How the heck do you practice?

[cuberdrift]

Greetings, all! 

Here's the thing; lately, I have started becoming more ambitious about piano playing than before. I used to rely on my musicality; I used to stick to routines, pay some attention to the piece's nuances, do my scales, arpeggios, without too much concentration; I used to practice with a metronome, to "clean up" my pieces.

That was how I practiced.

But then I realized that people get bored in concerts. To most people, classical music is all the same, whether from Mozart or Bartok, Brahms or Shostakovich, Ravel or Couperin.

Then I started to get annoyed about things. About the state of things.

Then I had all these idols - Horowitz, Cziffra, Arrau...even Art Tatum or Oscar Peterson.

Then I got mesmerized by their playing. By their sheer skill. And most of all, what they could share about life - how they could make you experience their own, without uttering a single word. How they could communicate things, or a language, that was a little bit strange, but beautiful in some way.

People called it music.

Then I decided that I wanted to stun people. I wanted them to wake up. I wanted to "control their souls" (I remember reading about Rubinstein mentioning about this in a conversation with Gould). I wanted to change it all - to change how everything about classical music is mere admiration rather than love, about how it seems to affect the eyes and the ears, but not much the heart, of many a person.

Then there were these young women.

There were a few of them; just a few; a handful would be pushing it a bit; but they had something. They had a heat about them - heat that could not be felt in the literal sense, but in a somewhat emotional, aesthetic, perhaps even cerebral, sense. I don't even feel like assigning the usual adjectives here to describe such a sensation.

Their heat radiated within my psyche, whether they were present before me, or not.

And there was also a coolness about them. Not the biting cold of the winter wind, but the coolness felt under a quiet night under the moonlight, with the silence, the serenity, and the ethereal quality of it all.

Most of them I didn't even know. But part of my mind kept telling me, in such a serious voice, that I needed to know who they were. That I needed to influence them in some way. That I needed to somehow establish that connection I had with my own psyche, and some sort of angelic, muse-like being that would dwell in my mind - and in my soul, who represented all the "ethereal" qualities that these young women had.

But I always got disappointed with things. I knew that it would be difficult to appease this Muse. For some reason, it preferred other things - other people - people I started to get annoyed about, because I got jealous. Jealous that they had some thing that I wasn't well-versed at. Something that I didn't have, and could use it so well, and so naturally, to their advantage; not that I actually wanted it, in fact - and what an irony that is, indeed.

And then I learned that what I truly loved, what I honestly liked, that which constantly made me overjoyed, was this thing called music. Then I told myself - maybe if I was really good at playing music, then, perhaps like the Roman god Pan, I could influence the souls of those "angels", even if I didn't quite have the usual advantages of someone who was naturally good with them. I could tell them, non-verbally, that I had a spirit that had as much vigor and character as theirs. And then I would be overjoyed.

I would be overjoyed that finally, I managed to establish a connection with their psyche. I would be overjoyed that they started to like what I myself had liked, and loved. It's quite hard to describe; all I know is that I tend to become so happy, and so overjoyed, if they do like, and love, the message that I would share with them.

But I had to be good. Really good!

And then I started noticing that, although I could play the piano - and I liked it when people admired my playing, too, for it meant that in the eyes of my fellow men, I was someone of value, somehow - it was somehow not enough.

Of course, I still believe in my own abilities. I believe that I still have something to communicate about, something to share - in other words, I think I have some proficiency in piano playing.

But I want it to be stronger.

I wanted to refine my ability to channel those passions found within music even more - and this I had to do, if I wanted to make others - these "angels" included - love the message that I would wholeheartedly share with them.

And then I started searching for ways to make the music I played sound not just "acceptable", but truly stunning - even "beautiful", maybe, if I got fortunate - to make it reach the hearts of my fellow men, not just approval.

Because I loved all these composers of old. They were all such fantastic beings. They all had such magic about them - Bach; Beethoven; Mozart; Chopin; Liszt, to name but a few. And I got so enamored and overwhelmed at the things they had in their head, which they preserved on sound, and on paper.

And I wanted people - these "angels", especially - to understand that I had in my soul an endearing and beloved connection to all these awesome peoples' immortal spirits. I wanted them to experience my bringing about the glory and wonder of it all back today. And then I would know that they'd be overjoyed. And then I would be happy.

But HOW?!

I got super-sensitive to nuances. I got so picky about sound. I wanted everything to sound new, to sound stunning, and amazing, and awesome and all that.

And although I could achieve this at times, through well-focused practice, generally I just get confused about things.

I just simply don't know how to practice well-enough to be able to play a piece in such a way that I unleash the wonders of it.

Should I be using a metronome? Should I be doing slow practice? Should I pay attention to how my hands strike the keys, or to the sound?

Right now, I have three main ideas on how to practice a piece;

1.) I call it the "Gould" way - it may not have too much to do with Glenn Gould, by the way, but I call it so, because I read somewhere that Gould said something like "one does not play the piano with his hands, but rather, with his mind".

This "Gould's way" simply means thinking intently the sound you want to create while playing the piece.

I think this is quite an efficient way to get the piece to sound like the way you want it to, but it drains my mental energy quite quickly. And particularly for fast pieces, I might be able to do it a slowed-down tempo, but when I speed it up to the performance tempo, the nuances tend to get lost. It is as if the piece only sounds good while thinking hard that I want it to sound good.

Should I then apply this "Gould's method/way" to a passage several times, slowly, then getting gradually faster and faster until I reach the desired tempo? What is your advice on it?

Okay...

2) The second method I have in mind is something I call the "Beethoven way" - because I heard that when Beethoven composed, he would keep revising it until it suited him.

This "Beethoven" way is quite effective in helping me discover the sound I want to hear from the piece. It works well in a slowed-down tempo; but also at a fast tempo, if I can manage it technically.

However, again, it might help me get the piece to sound right for a moment, but when I repeat it again, it sometimes becomes wrong, and then I have to revise and revise it all over again until it "sounds right".

What is your advice on this?

3) The third method is what I call the "Clementi method" - because I read somewhere that, if I can recall correctly, Clementi said something like "to play a passage right, first think of how it should sound like, then find out the right technique to make it sound as such, then play it".

So it's basically that - before even hitting the keys, I think first of how I want it to sound like. I can sing it in my head, or literally, sometimes - the thing is, I have to be sure of the sound I want to achieve from the passage. Then, I think of the manner of how I should play the keys - the technique of doing it.

So far, I think this might be the most effective way to practice, since it involves mental practice. However, I somehow still don't have full confidence that I will be able to rely on it for my practice sessions.

--

So, what do you think? What are your suggestions? Are the methods that I have listed down effective? Have they been discussed before, and if so, where?

I have written this all in good spirit, and am so glad about it, about the opportunity of doing this. I thank God for such a blessing.

Thank you, all!

Best regards,
cuberdrift

P.S. Sorry if you find my post quite long - I have a lot of ideas, he-he (actually, I admire its length)  .

[visitor]

[adodd81802]

Lol! I did actually read it. Interestingly although the lot of the words written are in English I don't understand them and so only really read that you were struggling and you researched some ways to practice.

It sounds mostly like you lack confidence, or knowledge and you're not sure what you want to do or how to do what you want to do, these sound like student questions. Do you not have a teacher, should you know confide in them about these issues?

As an amateur myself, I find that you can do all the research in the world, that can help give you the knowledge, but to actually apply that you still need input from somebody that knows what they're doing.

You wouldn't, for example read a book on how to drive a car and then just jump in and expect to just "get it"

Next you cannot compare teaching methods of innovators, people that were confident in what they were doing. They knew how to achieve what THEY wanted to achieve and they did that, and this is why the methods seem quite different because they didn't want to achieve the same things.

I feel you make a good point on mental practice, and that the active input of the brain is a key function in creating the sound we want to hear. I imagine it's tiring, because it's something you are not used to doing. If you've ever been to the gym and had a motivated beginners attempt at all the gym equipment, the next day you'll be in absolute agony from muscle fatigue. The brain is a muscle, it get's fatigued, you feed it, it recovers, it get's better. So sounds like you're on the right tracks, if you've already had some success in your practice sessions.

The 3 composers you mentioned are quite different, and furthermore makes me think you're really not sure what you want to achieve and probably thinking just about the end result. Why not set smaller goals. If something that sounds find when played slow, but falls apart when sped up, it simply would not do you justice to sit at that piece for a loooonng and play over and over and over speeding up the tempo until it eventually (may or may not!)sinks in. You would feel more accomplished, lowering to a level of pieces where you CAN achieve your goals and overtime increase difficulty to pieces that you are ready for.

Lastly, never compare your ability to that of the best. You cannot watch Cziffra or Horowitz and go "how can i sound like that"... Because do you think they are trying to sound like anybody else, or trying to sound like themselves? They all had their good and bad performances, they're human after all.

I refer to a comment I made recently and your first sentence probably confirms the whole snowball of troubles you feel you're encountering.

You say you just went through the motions, did the scales, did the arpeggios bla bla, you didn't use too much concentration, weren't really interested bla bla and BOOM.

You open your eyes one day and realise you "progress" has grinded to such a halt, that others have surpassed you by a huge margin in what appears half the time.

Learning, especially the piano which is more a mental skill than physical, needs active participation, it needs variety, it needs interest. You need to step out your comfort zone and try things you haven't tried before, you need to be immersed in your musical surroundings so much so that you do not then have to think "how" to achieve something, but to simply feel inspired.e

I've ended up waffling as much as you have without much of a definite answer, so I apologize! If I had to conclude my points, i'd say get a teacher, or contact your teacher with  your issues and examples.

If that's not an option, you will certainly be limiting yourself, but never the less at the very least, try mimicking your favourite performances, hearing and copying your favourite performances is the best chance you have at sounding like you want to sound.

[pianoplunker]

Greetings, all! 

Here's the thing; lately, I have started becoming more ambitious about piano playing than before. I used to rely on my musicality; I used to stick to routines, pay some attention to the piece's nuances, do my scales, arpeggios, without too much concentration; I used to practice with a metronome, to "clean up" my pieces.

That was how I practiced.

But then I realized that people get bored in concerts. To most people, classical music is all the same, whether from Mozart or Bartok, Brahms or Shostakovich, Ravel or Couperin.

Then I started to get annoyed about things. About the state of things.

Then I had all these idols - Horowitz, Cziffra, Arrau...even Art Tatum or Oscar Peterson.

Then I got mesmerized by their playing. By their sheer skill. And most of all, what they could share about life - how they could make you experience their own, without uttering a single word. How they could communicate things, or a language, that was a little bit strange, but beautiful in some way.

People called it music.

Then I decided that I wanted to stun people. I wanted them to wake up. I wanted to "control their souls" (I remember reading about Rubinstein mentioning about this in a conversation with Gould). I wanted to change it all - to change how everything about classical music is mere admiration rather than love, about how it seems to affect the eyes and the ears, but not much the heart, of many a person.

Then there were these young women.

There were a few of them; just a few; a handful would be pushing it a bit; but they had something. They had a heat about them - heat that could not be felt in the literal sense, but in a somewhat emotional, aesthetic, perhaps even cerebral, sense. I don't even feel like assigning the usual adjectives here to describe such a sensation.

Their heat radiated within my psyche, whether they were present before me, or not.

And there was also a coolness about them. Not the biting cold of the winter wind, but the coolness felt under a quiet night under the moonlight, with the silence, the serenity, and the ethereal quality of it all.

Most of them I didn't even know. But part of my mind kept telling me, in such a serious voice, that I needed to know who they were. That I needed to influence them in some way. That I needed to somehow establish that connection I had with my own psyche, and some sort of angelic, muse-like being that would dwell in my mind - and in my soul, who represented all the "ethereal" qualities that these young women had.

But I always got disappointed with things. I knew that it would be difficult to appease this Muse. For some reason, it preferred other things - other people - people I started to get annoyed about, because I got jealous. Jealous that they had some thing that I wasn't well-versed at. Something that I didn't have, and could use it so well, and so naturally, to their advantage; not that I actually wanted it, in fact - and what an irony that is, indeed.

And then I learned that what I truly loved, what I honestly liked, that which constantly made me overjoyed, was this thing called music. Then I told myself - maybe if I was really good at playing music, then, perhaps like the Roman god Pan, I could influence the souls of those "angels", even if I didn't quite have the usual advantages of someone who was naturally good with them. I could tell them, non-verbally, that I had a spirit that had as much vigor and character as theirs. And then I would be overjoyed.

I would be overjoyed that finally, I managed to establish a connection with their psyche. I would be overjoyed that they started to like what I myself had liked, and loved. It's quite hard to describe; all I know is that I tend to become so happy, and so overjoyed, if they do like, and love, the message that I would share with them.

But I had to be good. Really good!

And then I started noticing that, although I could play the piano - and I liked it when people admired my playing, too, for it meant that in the eyes of my fellow men, I was someone of value, somehow - it was somehow not enough.

Of course, I still believe in my own abilities. I believe that I still have something to communicate about, something to share - in other words, I think I have some proficiency in piano playing.

But I want it to be stronger.

I wanted to refine my ability to channel those passions found within music even more - and this I had to do, if I wanted to make others - these "angels" included - love the message that I would wholeheartedly share with them.

And then I started searching for ways to make the music I played sound not just "acceptable", but truly stunning - even "beautiful", maybe, if I got fortunate - to make it reach the hearts of my fellow men, not just approval.

Because I loved all these composers of old. They were all such fantastic beings. They all had such magic about them - Bach; Beethoven; Mozart; Chopin; Liszt, to name but a few. And I got so enamored and overwhelmed at the things they had in their head, which they preserved on sound, and on paper.

And I wanted people - these "angels", especially - to understand that I had in my soul an endearing and beloved connection to all these awesome peoples' immortal spirits. I wanted them to experience my bringing about the glory and wonder of it all back today. And then I would know that they'd be overjoyed. And then I would be happy.

But HOW?!

I got super-sensitive to nuances. I got so picky about sound. I wanted everything to sound new, to sound stunning, and amazing, and awesome and all that.

And although I could achieve this at times, through well-focused practice, generally I just get confused about things.

I just simply don't know how to practice well-enough to be able to play a piece in such a way that I unleash the wonders of it.

Should I be using a metronome? Should I be doing slow practice? Should I pay attention to how my hands strike the keys, or to the sound?

Right now, I have three main ideas on how to practice a piece;

1.) I call it the "Gould" way - it may not have too much to do with Glenn Gould, by the way, but I call it so, because I read somewhere that Gould said something like "one does not play the piano with his hands, but rather, with his mind".

This "Gould's way" simply means thinking intently the sound you want to create while playing the piece.

I think this is quite an efficient way to get the piece to sound like the way you want it to, but it drains my mental energy quite quickly. And particularly for fast pieces, I might be able to do it a slowed-down tempo, but when I speed it up to the performance tempo, the nuances tend to get lost. It is as if the piece only sounds good while thinking hard that I want it to sound good.

Should I then apply this "Gould's method/way" to a passage several times, slowly, then getting gradually faster and faster until I reach the desired tempo? What is your advice on it?

Okay...

2) The second method I have in mind is something I call the "Beethoven way" - because I heard that when Beethoven composed, he would keep revising it until it suited him.

This "Beethoven" way is quite effective in helping me discover the sound I want to hear from the piece. It works well in a slowed-down tempo; but also at a fast tempo, if I can manage it technically.

However, again, it might help me get the piece to sound right for a moment, but when I repeat it again, it sometimes becomes wrong, and then I have to revise and revise it all over again until it "sounds right".

What is your advice on this?

3) The third method is what I call the "Clementi method" - because I read somewhere that, if I can recall correctly, Clementi said something like "to play a passage right, first think of how it should sound like, then find out the right technique to make it sound as such, then play it".

So it's basically that - before even hitting the keys, I think first of how I want it to sound like. I can sing it in my head, or literally, sometimes - the thing is, I have to be sure of the sound I want to achieve from the passage. Then, I think of the manner of how I should play the keys - the technique of doing it.

So far, I think this might be the most effective way to practice, since it involves mental practice. However, I somehow still don't have full confidence that I will be able to rely on it for my practice sessions.

--

So, what do you think? What are your suggestions? Are the methods that I have listed down effective? Have they been discussed before, and if so, where?

I have written this all in good spirit, and am so glad about it, about the opportunity of doing this. I thank God for such a blessing.

Thank you, all!

Best regards,
cuberdrift

P.S. Sorry if you find my post quite long - I have a lot of ideas, he-he (actually, I admire its length)  .

Yeah, way too many notes but you are not the only one. 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Get gud at theory.

That's if you're not already.

All your problems will be magically solved.

Sort of...

[adodd81802]

Get gud at theory.

That's if you're not already.

All your problems will be magically solved.

Sort of...

I actually really understand and agree with this. So many things we put down to what we see rather than what we know.

We see notes on the score, we press the notes on the keyboard and Viola, it doesn't sound magically like a concert performance, because we actually have no idea what we're doing.

Theory, I am learning to discover is actually more and more important in learning to be better at the piano.

[briansaddleback]

To OP it is not what you physically practice per se that is most important. It is what your mental is focused on during that practice that is so important.

Practice focusing during the day on a variety of things not just piano. Practice honing on focus and if sidetracked mentally, dont fret, just refocus. after awhile, you can become mentally stronger.


Apply this skill to any technical practice you have in piano, and after time, that focus will naturally zone/drilldown you in on what you need to work on physically.

[kawai_cs]

Have a look here if you haven't yet (it has been mentioned in some of the threads before):
https://kantsmusictuition.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-practice.html

I don't mean just this one post, but there are many of them which will help you put more structure and goals in your practice. Good luck!

[cuberdrift]

Why are you making fun of my post. You're being annoying and slightly offensive to a sensitive person such as me. How dare you.

The meme is slightly amusing, but...

...how could you do this.

How could you do this?

HOW COULD YOU DO THIS?!

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!!!

  

----------
BTW, thanks to all those who gave useful advice - I'll reply sometime soon.  

[xdjuicebox]

That's exactly what you should do...but also question the sound in your head. Why THAT sound of all sounds?

Also, it helps to study what kind of motions makes what sound, and preferably good motions that don't injure you.

[benjdod]

Other than the ethereal angels part, the same thing is happening to me.  I'd suggest that you find out how music works, what it consists, how it operates.  And I can think of no better way to do this than to study some theory! 
As a note, my previous mental image of theory used to be boring circle of fifths and motifs and modes and all that crap.  Theory is more than that.  It's understanding how the music is created; how it works.  Theory brings sense into a confused mind

[esmusssein]

My own approach is this: I was really born an historian, which is actually my day job, so when I practice something, I ABSOLUTELY must know everything there is to know about the composer, the composition, and the era. I don't leave stone unturned, and, in the last couple of decades, the Internet has made it even easier to do so. There is floods of information. I read analysis, theory, but, above all, the analysis of the piece itself. For example, at the moment I am learning Beethoven's First Piano Concerto. I adore Beethoven, so I have read everything about him I could lay my hands on. I have even turned my music room into a Beethoven shrine, complete with casts of his life and death masks. But I have also read everything I could about the concerto, from books, articles (OK, I am a scholar by profession, so I can lay my hands on these), to doctoral dissertations. And I take notes. Always did, even as a kid. Lots of notes. In various languages actually. I think about what I play very very carefully, and I do listen to others, but I mainly create my own style. YouTube is also very useful because it has tons of information and analyses, masterclasses, you name it. I even listen to what Beethoven was composing at the time that he composed the specific concerto, as well as what other composers composed at the time.

The scales and metronome are also very useful because they break bad habits. However, the rest are the most important, in my opinion. Anyway, unless I get earworms, I don't believe that I have mastered anything. Sometimes I dream of performing something, and once I even dreamt of Schubert himself when I was revisiting something and had some issues.

I don't know why, but it also helps me to download the manuscript of whatever it is I am playing, if this is available. Did so for the Moonlight Sonata and went nuts, when I discovered that Beethoven wasn't really writing down with me in mind, so he was using abbreviations. However, it was important to me to have it, it offers some sort of elusive contact with the composer, or at least this is how I personally feel.

Reading about the composer and the composition can offer unexpected insights. For example, analyses of Beethoven's 1st piano concerto and Mozart's 20th that I read, were extremely useful because the composer himself, who was both a virtuoso and a composer at the time, made some amazing comments about piano playing. For example, he observed that Mozart's piano compositions showed that he originally learned how to play on a harpsichord, while he himself had learned on a pianoforte. Then there was an analysis on how a modern piano sounds from one from the Beethoven era, how the sound changes, and how a pianist can manipulate it to achieve optimal result. That's great stuff.

So yes, in my opinion, you may want to practice, but also read read read. And think think think. And get earworms, preferably of the ideal performance in your own head.

[cuberdrift]

Once again, thanks for your advice!

However, I am compelled to say something with regards to the "get good at theory/history" mentality around here.

I find your suggestion very informative, so thank you.

But I have some sort of opinion towards this. I think that to "study" something, from the viewpoint of someone else - in this case, study a piece based on its history or context or the theory behind its creation - seems to somehow "restrict" or "limit" my imagination.

Recently, I have always had this dilemma about music and the arts. I have always thought that to truly appreciate a work of art, the less one knows what it is about, or the "science" behind it, the more "pure" one's understanding of it is.

This is all also somehow linked with my issue with what I call "associationism". This is the same reason why, for a long time, I have always not really liked modern pop music. This seems to be so because when I was a kid, my interests differed from other kids, and so I couldn't understand how these other kids thought, and why they liked certain things. And this sort of "alienated" me from them. And I was annoyed at why they could be so together because of their similar interests, but me, due to my less "popular" interests, was left alone.

So, modern pop music, being a musical style many other people enjoy but I didn't, kind of annoyed me. Whenever I heard it, I would be reminded of nothing but annoying kids or teenagers. Recently, though, I occasionally embark on an "exploration" journey, exposing myself to the current styles or trends in popular music. This has kind of helped me appreciate pop music to a certain extent.

So anyways, back to my issue with studying pieces; if, for example, I read that a certain piece, say, the Moonlight Sonata, is supposed to sound "sad", according to historians, but I initially thought it should sound happy, then whenever I hear or play the Moonlight Sonata, I will now tend to feel sad, because that's what people say it is supposed to convey. Thus, my unique "interpretation" of its mood is replaced by another person's "interpretation" of it - thus, my indivduality seems to be kind of compromised, and therefore if I perform it, it might sound less "original"...hmmm...or something like that.

Same thing goes with theory. I have a kind of idea that music is really powerful or effective if even a baby can understand it. Adults' imagination seem to be often a lot less sharp than a child's, and that is because they tend to "compartmentalize" or "scientifically look at" things - things are supposed to be this way, that way, etc. etc. and therefore, there seems to be less room for new possibilities. Because of sticking to a conventional way of looking at things, I feel that I might end up limiting or restricting my creative mind.

Of course it is extremely helpful to be well-informed of the historical motivations behind the creation of musical compositions, and it also helps to study music theory, but in the end, all this seems to, in my opinion, only possibly compete with a fresher and more imaginative look on the piece.

If people say Chopin's "Raindop Prelude" MUST sound like raindrops, then anyone and everyone will try to do the same thing - so where's the fun in that? (I am however aware that Chopin wasn't the one who named it "Raindrop").

Why can't we just look and stare at a work of art from an ignorant viewpoint, and then and only then enjoy and appreciate the true beauty behind that highly structured matrix of notes and lines and passages and measures? Because I think there's some magic behind all that structure, a magic that can make people discover new things. I don't feel like I want to treat musical pieces as a mechanic does with a car or aeroplane. I want to see it, from a naive standpoint, and then be struck by its amazing, hidden power.

Well, that's just my opinion, anyway. What do you say to this?

[esmusssein]

I am actually on a business trip right now, so I cannot answer in detail. The problem I see in your response, and I am saying this smiling and not aggressively at all, is that you make the same error my undergraduates do, who are under a lot of misconceptions about what History is and why it is useful in our modern lives.

When I am back I promise a long long reply.

[bernadette60614]

Do you have a good teacher?

I resumed lessons 7 years ago and I am on my third teacher.  Not because I"m a difficult student, but because my first two teachers got me to a certain level, i.e., I was good enough to impress an average, civilian audience.  My third teacher is a working professional pianist, an experienced teacher, and when I began with her I told her my goal: To reach a level of proficiency that would enable me to audition for a spot in a conservatory program. 

I went from playing level 6 pieces in a big, loud, showy, fast way...but with only passable technique...to playing level 2 pieces slowly, very slowly, to build technique and control.  The end result isn't a big, loud, showy piece...it is a meticulous, precise finished work.

My advice:  Find a good teacher.  One who can work with you on practice techniques and determining how to build your technique.  The "wow" factor comes after that!

[lostinidlewonder]

Everyone works differently but I find the most efficient method I believe is to sight read your works many times, easy parts often are automatically memorized without effort and sections which require most attention will be revealed and you can then focus your energy there. Often works can be played at mastery with the score and there is no need for memory work, other times passages need to be memorized (usually for very fast or difficult music), with strong reading skills and memory skills you can choose which is most appropriate or efficient to use.

Sure you can master a single piece and decorate it so beautifully and wonderfully and make everything as close as possible to picture perfect but the problem with this you limit your experience. Playing many pieces well will increase your rate of learning more pieces, so work on your rate of learning by learning lots of music not getting overly sentimental with single pieces which eat up all your time with the details. This is not to say don't master pieces you love, go spend lots of time doing that but it should not be your main focus taking up the majority of your time. For anyone asking questions on how to practice or get better etc, your main focus should be learning lots of music to build ones experience base and understanding of how learning music flows in your own mind and hands.