What do you do when you feel you suck at the piano?

[ranjit]

So here's the problem, at least for me: It seems like learning a piece should be fairly simple, at least the way my teacher puts it, learn the notes and the rhythms, figure out coordination, phrasing and pedaling and work in small chunks. Then in some time you should be able to play the whole thing through while being controlled throughout. The process seems so simple that even a small kid could do it with good instruction, in a few days. But for me, for some mysterious reason, it's not 'clicking' right, and it's taking longer than I feel it should.

I think I can remember the notes pretty fast if I want to (in a day or two, but I cannot play it without pausing to remember what comes next), but I simply don't know how to 'perfect' a piece so that it comes out right every time. Even after months of playing it. But the latter is what is important for learning the piano.

So I end up feeling like I'm an imposter who just learned to play some difficult pieces by rote (which maybe anyone can do) but doesn't have any actual skills yet. I feel like I cannot play even the simplest pieces 'well enough' and it seems like most elementary school kids who have had proper piano instruction are better than me in that respect.

Is this normal? I can't call myself a beginner because I can play a Chopin etude, and I can't consider myself an advanced student because I can't play a damn Czerny study well enough.

[lelle]

I cry and ponder quitting!

Just joking, that has only happened maybe three or four times during the 20 years I have played.

Two things come to my mind when you think about any "should" in piano:
* However long it takes you, how many mistakes you make or don't make, etc etc, is exactly how much it "should" be, because that's where you are at right now. You cannot be at any other level, or have any other strengths or weaknesses, than the ones you actually have. "Should" can be a fantasy, if it isn't actually you, right here, right now.
* However, it is also true, that you can evaluate what you are doing, and observe the fact that it might be possible to do it much more efficiently than what you are doing now. Then the question becomes, what is holding you back? Have you just not developed the necessary skill? Are you doing something that's actively hindering you from acquiring said skill efficiently? etc etc

Thirdly - I wouldn't worry about if you are a beginner or advanced. It doesn't really matter. You are ranjit. You're where you're at in your development. Keep working on your weaknesses if you want to improve them. You'll likely keep developing.

It's quite late here so I hope this doesn't sound like senseless rambling. 

[klavieronin]

I just discovered this book which you may want to look into;

"The Complete Pianist: from healthy technique to natural artistry" by Penelope Roskell
https://peneloperoskell.co.uk/books/the-complete-pianist/

I've only read the first few of chapters but already it's looking like a goldmine of good advice and useful information. As the name suggests, it aims to cover every aspect of the piano playing and learning process. It's pretty mammoth; 500+ pages and some 300 accompanying videos.

I've read her book "The Art of Piano Fingering" and found it quite enlightening which is why I decided to buy a copy of "The Complete Pianist"

[brogers70]

So here's the problem, at least for me: It seems like learning a piece should be fairly simple, at least the way my teacher puts it, learn the notes and the rhythms, figure out coordination, phrasing and pedaling and work in small chunks. Then in some time you should be able to play the whole thing through while being controlled throughout. The process seems so simple that even a small kid could do it with good instruction, in a few days. But for me, for some mysterious reason, it's not 'clicking' right, and it's taking longer than I feel it should.

I think I can remember the notes pretty fast if I want to (in a day or two, but I cannot play it without pausing to remember what comes next), but I simply don't know how to 'perfect' a piece so that it comes out right every time. Even after months of playing it. But the latter is what is important for learning the piano.

So I end up feeling like I'm an imposter who just learned to play some difficult pieces by rote (which maybe anyone can do) but doesn't have any actual skills yet. I feel like I cannot play even the simplest pieces 'well enough' and it seems like most elementary school kids who have had proper piano instruction are better than me in that respect.

Is this normal? I can't call myself a beginner because I can play a Chopin etude, and I can't consider myself an advanced student because I can't play a damn Czerny study well enough.

I think I have a similar problem. My technique is reasonably good; I can play a few of the less difficult Beethoven Sonatas, quite a few of the WTC Preludes and Fugues, and even get through the less difficult Chopin Etudes at a slower than performance tempo. But I feel like it takes me much too long to learn a piece. And, as in your case, it's not memorization that's the problem - I can memorize a piece long before I can play it fluently.

So I've been doing two things, each of them for 20 minutes a day. One is I practice sight reading, playing easy things slowly enough that I do not need to look at the keys. I do this because I think part of my problem is lack of the "touch typing" automatic knowledge of where the notes are without looking for them. The second is that I take a new easy piece, just a page or so, way below my maximum technical level, and work on it 20 minutes a day for a week, and then drop it. I do that because I worry that I haven't been getting enough time working on the early phase of learning a piece - I'll spend months working on a sonata to get it in shape, but I don't get that much practice on doing the early "decoding" work that comes after the first couple of read throughs.

The sight reading practice definitely helps. I've only been trying the second thing for a few weeks, so it's hard to tell. But whatever is lacking, I think it's a learnable skill, not some mystical, inherent capability, so I'm keeping at it.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sight reading is a good skill to use because when you are successfully sight reading all the physical aspects of playing the piece is solved and you can focus your attention on the expression of what you are playing. It takes away all the steps of having to memorize, learn passages in chunks, coordinate yourself etc, because it all has been solved instantly with your reading skills.

The problem is that when reading skills are not so strong the doable works used are usually quite bland and the musicality might not have as much relevance to the more difficult works you study. Still practicing musicality in simpler settings does have use for your more difficult works but as your reading skills improve you will be able to train with more useful works.

Musical expression is something which exists no matter what difficulty a piece is being played. That is a very important point to consider. Then it is only logical to play a huge amount of easier works with high musical expression to train ones musicality thoroughly. Just because there are more notes doesn't mean something is more difficult to express musically, very few notes can be just as difficult to express well.

[ranjit]

Thank you everyone for your replies!

[roncesvalles]

I really sympathize with this, as it is something that I periodically but regularly feel.  For instance I've been working on Chopin's Op. 28 nos. 10 and 14 and feel adequate to those challenges, but playing Mozart's K545 for instance sends me into a depression because the sound to me is always too heavy or inconsistent.  So it feels like I'm kidding myself, or that I somehow haven't earned the harder pieces when there are a number of easier ones that expose unrefined aspects of my playing.

There are a couple of things I do when I feel stuck on something and can't seem to put it all together, despite having memorized it and having practiced the trickier parts.  The first is to revisit a piece that is much easier than the one you're working on, preferably something you played a while ago but haven't recently.  I just did this with Scriabin's Op. 11 no. 15--a simple slow piece in thirds and sixths.  I worked on it for a day, and I felt a little confident afterwards, because, after not having played it for a year, it felt like my touch was better and I could make it sing with much more subtlety and control, which was gratifying--so it signaled to me that I have in fact improved to a level where I could focus on more musical expression than merely technical stuff.  The second is to pick a new piece, probably something short, that requires a different kind of pianism than the one you're working on.  If what you're working on is something with a lot of polyrhythms, try something faster but with a rhythmically simple accompaniment.  If you're playing something fast, try playing something with a more moderate tempo that's lyrical or contrapuntal.  Learning something new is rewarding and it lets you know that while you might struggle with something, you also do well with other things.  So even though you haven't conquered what you were having problems with, you've shown yourself you can do something well at the piano, which might affect how you play the piece in question, with renewed confidence.

Then once you've gotten some space from the piece you're struggling with putting together, revisit it with fresh ears, attuned to what precisely the difficulties are.   Try to diagnose what the problem is with precision.  Is it a musical difficulty (for instance I have a tendency to slow down when I get to polyrhythms, and I often slow down when both hands are moving/jumping in different directions simultaneously), a mechanical difficulty (the 3-5 trill on the third page of Chopin's E minor posthumous nocturne for me that I just can't do well yet, or a specific thing that gives you tension), or a combination of the two?   If you don't know what's going wrong, this can really affect your confidence, because something which in reality is very particular can seem as if it's global, a reflection of your total playing ability.  But if you can pinpoint your problems, even if they seem insuperable for the time being, you know exactly what they are and can work on them to slowly improve, and this isn't indication of your total ability, just specific technical or musical things that you can practice.

[jimf12]

It's all relative.   Almost everyone sucks compared to someone else, unless you are one of the elite players in the world.   I've lost a bit of competitiveness as I've aged, and I have just stopped beating myself up for not living up to some expectation.   I play what I play, some if it I'm happy with, some of it I seem to work on endlessly and never get there.    I forget who it was, but there was a world class pianists who claimed he worked almost his entire life getting Schumann's Traumerei perfected.    I'm sure only he heard what he didn't like, but the point is regardless of the piece you are always looking to improve.   

btw - K545, pretty easy to get it sounding decent, but a devil to perfect.   You aren't the only one.     

[ted]

I am no longer concerned with learning pieces and even less with performing but it seems to me that regardless of personal objective in any sphere, and provided it is not constant or debilitating, discouragement is an important force, propelling us to reach out into new regions of creative endeavour and precipitating change and growth.

[rowy101]

Yes, I suck at the piano and I don't care. I had piano lessons for three years, but the lessons were a disaster, for my teacher. I wasn't really interested in playing the piano. All I wanted to know, from day one, was the reason why a composer did what he did.

To make a long story short, I happened to be a composer too and and I went to study at the conservatory of music. I still can play the piano, but too me it's just a tool. If I study a score I sometimes want to hear parts of it and I can play them reasonable well. That's good enough for me.

[thirtytwo2020]

Sight reading is a good skill to use because when you are successfully sight reading all the physical aspects of playing the piece is solved and you can focus your attention on the expression of what you are playing. It takes away all the steps of having to memorize, learn passages in chunks, coordinate yourself etc, because it all has been solved instantly with your reading skills.

I think I get the main point of this, but it still makes me wonder about one or two things. Why would successful sight reading automatically "solve all the physical aspects of playing the piece"? What exactly is your definition of sight reading? Surely solving things like coordination, finding the most suitable fingerings etc is a separate process that needs time? Of course, if you already have good allround musical, technical and theoretical skills, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to memorize a piece before you can actually play it fluently. So I agree with you and other people here that practicing sight reading and those allround skills should be very useful in this context. 

   

[lostinidlewonder]

Why would successful sight reading automatically "solve all the physical aspects of playing the piece"? What exactly is your definition of sight reading? Surely solving things like coordination, finding the most suitable fingerings etc is a separate process that needs time? Of course, if you already have good allround musical, technical and theoretical skills, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to memorize a piece before you can actually play it fluently. So I agree with you and other people here that practicing sight reading and those allround skills should be very useful in this context. 

Of course successful sight reading includes more than exclusively being able to play a piece at mastery just by sight without the need for any real practice. The time it takes to solve coordination, fingering etc issues with strong sight reading skills tends towards a quick time frame and in the most efficient situation an abily to master a piece without any practice required at all.

Good sight reading skills will limit the time required to learn a piece and allow you to focus on the expression more freely rather than being bogged down by the drudgery of learning the notes, fingerings, coordinating yourself etc.

Once your reading skills are at a good level you can really experience several hundreds of musical works every year quite easily. This can feel quite liberating as you can explore a vast range of musical works and capture the musical qualities in quick time.

[nightwindsonata]

I also have struggled with this feeling. If any of you have heard my recordings that I have posted recently, I have a large repertoire and am working extremely hard to get everything ready for my master's auditions, but all my pieces still have room to improve. The bottom line is that there is ALWAYS more to do, and unfortunately some pieces may never feel completely safe to play (Chopin's Etude Op. 10 No. 2, for instance). It's the simple 80/20 rule--being able to play a piece at sight is, unfortunately, only a very small part of the battle. Even playing something from memory only halfway, for after that comes the refinement, which for a big-picture person like myself is can be very frustrating. My teacher always tells me that my pieces have lots of potential, but that potential has to be fulfilled. There always comes a point, right before a performance, when you have to accept things as they are, make the best of it, and then move on and continue improving. Sight-reading is a vital skill, but it will only get you so far (especially in advanced repertoire), unless you a technical god.

One last note--don't measure your abilities by your capability of performing Chopin Etudes at a concert level. Those pieces are horrendously difficult to pull off at tempo, and while they are excellent for study and technique, you should pick ONE to be your "crowd-pleaser," relegate the rest to warm-ups at half-tempo or so, and then set about playing the repertoire you love. That's been my approach so far.

[lostinidlewonder]

...It's the simple 80/20 rule--being able to play a piece at sight is, unfortunately, only a very small part of the battle.

If you can play something by sight with mastery then it is ALL of the battle, that is not to say all pieces are like this, logically the peice has to be easy enough for you to do so and you need to be able to draw from a lot of past experience so that you are not constantly recreating the wheel.

[anacrusis]

Remember that everything is relative and you are on your path. You are exactly where you need to be right now, and you'll keep evolving as long as you keep working with an open mind.

[stringoverstrung]

I feel like I cannot play even the simplest pieces 'well enough'

That can also be a sign that you are improving and hearing imperfections that you did not notice before.
Think positive, act local (short bits).

[pianodannn]

   There is no amount of time it SHOULD take to learn something.It depends to a huge degree on a large number of uncontrolled variables. People vary drastically in their inherent capacity to learn anything.What takes one person 10 seconds can take another 50 years.No body knows, or ever will know why.It is simply nature and randomness at work.

[lostinidlewonder]

   There is no amount of time it SHOULD take to learn something.It depends to a huge degree on a large number of uncontrolled variables. People vary drastically in their inherent capacity to learn anything.What takes one person 10 seconds can take another 50 years.No body knows, or ever will know why.It is simply nature and randomness at work.

If you are an idiot and choose works too difficult for yourself then what you learn has an unmeasurable amount of time. That simply the fault in the choice of repertoire, overextension. It has nothing to do with your fantasy that nobody knows anything, YOU might not know but you are not the entire world.

[pianodannn]

If you are an idiot and choose works too difficult for yourself then what you learn has an unmeasurable amount of time. That simply the fault in the choice of repertoire, overextension. It has nothing to do with your fantasy that nobody knows anything, YOU might not know but you are not the entire world.

   Your an incompetent fool. According to you i should spend 20 years focussing on how to play a scale.
  I dont give a *** what you think.Im presenting the facts.What the science and research says. What millions of hours of research has shown.Talent is inborn, you will not accomplish if you are not born to accomplish.Do not dare attempt to tell me otherwise.Im not listening to your utter CRAP.

[lostinidlewonder]

   Your an incompetent fool. According to you i should spend 20 years focussing on how to play a scale.

Quote where I said such things. Quoting your own world in your head doesn't count, thats only for you.

I dont give a *** what you think.

It seems you only give a ** what you think, we all know that.

Im presenting the facts.

Oh here we go! Mr facts!

What the science and research says.

Quote the sources that exist outside of your head.

What millions of hours of research has shown.Talent is inborn, you will not accomplish if you are not born to accomplish.Do not dare attempt to tell me otherwise.Im not listening to your utter CRAP.

I will tell you otherwise, you are wrong. Talent is over rated, discipline and mindful practice trumps all.

[pianodannn]

Quote where I said such things. Quoting your own world in your head doesn't count, thats only for you.
It seems you only give a ** what you think, we all know that.

Oh here we go! Mr facts!
Quote the sources that exist outside of your head.
I will tell you otherwise, you are wrong. Talent is over rated, discipline and mindful practice trumps all.

  Funny, thats not what peer reviewed science says.

[lostinidlewonder]

  Funny, thats not what peer reviewed science says.

That is just empty words. Quote all sources and I will disect it and reveal how stupid it is.

You need to also understand what a worthy musical journey for a specific individual includes. Do you even know what that means? Most people who are not teachers only can experience music from what they experience. You need to realise that there are many pathways to take in music. If you are blind to that, well that's a pity, for you, I really don't care though.

[ranjit]

I dont give a *** what you think.Im presenting the facts.What the science and research says. What millions of hours of research has shown.Talent is inborn, you will not accomplish if you are not born to accomplish.

Look up the studies by Ericsson et al. They trained the average college student to have a memory of some 40 digits on the digit span test using mnemonic techniques, if I recall correctly. A lot can be done with the right kind of practice, even for those with (relatively) average intelligence. The consensus is not as clear on the matter as you think it is. Scientists usually agree that you can't improve your intelligence indefinitely, but I don't see people here saying that you can become the next Horowitz so that's not the point of contention.

[klavieronin]

Here is an interesting article on the topic;

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/practice-alone-does-not-make-perfect-studies-find/

[ranjit]

Nice article! It's interesting that a study found that those who accomplished stuff typically needed the least time to get there on average. That is consistent with what I've seen.

[lostinidlewonder]

Here is an interesting article on the topic;

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/practice-alone-does-not-make-perfect-studies-find/

First of all their definition of "deliberate practice" as it applies to actual music studies is by far rather random and various. They have no standard measurement as to what actually defines deliberate practice, the participants are asked to practice in any way that they actually know themselves or have been taught. This of course is a problem as many music teachers would realize with transfer students. The amount of students who really don't know HOW to practice and instead merely repeat inefficiently or use tools at a very basic level (hands separate, slow practice etc). This problem exists in a large amount of students who have not been taught appropriately HOW to practice. The difference in rate of learning from a student who practice merely with brute force practice vs a student who uses a refined approach to their study methodology GLARINGLY creates a large difference (this is of course assuming the students has no problems with the discipline of practice itself and educators will know this is certainly a factor contributing to progress). This is however not the intertest of the authors here and it is obvious it CANNOT be their focus because it goes into far too much detail.

This paper was cited in your link:
General Discussion section page 8
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Macnamara-et-al.-2014.pdf

"Moderator analyses revealed that the strength of the
relationship between deliberate practice and performance varied by domain. In terms of percentage of variance in performance explained, the effect of deliberate
practice was strong for games (26%), music (21%)...."

What the other % that improved the performance is left as UNKNOWN. Well thats great isn't it? Unknown means it also can relate to the way the person practices beyond the papers surface layer understanding of what constitutes "deliberate practice".

The paper cited here also states regarding this above:
"In the first ever actual test of Ericsson's initial claim, Brooke Macnamara, David Hambrick, and Frederick Oswald recently reviewed a large number of studies conducted since that 1993 paper. They found that sheer amount of deliberate practice does not, in fact, explain most of the differences in expert performance. Additionally, there were huge differences between fields, with effects for education and professions much smaller than for games, music and sports"

First what do they mean "differences in expert performance"? For an expert performance to occur one would imagine that you would need expertise to know how to practice efficiently to gain that level in the first place. What repertoire level are they considering, what quality of playing exactly are they discussing? As we know measurement of what constitutes a better expert performance to the other is VERY VERY difficult to measure. If you have experience looking at jury results of large piano competitions you will see the numbers do vary by a large margin. To expertly perform something requires that you have practiced a lot to get to that point, so it's just utterly confounding what they are trying to mean as it applies to music education (a point they do not elaborate on since it is not specific to music but a broad range of activities).

In the last two sentences he wrote "They found that sheer amount of deliberate practice does not, in fact, explain most of the differences in expert performance. Additionally, there were huge differences between fields, with effects for education and professions much smaller than for games, music and sports"

So he says in one breath deliberate practice does not explain most of the differences, but then there was less differences found in music, which means practice has a larger effect on outcome, and as the other paper I quoted stated around 21%. Still this % would increase even further if we took into account HOW exactly they were practicing and removing inefficiencies in that. This is an action I see in students over the year all the time.

Flexible mnemonics as it applies to piano study for example can accelerate a students progress a large amount. I am not talking about memorising line and space notes with sentences and words (fixed mnemonics), I am talking about how one actually uses the choreography hands, the logic of the fingering and pattern recognition and how this connect this to the sheet music which is then influenced by the 3 levels of memorisation (Conscious, Muscular and Sound). 

This kind of deep discussion as to what deliberate practice as it applies to high level piano study is certainly beyond the scope of any broadrange analysis of multiple disciplines. We would need a paper which specifically looks at piano education to get stronger data.



"Further analysis revealed that the effects of deliberate practice were stronger for highly predictable activities (e.g., running) compared to less predictable activities (e.g., handling an aviation emergency). "

All pianists realize that we face often a mix of predictable and less predictable circumstaces. If you play a piece that is well under your ability level then the predictability goes up a large amount. So it is irrational to believe that any activity remains segregated in either of these predictability slots and instead move between them. What influences predictablity then? Funnily enough the more you practice the more things look the same and predictable, so what are they really trying to say here?


This is a breif analysis of what the paper discusses when we turn its attention towards piano study. The paper of course is not specifcally for piano study but is trying to look at many activities as a whole. It admits there are variations in effect of practice vs improvement.

[klavieronin]

While I'm quite certain that music practice is one of the domains in which deliberate practice is a more reliable predictor of success, I don't think you can rule out entirely the other factors listed in the article, such as; "physical features, personality, cognitive ability, imagination, creativity, motivation, passion, inspiration, opportunities, encouragement, support, and just plain luck."

All of those things are bound to play a role in your progress, if only because of the effect they have on the quality of your practice. If you don't have a deep interest in the subject, plus the motivation, discipline, and opportunity to pursue it, the best practice method in the world isn't going to be of much use to you.

On the other hand, if you do have those qualities, the right practice method could make a world of difference. Just how much difference, I have no idea, but I suspect it would be the difference between becoming a good pianist and a great pianist. It's not going to be the difference between barely being able to play and becoming a virtuoso.

[lostinidlewonder]

While I'm quite certain that music practice is one of the domains in which deliberate practice is a more reliable predictor of success, I don't think you can rule out entirely the other factors listed in the article, such as; "physical features, personality, cognitive ability, imagination, creativity, motivation, passion, inspiration, opportunities, encouragement, support, and just plain luck."

All of those things are bound to play a role in your progress, if only because of the effect they have on the quality of your practice. If you don't have a deep interest in the subject, plus the motivation, discipline, and opportunity to pursue it, the best practice method in the world isn't going to be of much use to you.

On the other hand, if you do have those qualities, the right practice method could make a world of difference. Just how much difference, I have no idea, but I suspect it would be the difference between becoming a good pianist and a great pianist. It's not going to be the difference between barely being able to play and becoming a virtuoso.

Certainly there are limitations for each individual based on lots of factors but I would like to see anyone improve with NO practice. If you have no practice you will never improve, so practice simply is essential and there is no avoiding it. The articles are trying to say only around 20% can contribute their improvement to deliberate practice, I think this is utterly wrong. Are they saying the other 80% can improve with no deliberate practice at all? That seems to me ridiculous. The other 80% they say there is UNKNOWN reason why they improve, that to me is ridiculous.

For instance if one wants to master sight reading this is a trainable skill which takes a long time for the average person to get highly proficient at. The only way to get better at sight reading is to practice it A LOT and in a structured manner. Even very talented pianists who play virtuosic music but memorise everything will not be able to sight read well if they don't practice it. People who try to improve their reading in unstructured manners without the correct thinking and strategies also are not necessarily doing deliberate practice but just brute force practice hoping things improve, obviously that is uncontrollable and not as good.

The discussion is improvement and the rate of improvement is various for the individual. However it is all relative to the situation, there needs to be progressive improvement in everyone at all levels no matter what expertise they achieve. If there is no noticeable improvement then usually something is wrong in their approach and practice method.

I've taught severly low functioning autistic children before, I don't expect them to play like a concert pianist let alone reach grade 1. But they improves IN THEIR OWN WAY every lesson. It might seem pathetic to someone else but it is huge for that individual. Those who look down upon others who do not play high grade pieces simply don't undestand music education as it is for the vast spectrum of individuals Without practice and repetition these low functioning autistic students would never learn anything and be left knowing nothing! An utter travesty! According to the paper deliberate practice is mostly useless but in fact without multiple repetitions the vast majority of people would know nothing at all.

[klavieronin]

Certainly there are limitations for each individual based on lots of factors but I would like to see anyone improve with NO practice. If you have no practice you will never improve, so practice simply is essential and there is no avoiding it. The articles are trying to say only around 20% can contribute their improvement to deliberate practice, I think this is utterly wrong. Are they saying the other 80% can improve with no deliberate practice at all? That seems to me ridiculous. The other 80% they say there is UNKNOWN reason why they improve, that to me is ridiculous.

Yeah, that's a really important point. Without practice you aren't going anywhere, no matter how talented you are. I think what the article was saying, however, is that deliberate practice accounts for 20% of the difference in skill levels between individuals. That is, if you compare two individuals who have been practising for the same period of time and one of whom is far more skilled than the other, only ~20% of that difference can be attributed to the amount of deliberate practice that they do. They aren't saying that practice only contributes 20% to a person's skill level.

[lostinidlewonder]

...I think what the article was saying, however, is that deliberate practice accounts for 20% of the difference in skill levels between individuals. That is, if you compare two individuals who have been practising for the same period of time and one of whom is far more skilled than the other, only ~20% of that difference can be attributed to the amount of deliberate practice that they do. They aren't saying that practice only contributes 20% to a person's skill level.

Honestly I don't see how they measured any rate of improvement specifically as it relates to piano or other instrumental studies. How can you measure a 20% difference at all? What are they measuring? It is not like measuring the time it takes for someone to run 100m and seeing the improvement based on the lowering time. With music how can you accurately measure any % difference between people? They did not describe this from anything I read which obviously is tongue in cheek.

Piano improvement is not always immediate as well, it sometimes takes time for a revelation to hit and a jump in ability to be noticeable, sometimes it is just a progressive creep in improvement etc. So if they study these students for like a day and then try to measure the improvement, it seems like a stupid condition. They would have to measure the students praticing for a year and then measure the difference, that would be more reliable info. We have no idea what the bounds of time of practice is used in the studies either.

If I practice for 10 minutes compared to a beginner practicing for 10 minutes, given the content of work the beginner could manage, the content I can get through would be most likely 100 hours worth of work for the beginner. It is because of my practice method, the fact that I have practice A LOT in the past so the information is nothing new it is well known and predictable. The beginners have to deal with a lot of seemingly unpredictable situations since they are very new to them.

[klavieronin]

Honestly I don't see how they measured any rate of improvement specifically as it relates to piano or other instrumental studies. How can you measure a 20% difference at all? What are they measuring?

Who knows? You'd need to read the original papers to find out how these studies are conducted. I didn't read them because, well… I couldn't be bothered.

I do wonder how they measure musical ability in the first place though. Not everyone agrees on what it means to be a good musician, and different musicians all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The whole area is pretty fraught come to think of it.

[lostinidlewonder]

Who knows? You'd need to read the original papers to find out how these studies are conducted. I didn't read them because, well… I couldn't be bothered.

I do wonder how they measure musical ability in the first place though. Not everyone agrees on what it means to be a good musician, and different musicians all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The whole area is pretty fraught come to think of it.

Yeah I skim read the entire paper and a few connected to it and did not see anything specific to music education in details unfortunately. These kinds of stats when it comes to the arts always need to be looked at with a bit of scrutiny I reckon. We teachers simply have experience teaching a lot of people to know the effects changes in practice routine does, we don't need random stats which are not specific to our work to tell us anything at all. Even if they are focusing on "expert performances" for one to get to that level requires structured and personalized training, it just doesn't occur by natural talent or other mysterious unknown factors.

Of course if your mind and/or body cannot manage a certain level you may never reach expert grades in your lifetime but you can still work on the grades you can manage in an expert manner. So level of works is one indicator of expertise but also the efficiency of learning works determines expertise as well. Of course a complete expert plays at an expert level as well as learns it at an expert rate. So level and rate really plays an important role as to what exactly we mean by expertise when it comes to music.

[pianodannn]

  Basically the study shows that practicing a certain way, and a certain amount, only correlates relatively weakly with skill level.Yes you cant really quantify all aspects of skill, but you can quantify the difference between a concert pianist, and soneone still learning grade 8. The two people may well have the same amount and quality of practice, yet still there can be a rather large difference in ability. Whatever the percentages, its blatantly clear that there are many things asides from practise that make a person become good, as far as "good" can be defined and quantified.

[swede1]

You try to play the violin!

Then you immediately return to the piano and feel very satisfied with the sound you produce!

[pianodannn]

   You stop playing piano, and do something else.....

[pianodannn]

With the time youre going to waste learning to play music nobody listens to, you could solve world hunger and fix the climate.
    If you dont have natural ability, give it away and move on.

[keypeg]

With the time youre going to waste learning to play music nobody listens to, you could solve world hunger and fix the climate.
    If you dont have natural ability, give it away and move on.

Ok, deciding to take this at face value.   Neither I, nor you, can "solve world hunger", or can we "fix" the climate.  Moreover, it's not something I'm interested in trying to do.   As far as "nobody listens to" - actually at times people do, but that's not the point.  It's not why I play.  This is for myself.  YOU can choose for YOURSELF what you want to do.  But don't tell ME (anyone reading this thread) what they should do.  I'll make my choices.  You make yours.  Which I'll respect as much as I expect this to be the case for anyone here.  This is the "Students' Corner".  It is for those who for whatever want to learn to play.  It is not a place for discouraging other.  For any reason.

I answered your questions in another thread.  So far you have not taken the time to do anything with that.  I always start off by taking questions as being sincere, and being questions, in case they are.

[pianodannn]

Ok, deciding to take this at face value.   Neither I, nor you, can "solve world hunger", or can we "fix" the climate.  Moreover, it's not something I'm interested in trying to do.   As far as "nobody listens to" - actually at times people do, but that's not the point.  It's not why I play.  This is for myself.  YOU can choose for YOURSELF what you want to do.  But don't tell ME (anyone reading this thread) what they should do.  I'll make my choices.  You make yours.  Which I'll respect as much as I expect this to be the case for anyone here.  This is the "Students' Corner".  It is for those who for whatever want to learn to play.  It is not a place for discouraging other.  For any reason.

I answered your questions in another thread.  So far you have not taken the time to do anything with that.  I always start off by taking questions as being sincere, and being questions, in case they are.

   Sorry, you failed to answer anything in another thread.What do i do with something thats not provided.You mentioned the myriad of inherent problems with the process of teaching.I aknowledged that, and moved on

[pianodannn]

 Its too late for me. The process of overcoming the problems has been botched beyond repair, because I couldn't be offered a simple truth relating to innate ability. Basically being continually lied to about what  practice does or does not accomplish, and what methodology can and can't do.
        What I suggested from the beginning was correct, but we had to go through months of bitter dispute to simply arrive straight back at the reality I suggested in the very first instance.But now i'm mentally ill, because I don't  glady accept and feel good about the reality. Its a mental illness to feel upset at being unable to do something.Apparently anyways.
     Im going to show the phsychiatrists all these posts.Lets see what they say about all this.

[keypeg]

   Sorry, you failed to answer anything in another thread. What do i do with something  thats not provided. You mentioned the myriad of inherent problems with the process of teaching.

I did more than that, but you didn't see it.  Apparently you encounter problems of some kind, and are not finding solutions.  I'm sorry that that is happening.
However (this thread), do not tell us that if we don't have talent or whatever, we should spend our time otherwise (like solving world hunger or whatever).  Our choices are ours personally, just like yours is.  This is a site for students, who by dint of being students are trying and putting out effort.  If you argue with a teacher (there's one here - dunno if there are more) that's a different matter.  That was my point.

[frodo1]

Its too late for me. The process of overcoming the problems has been botched beyond repair, because I couldn't be offered a simple truth relating to innate ability. Basically being continually lied to about what  practice does or does not accomplish, and what methodology can and can't do.
       

The level of piano proficiency achieved is largely a function of ALL of the following:
1) Upper limit given to them at birth (i.e., natural talent)
2) Start age of leaning piano (or taking music lessons of some kind)
3) Quality of instruction
4) Motivation to learn
5) Hours spent practicing the piano

Here you notice that hours spent practicing the piano is just 1 of 5 major items.

Let’s assume the following 0 to 100 scale for piano proficiency: 

“0” -Never touched a piano and never had any music lessons.
“100”-The greatest pianist that ever lived – let’s say Liszt

Here you will notice that EVERYONE will receive a piano proficiency score of “0” (Zero) if they practice the piano 0 hours.  So piano proficiency of any kind requires practice.

For sake of discussion, here are very rough piano proficiency scores for two selected cases (these may be way off, but are offered as a starting point for discussion).

“10” – the best pianists that post here – maybe 1/10 as good as Liszt

“0.5”-the average person that starts piano at age 5 with good motivation and good instruction and practices 3 hours a day to age 21.

At birth, everyone has an upper limit on their piano proficiency score (again my numbers may be way off, but the values serve as a point for discussion.

"100" - Liszt – had “100” as his upper limit at birth
"1" - Average person – has an upper limit of “1”.

Let’s start with Liszt:
If he practiced 0 hours, his piano proficiency score would be exactly “0” (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

If he started piano at age 30 and practiced 5 hours a day for 20 years: His piano proficiency score after20 years may be something like a “5” (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

If he started at age 5 but had no instruction from anyone and was completely (I mean 100%) self-taught and he practiced as much as he did: His piano proficiency score may be something like a "3" or a “20” at its highest point (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

Next, let’s look at the average person that is very motivated to learn to play piano.

If the average person starts from age 5 with expert instruction with access to good piano and practices 3 hours a day from age 5 to age 45 – he will achieve his upper limit piano proficiency score of “1”.

If the average person who never took ANY music lessons starts piano from age 25 with good instruction with access to good piano and practices 3 hours a day from age 25 to age 45 – he may achieve a piano proficiency score of “0.25”.

If the average person practiced 0 hours, his piano proficiency score would be exactly “0”.

Who should practice the piano?

How about an average person that starts piano at age 45?  He has no hope of earning a living at piano.  Why practice then?  For enjoyment.  If he does not enjoy trying to increase from “0.020” piano proficiency to a “0.021" score, then he should not practice.

How about Brahms’ brother and Father?  They had similar genetics and environment and desire to be great at music as the great Johannes Brahms, but the best that they could do with all their hard work was earn a very modest living.  Should they practice and work to improve?  In their case, they were actually supporting themselves with their music, so they have an additional reason to practice.  But if they hated practicing, they should also not practice.

[martinn]

What do you do when you feel you suck at the piano?

1. Practice
2. Get a teacher

So simple ?

And maybe
3. Take a break

[frodo1]

Can someone play a piece beautifully with a piano proficiency score of "0.020" (referring to my prior post)?  Absolutely!  How about Bach Prelude in C major WTC book 1!  How about  Beethoven Moonlight sonata 1st mvt!  But you need to make sure you have good basic technique.  Also, take a break by working to polish up earlier level pieces.  If you complete level 5 piano (for example) and can use a break - work on polishing level 3 pieces.

[ranjit]

The level of piano proficiency achieved is largely a function of ALL of the following:
1) Upper limit given to them at birth (i.e., natural talent)
2) Start age of leaning piano (or taking music lessons of some kind)
3) Quality of instruction
4) Motivation to learn
5) Hours spent practicing the piano

Here you notice that hours spent practicing the piano is just 1 of 5 major items.

Let’s assume the following 0 to 100 scale for piano proficiency: 

“0” -Never touched a piano and never had any music lessons.
“100”-The greatest pianist that ever lived – let’s say Liszt

Here you will notice that EVERYONE will receive a piano proficiency score of “0” (Zero) if they practice the piano 0 hours.  So piano proficiency of any kind requires practice.

For sake of discussion, here are very rough piano proficiency scores for two selected cases (these may be way off, but are offered as a starting point for discussion).

“10” – the best pianists that post here – maybe 1/10 as good as Liszt

“0.5”-the average person that starts piano at age 5 with good motivation and good instruction and practices 3 hours a day to age 21.

At birth, everyone has an upper limit on their piano proficiency score (again my numbers may be way off, but the values serve as a point for discussion.

"100" - Liszt – had “100” as his upper limit at birth
"1" - Average person – has an upper limit of “1”.

Let’s start with Liszt:
If he practiced 0 hours, his piano proficiency score would be exactly “0” (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

If he started piano at age 30 and practiced 5 hours a day for 20 years: His piano proficiency score after20 years may be something like a “5” (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

If he started at age 5 but had no instruction from anyone and was completely (I mean 100%) self-taught and he practiced as much as he did: His piano proficiency score may be something like a "3" or a “20” at its highest point (not the “100” he actually achieved.)

Next, let’s look at the average person that is very motivated to learn to play piano.

If the average person starts from age 5 with expert instruction with access to good piano and practices 3 hours a day from age 5 to age 45 – he will achieve his upper limit piano proficiency score of “1”.

If the average person who never took ANY music lessons starts piano from age 25 with good instruction with access to good piano and practices 3 hours a day from age 25 to age 45 – he may achieve a piano proficiency score of “0.25”.

If the average person practiced 0 hours, his piano proficiency score would be exactly “0”.

Who should practice the piano?

How about an average person that starts piano at age 45?  He has no hope of earning a living at piano.  Why practice then?  For enjoyment.  If he does not enjoy trying to increase from “0.020” piano proficiency to a “0.021" score, then he should not practice.

How about Brahms’ brother and Father?  They had similar genetics and environment and desire to be great at music as the great Johannes Brahms, but the best that they could do with all their hard work was earn a very modest living.  Should they practice and work to improve?  In their case, they were actually supporting themselves with their music, so they have an additional reason to practice.  But if they hated practicing, they should also not practice.

I like this post, the numbers look fairly good to me. The question is now what each level roughly means. Since you say that 10 is around the level of the best posters here, I would say that's the level at which someone can play say difficult pieces such as Gaspard de la Nuit competently at a concert, at least from what I've seen on this site. What comes after that?

[j_tour]

Well, while it's always humbling to observe great mechanics and artists, I try not to measure myself against someone like Cortot or Hamelin.

I know I'm good at what I can do.  In fact, great at my little bag.

But, yes, I take a break and try silence for a while.  Try to find some novel things by listening, and stay away from the keyboard and put the mental effort in. 

No, I don't mean stop playing, but I do stop "repertoire maintenance" and learning/memorizing new pieces.  I mean, one never really forgets what one can play, and I'd not advise stopping doing, like, the Bach Sinfonie or some scalar patterns every day.  Just to keep one's head in the game.

But, I do stop all new stuff and anything demanding until it feels like the time is right.  Few weeks, something like that.

Recalibrate, really. 

Not much of an answer, but that's all I got.

[frodo1]

I like this post, the numbers look fairly good to me. The question is now what each level roughly means. Since you say that 10 is around the level of the best posters here, I would say that's the level at which someone can play say difficult pieces such as Gaspard de la Nuit competently at a concert, at least from what I've seen on this site. What comes after that?

Quantity is to be considered.  Someone playing Gaspard de la Nuit competently at a concert does not make someone 1/10th as good as Liszt.  Add to it about 2-5 hours more music.  Let's hear a few Beethoven sonatas, Brahms op 24, complete op 10 of Chopin (or op. 25 if you like).  Toss in a some chamber music - maybe Brahms op 100 violin sonata and the Franck violin sonata.  Also add in maybe a Liszt concerto.

Edit: Rather than calling Liszt a "100", maybe I should give "100" to someone considered in the top 10 of pianists for the 20th century.  We are not sure how great Liszt was.  For example, Martha Agerich might be a 95.  Why pick her?  I happen to be listening to her performances of the 2 Ravel concertos and she sounds pretty impressive to me.  Edit: Of course her recording of Gaspard de la Nuit is amazing (scary good).

Edit 2:  So what would Liszt be if say Horowitz is a 100?  Who knows - maybe a 120?  140?
How much better is Horowitz than Agerich?  Maybe 100/95-1 = 5%
How much better is Horowitz than the best posters here at piano street?  Maybe 100/10-1 = 900%

Of course my numbers are just wild made up numbers for discussion purposes.  I was trying to answer Pianodann's question.  Yes - natural ability makes a huge difference.  But I'm sure there have been some/many that had great natural ability but never practiced much and so did not amount to much.  I'm not sure if Pianodannn still posts here.

[frodo1]

Can someone play a piece beautifully with a piano proficiency score of "0.020" (referring to my prior post)?  Absolutely!  How about Bach Prelude in C major WTC book 1!  How about  Beethoven Moonlight sonata 1st mvt!  But you need to make sure you have good basic technique.  Also, take a break by working to polish up earlier level pieces.  If you complete level 5 piano (for example) and can use a break - work on polishing level 3 pieces.

I want to end on a positive note for this thread by reposting the above. 

Also, I just read all the prior posts in this thread just now.   Good thoughts were given by others.  I was focused on Pianodannn's question.

Ranjit says - "I think I can remember the notes pretty fast if I want to (in a day or two, but I cannot play it without pausing to remember what comes next), but I simply don't know how to 'perfect' a piece so that it comes out right every time. Even after months of playing it. But the latter is what is important for learning the piano.  I feel like I cannot play even the simplest pieces 'well enough' and it seems like most elementary school kids who have had proper piano instruction are better than me in that respect. 
Is this normal? I can't call myself a beginner because I can play a Chopin etude, and I can't consider myself an advanced student because I can't play a damn Czerny study well enough."

My final thoughts here: Is it possible that your basic technique is at fault?  This seems to me to be the most logical place to look based on your description quoted above.  Have you developed true finger independence*, for example?  Murray McLachlan writes in his book "Foundations of Technique" - “True finger independence for pianists means using each digit in turn without any movement from the others in the same hand.  It is a vital basic skill.”  Klavieronin suggested some books.  Did you look at these?  Is it possible to see a top piano teacher from a conservatory for an evaluation of your technique and a few lessons?  Can your current teacher suggest someone?

Best of luck!   

* - You can practice Hanon for years and not gain true finger independence if you don't have the correct technique.

[lostinidlewonder]

There are geniuses at piano who hardly practice at all, one that comes to mind is Nyiregyhazi who didn't even own a piano. I personally taught early in my career one lady who was in her 50s who stands out, she never played before but was playing Chopin concertos and late Beethoven little after 1-2 years and with great expression and technical control. She even took up painting and drew lifelike portraits in pencil, acrylic and oils. Super talent.

But all this comparisons and trying to keep up with someone else is detrimental to the artistic journey. The internet has really perverted many people's artistic journey either depressing the hell out of them or giving them an arrogant big head. I'm glad 99% of my musical activities for lessons rest totally outside of the internet and I mostly use it to show students pieces they could learn or to find sheet music. We don't gawk at 3 year olds playing Chopin etudes or this and that. The vast majority of my students don't spend their time watching piano videos and being impressed by other pianists, they have their own journey they are busy with, they use the internet for information that is relevant to their journey and dont waste time dreaming.

I personally don't know how people can be stuck if they keep themselves busy with manageable work. If you overextend yourself and get impatient learning difficult works you cannot control its really just your own fault and nothing to get frustrated over, merely choose something else. If you do not find beauty in easier works and are only drawn to overly complicated pieces it is the nature of your tastes that are your undoing. Just like alcoholics enjoy the drink too much, drug addicts like certain substances too much, music addicts can also have an unhealthy obsession. It is good to aim for the stars but there are processes to go through on your journey of aiming for stars. You will even find that your goals change unexpectedly and for the better, what your didn't know you didn't know reveals itself and new pathways open up which satisfy you like you had never expected.

Listen to super virtuosos play simple music, I'm a little surprised a number of them have little expression and sound no better than a well trained student. Sometimes virtuosos hide behind all their notes and flourishes but what about the simple musical language? Strip away their notes and what do you have left?

[ranjit]

My final thoughts here: Is it possible that your basic technique is at fault?  This seems to me to be the most logical place to look based on your description quoted above.

I do believe my basic technique is at fault. But the problem is that it looks like the only way to achieve basic technique properly is to start with a very good teacher at a very young age and play La Campanella at 12.

[frodo1]

I do believe my basic technique is at fault. But the problem is that it looks like the only way to achieve basic technique properly is to start with a very good teacher at a very young age and play La Campanella at 12.

Haha.  Somehow I believe you might be kidding here - at least for your second sentence.