and that people who hear you play cannot stand listening to you? Certainly if one has the ability to learn music at a fast rate the can now start to sacrifice rate of learning and start developing expressive/interpretive musical ability.

? Where's the definition? Do you mean the one in prior paragraph about being suitable for a concert hall? So a piece played with poor technique and poor musical expression is fit for a concert hall? I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out, as I'm utterly baffled by any view of "quality" that involves poor musical expression and inferior technique.

[lostinidlewonder]

? Where's the definition? Do you mean the one in prior paragraph about being suitable for a concert hall? So a piece played with poor technique and poor musical expression is fit for a concert hall? I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out, as I'm utterly baffled.

Well you have answered the question for yourself what quality is. Certainly poor technique and poor musical expression would not suit a concert hall, unless you where severely disabled, like that guy who plays piano with no arms.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well you have answered the question for yourself what quality is. Certainly poor technique and poor musical expression would not suit a concert hall, unless you where severely disabled, like that guy who plays piano with no arms.

What if there is Quality and Quantity but is produced with inferior technique and/or with poor musical expression?

So in this "quality plus quantity" with inferior technique and poor expression- what exactly is quality judged on? Where does it lie, if it's musically and technically poor yet judged to be an example of quality and quantity? I'm truly baffled by this complete paradox. What definition of quality allows poor technique and expression?

[lostinidlewonder]

So in this "quality plus quantity" with inferior technique and poor expression- what exactly is quality judged on? Where does it lie, if it's musically and technically poor yet judged to be an example of quality and quantity? I'm truly baffled by this complete paradox.

The writing is in generalization, so you can fill in that blank and wonder how it applies to the situations you deal with in your own students or yourself.

[nyiregyhazi]

The writing is in generalization, so you can fill in that blank and wonder how it applies to the situations you deal with in your own students or yourself.

I won't be filling it in. To say that a piece played with poor technique and poor expression counts as "quality plus quantity" is not my way and it's certainly not a basis I'll be adopting from you. Those are exactly the two areas which need to be dealt with before something can be considered to be of quality- as I define the word. I was trying to get you to explain whatever else your own definition of quality is based on- where these seemingly don't matter. You're sincerely saying that poor technique and poor musical expression are good enough for concert standard?

[lostinidlewonder]

I won't be filling it in.

Then you misunderstand the generalized statements, if you understand it you unavoidably consider situations you have dealt with.

To say that a piece played with poor technique and poor expression counts as "quality plus quantity" is not my way.

Obviously you haven't come across students who have learned a ton of music but needs a lot of help producing good quality. You deal with these students differently than a student who has learned nothing and plays badly.

[nyiregyhazi]

Then you misunderstand the generalized statements, if you understand it you unavoidably consider situations you have dealt with.

Obviously you haven't come across students who have learned a ton of music but needs a lot of help producing good quality. You deal with these students differently than a student who has learned nothing and plays badly.

You explicitly referred to "quantity and quality" existing in a situation where technique is "inferior" and musical expression is "poor". If that wasn't a typo, you need to explain how a performance that is neither technically nor musically competent counts as being of quality- and what alternative yardstick denotes quality.

[lostinidlewonder]

You explicitly referred to "quality and quantity" in a situation where technique is inferior and musical expression is poor. If that wasn't a typo, you need to explain how a performance that is neither technically nor musically competent counts as being of quality.

Its not a typo but everything is explained there, if you don't understand it then bad luck.

[nyiregyhazi]

Its not a typo but everything is explained there, if you don't understand it then bad luck.

The only explanation of quality was being concert ready. And then you referred to "quality" existing in a situation where techniqe is is inferior and expression is poor. So what are you saying is that a piece that is technically inferior and musically poor can be deemed concert ready- as per your definition of quality? And define what means a piece is concert ready. I am bemused by what you are trying to say. Filing that under quality makes as much sense as reference to a turd as a "quality" meal.

[lostinidlewonder]

The only explanation was of quality was being concert ready. And then you referred to "quality" existing in a situation where techniqe is is inferior and expression is poor. So what are you saying is that a piece that is technically inferior and musically poor can be deemed concert ready? If not, clarify. And define what means a piece is concert ready. I am bemused by what you are trying to say.

Can your little brain imagine a pianist who plays a lot of pieces, can learn them at a fast rate and which could be played in a concert hall but they cannot achieve a high enough quality in their technique and musicality with their concert standard pieces for it to be presented? Some pianists like to learn a lot of music but never master them. The repertoire they choose is of high quality but they do not achieve the concert standard quality within their playing because they are caught up learning more and more pieces.

Excellent sight readers who seek teachers often suffer this exact problem that they have a lot of quality learned and the rate at which they can learn the notes and fingering is fast however they do not master the pieces, make everything smooth and connected, express everything as it should be. This changes the teachers approach to the student.

[nyiregyhazi]

Can your little brain imagine a pianist who plays a lot of pieces, can learn them at a fast rate and which could be played in a concert hall but they cannot achieve a high enough quality in their technique and musicality with their concert standard pieces for it to be presented? Some pianists like to learn a lot of music but never master them. The repertoire they choose is of high quality but they do not achieve the concert standard quality within their playing because they are caught up learning more and more pieces.

Then they'd better appreciate that audiences judge performances on how well the performer plays to them on that night- not on how many alternative programmes they could have played equally badly instead, due to breadth of repertoire.

Excellent sight readers who seek teachers often suffer this exact problem that they have a lot of quality learned and the rate at which they can learn the notes and fingering is fast however they do not master the pieces, make everything smooth and connected, express everything as it should be. This changes the teachers approach to the student.

Indeed. And it takes a lot of time to turn their "quality" (minus technical control and musical expression) into quality as the rest of the world defines it. It takes more work to turn a student who has never yet played one piece truly well into a pianist who can play one piece well, than it does to turn a pianist who only has a repertoire of 3 pieces learned well into a pianist with 4 pieces learned well.

If something is both lacking in musical expression and played with inferior technique, if fits no definition of quality that I would ever care to use.

[lostinidlewonder]

Then they'd better appreciate that audiences judge performances on how well the performer plays to them on that night- not on how many alternative programmes they could have played equally badly instead, due to breadth of repertoire.

If something is both lacking in musical expression and played with inferior technique, if fits no definition of quality that I would ever care to use.

Like I said, if you can't understand what I am trying to say its not my duty to inform you. I would if I was interested but there is no interest.