How much of your repertoire was chosen by you and your preferred style

[dontcheeseme]

And not by the motivation to be a good all-rounder. Like for example, I'm beginning to dislike practising most of the pieces in my grade/skill range, and am being really picky about the pieces I want to fully get down cold. Sometimes even taking pieces far beyond my level and slowly making them yield to my (fit in whatever metaphor you want and is proper). Would it still be possible to get to a very high level, or does one have to push oneself to learn undesirable pieces, because in the end it will do great things for you (kinda like what most parents say about vegetables). Or at least I'm lookinng for a good substitute, so that I can still be decent in all/most areas.

I know it's a vague question, but I'm hoping to get some ideas, maybe good reasons to spark interest and motivation.

(Btw I stil practise my scales and arpeggios so.....I'm not all out yet).

[stevensk]

All of my repertoire is chosen by me. I never  take pieces far beyond my level but, sometimes slightly over my level. Dont learn undesirable pieces, there are soo many nice, interesting and useful pieces to prefere 

[louispodesta]

Thank you for your courage in posting this question.  However, (in that I have very much to say on this subject), I first need to know your age, gender, and the state of your current hand morphology.

Then, I may be able to suggest some things.  Thanks, once again.

[dogperson]

It depends on your skill level and what skill level you want to reach....  as you are developing skills, yes you learn repertoire that may not be fun, and may not be polished, but help you develop the skills that you want.

The more skills you have, the more selective you can be about the direction you want to take and the repertoire you want to learn. You need the foundation first.

Your post does not indicate your current level or whether you have a teacher... if you don't have one, I would recommend getting a teacher.   He/she can help you find repertoire that you need to develop skills but, at the same time, is pleasing for you to learn.

[huaidongxi]

playing now at a low intermediate level in my senior years, my priorities are rather different than younger players with ambitions of becoming proficient. remaining relaxed physically and mentally is critical to being able to practice much more than an hour (including short breaks between pieces to regroup).  have found out that it's more rewarding to take on pieces slightly above my ability that provide me enjoyment, than 'medicinal' works that are supposed to improve my playing, but also tend to bring tension and eventually physical pain, mental fatigue.  my technique might not improve as efficiently from indulging my own inclinations, but at my point in life, motivation and enjoyment take precedence.  simply, more motivated to practice the stuff that provides pleasure more consistently, and able to sit at the keyboard longer.

[quantum]

It depends on your skill level and what skill level you want to reach....  as you are developing skills, yes you learn repertoire that may not be fun, and may not be polished, but help you develop the skills that you want.

The more skills you have, the more selective you can be about the direction you want to take and the repertoire you want to learn. You need the foundation first.

Agreed.

For those at the beginner or intermediate levels, it may help to have a few challenge pieces that the student wishes to study added into the mix of foundation material.  Carefully chosen challenge pieces with the guidance of a teacher can be a great motivational tool for the student, as well as a technique builder. 

IMO studying pieces that are outside of a student's level is not a problem as long as the repertoire is not too far out of reach. 

[outin]

I always choose the pieces to learn myself. I used to think it's important to cover everything, but have realized it really isn't, at least not in my age. If there's no interest and motivation to play certain kind of music, then what's the point of studying the skills required to do that well? Of course skills do transfer from one kind of music to another, but still, it's far more effective imo to practice what you are actually aiming to do than something that has only some similar elements.

I would say it's possible to get to a high level of playing with music you actually want to play without spending much time with music you are not interested in, as long as you concentrate on building all the skills required for that music instead of just doing the easier parts well and not really working on the more difficult things. Of course much of piano technique is needed to play anything really well, but there are ways to learn all that without forcing yourself to suffer musical deprivation. Some self-discipline is required so that you don't give up too easily when something requires actual work.

But the above does not mean one can expect to jump to a high level of difficulty without working on something easier first, I am only referring to different styles of piano writing and repertoire/composers. One must still start from something less difficult. I think the OP should work more on finding interesting and motivating pieces from suitable levels, grade/level should not be the issue here, but rather musical and stylistic matters. Most of my favorite composers have written some lovely pieces that are suitable for my present skills, but also force me to learn new ones.

[ted]

I play precisely what interests me and nothing else. Even when I was young nobody could ever tell me what to do in music. I shall be seventy next year and the only regret I have about it is not having ignored more of what teachers and musicians told me.

[avanchnzel]

Ravel is hands down my favourite composer and the staple of my concert repertoire is always at least one Ravel piece of considerable length. Otherwise I still pick and choose what I want for a varied repertoire; if it's Mozart or Beethoven, something that's not campy. I have a sort of 'waiting list' of selected pieces that I like from notable composers so if it's asked for I can just throw it out.

As for 'grade/skill range' I've never really considered that. It's only how long it takes for me to learn a certain piece and so whether it'll be ready for the next recital, so at this point it's really just a minor factor.

[dogperson]

Dontcheeseme,
You included in another post that you are having problems playing Grade 3 pieces; therefore, you can't compare the skills you have with someone who can choose to play Mozart, Chopin or Bach.

You need to decide that you want to learn piano in a systemic, disciplined way so that you will develop the skills to be able to make those choices in what you want to play.  There are really no shortcuts to learning piano-- you just pay for shortcuts later by having deficiencies that limit the choices you have.

It seems like you do not have a teacher-- you will do much better, much quicker by getting one. If you can't do that,  don't try to take any shortcuts.

[brogers70]

Don't try to learn pieces you don't like. It's boring and you won't enjoy practicing. There are many, many different sorts of pieces even at Grade 3. A teacher should be able to help you find things you like. Over time it's likely that your tastes will broaden, but forcing yourself to learn pieces you don't like to hear is not worth it. Life is too short. Just don't convince yourself that the only pieces you can like are advanced, virtuoso ones.

[louispodesta]

It depends on your skill level and what skill level you want to reach....  as you are developing skills, yes you learn repertoire that may not be fun, and may not be polished, but help you develop the skills that you want.

The more skills you have, the more selective you can be about the direction you want to take and the repertoire you want to learn. You need the foundation first.

Your post does not indicate your current level or whether you have a teacher... if you don't have one, I would recommend getting a teacher.   He/she can help you find repertoire that you need to develop skills but, at the same time, is pleasing for you to learn.

Accordingly, from my first post:  "I first need to know your age, gender, and the state of your current hand morphology."

Therefore, if you want us to take you seriously (and it is now your choice to prove that), then we will respond.

[lostinidlewonder]

Building your reading skills for instance does not require that you only deal with works that interest you, in fact doing only that would limit your repertoire choice and overall experience base. It can be difficult to find motivation to polish or achieve mastery with pieces you don't like and I think that should be avoided, multiple weeks/months focusing on works that annoy you is just being cruel to yourself. But that isn't to say you should avoid altogether works that you don't personally like the sound of, perhaps there are some technical ideas that challenge you, solve that then move on at least.

[pjjslp]

Accordingly, from my first post:  "I first need to know your age, gender, and the state of your current hand morphology."

What does that even mean?! I have played for 40 years and would not have a clue how to answer a question about my "current hand morphology." How about assuming a lack of understanding of the question rather than a refusal to answer and therefore be "taken seriously"?