Am I learning at a good ratio?

[rovis77]

I started playing the piano in 2006 when I was 18 years old. I never went to a Conservatory, I only had two teachers who were professional pianists and studied in the Conservatory. With the first teacher I studied 8 years, with the second one I am still studying and I´ve been his student for around 10 years. My question is: The last piece I played was the Chopin Etude Op 25 No 10. I memorized the whole etude in about 5 hours, it took about a week to play it at tempo with no mistakes and good technique. Is this a good learning ratio for someone to started to play not as a child but in his late teenage years?. Thanks

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes it's very good. Why do you feel that you need question it?
edit: Lack of response means  you just trying to falsely show off with lies? What's the stupid point of that.

[dizzyfingers]

 

[rovis77]

Yes it's very good. Why do you feel that you need question it?
edit: Lack of response means  you just trying to falsely show off with lies? What's the stupid point of that.

Here I am, it is no show off and I just wanted to ask because of curiosity.

[lostinidlewonder]

Still after 18 years of playing piano you don't have any clue at all? Why would you think your ratio is not good?

[keypeg]

Rovis, here's a non-snarky response.  You started at age 18.  We're told everywhere that unless a person starts at a young age, they won't get far, or they won't get as far as someone who started young.  If you do get somewhere, you won't learn as well, as fast, or get as good.  It's a wonderful (not!) mindf* to give people.  So of course you're wondering, and of course you're asking.   Get those negative messages out of your head.   From what you described, you seem to be doing fine.   Your first teacher must have believed in your abilities to have taught you for 8 years, and you're studying with another teacher now.  What does that teacher say?

[lostinidlewonder]

Its a comment of perplexity, given it was a post and run without response assumptions were made.

What person would think totally memorising a Chopin etude in 5 hours is bad? Or mastering it in a week? That is a question which the OP has avoided.

When things don't add up I am rather cynical until a reason is offered. If that reason is flimsy like "curiosity" I'd rather again try to get to the root of the matter rather than try to give them answers to their own personal issues. You can call it snarky, I call it provoking.

[dizzyfingers]

Its a comment of perplexity, given it was a post and run without response assumptions were made.

What person would think totally memorising a Chopin etude in 5 hours is bad? Or mastering it in a week? That is a question which the OP has avoided.

When things don't add up I am rather cynical until a reason is offered. If that reason is flimsy like "curiosity" I'd rather again try to get to the root of the matter rather than try to give them answers to their own personal issues. You can call it snarky, I call it provoking.

My initial reaction was that his post was to say "look at me!"
Then again he seems to be focused on rate of learning, here's another post by him:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=70533.msg728992#msg728992

[keypeg]

I see what you're both saying.  I guess I honed in on the idea of "If you start too late you won't get far." but that may not have been it at all.
Tbh, I'd not know how to answer the question.  The OP's teacher would be the best to answer, since that's who will be hearing the actual playing.

[lostinidlewonder]

My initial reaction was that his post was to say "look at me!"
Then again he seems to be focused on rate of learning, here's another post by him:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=70533.msg728992#msg728992

Yeah but this still doesn't quite answer the cognitive dissonance being shown here:
"I memorized the whole etude (Chopin Etude Op 25 No 10) in about 5 hours, it took about a week to play it at tempo with no mistakes and good technique. Is this a good learning ratio for someone to started to play not as a child but in his late teenage years?. "

Still curious why one would ever think something like this.

[ranjit]

Yeah but this still doesn't quite answer the cognitive dissonance being shown here:
"I memorized the whole etude (Chopin Etude Op 25 No 10) in about 5 hours, it took about a week to play it at tempo with no mistakes and good technique. Is this a good learning ratio for someone to started to play not as a child but in his late teenage years?. "

Still curious why one would ever think something like this.

Maybe his fellow students are learning faster? In case he studies with one of the top teachers out there, they would have their fair share of prodigies.

[lostinidlewonder]

Maybe his fellow students are learning faster? In case he studies with one of the top teachers out there, they would have their fair share of prodigies.

I think it's starting to get a little ridiculous if people are competing at memorising a Chopin etude in less than 5 hours and getting worried about their rate. It is not a race!! Do you honestly think that comparing if you can memorise it in 5 hours vs 4 hours is really worth any energy at all? Or what about the absolute best savant in the world who might learn it just by one listen? I think comparisons at this upper level simply becomes ridiculous and if you are doing things like that you might need to seek help for deeper problems.

[rovis77]

I just asked because of curiosity, I always heard that people that start at a later age cannot progress very far, so that is why I wanted to ask if my learning ratio was good.

[lostinidlewonder]

You're still avoiding the question to you, why do you think memorising a Chopin etude in 5 hours and mastering it in 1 week requires questioning that rate?

[klavieronin]

When you say you memorised it in a 5 hours what are we talking about? Are we talking in one sitting, or 30 minute sessions a day for 10 days? Or an hour a day for 5 days? And what does "memorising" mean. Does it mean you managed to play it once or twice without looking at the score at the end of a practice session, that you can go for a week without looking at it and still play it from memory, or that you can write the piece out from memory, dynamics, articulations, and phrasing included.

Also, "a week to play it in tempo without mistake and good technique"? How many hours a day do you practice and how many days a week?

And how regular has your practice been these past 18 years? All that is kind of relevant to the original question.

I would say that if you could write the piece out in full after a week of not looking at the score after a single 5 hour memorisation session, and could play it at tempo, without mistakes and with good technique after a week of one 15 minute session every other day, then you have made phenomenal progress!

If you memorised it after 15 20min sessions a day for 15 days, and play it at tempo after a week of 3 hour practices sessions twice a day, you've still made good progress… but after 18 years, things are going to move very slowly. At this point it might be worth not focusing so much on progress and just enjoy your playing for its own sake.

[klavieronin]

.

[ranjit]

I just asked because of curiosity, I always heard that people that start at a later age cannot progress very far, so that is why I wanted to ask if my learning ratio was good.

To be honest, I feel this way sometimes as well. It can be a kind of insecurity that comes about if your experience as an adult was teachers/peers constantly telling you that you started too late. I still feel it even when teachers sometimes make it clear that they think I learn fast.

But lostinidlewonder is correct. It is rather obvious that memorizing the Chopin etude op 25 no 10 in 5 hours is a "good" learning rate in any conventional sense. The question needs to be more specific.

It makes sense that it may not be "good enough" if you're competing with Daniil Trifonov, or other concert artists who can learn a concerto in a week or two and perform it on stage. It may not be "good" if your teacher has higher expectations that you can not manage to meet, and other students who can meet those expectations much easier. It may not be "good" if the quality of the memory or the playing is subpar, for instance, if you forget it very quickly after learning it or make many mistakes.

So, what is the context?

[lostinidlewonder]

To be honest, I feel this way sometimes as well. It can be a kind of insecurity that comes about if your experience as an adult was teachers/peers constantly telling you that you started too late. I still feel it even when teachers sometimes make it clear that they think I learn fast.

It makes sense that it may not be "good enough" if you're competing with Daniil Trifonov, or other concert artists who can learn a concerto in a week or two and perform it on stage.

I know excellent professional pianists who play at high levels who take their time. Does this make them lesser pianists? Why should it be a race? Does that make you a better musician, does that sell more concert tickets, make you a better teacher or what is the measurement, what other measurement does one want to take? Why does there even need to be a comparison? Does one identify themselves as a musician based on how much "better" they are than someone else? Is that how one finds their niche in the arts industry? The world is too much about eating up each other, succeeding by overcoming others, being a giant fish which scares off all the others. Making yourself feel verified by looking down upon others is a terrible way to validate yourself.

[lelle]

I know excellent professional pianists who play at high levels who take their time. Does this make them lesser pianists? Why should it be a race? Does that make you a better musician, does that sell more concert tickets, make you a better teacher or what is the measurement, what other measurement does one want to take? Why does there even need to be a comparison? Does one identify themselves as a musician based on how much "better" they are than someone else? Is that how one finds their niche in the arts industry? The world is too much about eating up each other, succeeding by overcoming others, being a giant fish which scares off all the others. Making yourself feel verified by looking down upon others is a terrible way to validate yourself.

Well said. I did find a lot of ego, looking down on others, comparison and sniping at each other, not from everyone, but enough people for it to be noticeable when I was in the music business.

[klavieronin]

Agree, of course, but to be fair to the OP I don't think that's necessarily what they were doing. At first glance it did look like a bit of a boast-post but I think there are other plausible explanations. It is possible to want to seek validation (often a sign of insecurity - something I personally know all too much about ) without a desire to make others feel small. I could be wrong but I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt.

[lostinidlewonder]

I did find a lot of ego, looking down on others, comparison and sniping at each other, not from everyone, but enough people for it to be noticeable when I was in the music business.

Yes, I find im battling it with students now and then too, trying to get them out of the mindset of comparisons (whether it elevates or reduces their sense of worth) to find a better source for validation. I'm quite passionate about pushing against that type of thinking since I've not seen it ever be used for real good.

As soon as you compare you already either elevate yourself above others or feel belittled by others. That is just the nature of comparing achievement. Seeking validation is fine but why not from a source other than comparing? What about the joy of music, the focus on achievement itself outside of the realms of comparisons, bringing something constructive rather than destructive. I know comparing is something we can fall into and I'm not saying it's simply egotistical, arrogant and pompous, but we need to be wary of our thoughts and what are the roots from which it really extends from. Align our motivations with genuine curiosity and satisfaction, rather than fleeting recognition.

Competition and comparisons can have a place, particularly for setting certain goals or understanding benchmarks, they’re best viewed as tools rather than ultimate measures of success. You obviously don't encourage someone to be a solo concert pianist and give up their day job if they are still a beginner. As a teacher you compliment excellence in a student's effort based on their relative experience if it were comparative amongst the greatest pianists you'd be a dry soulless teacher who does not motivate or inspire students.

[brogers70]

Agree, of course, but to be fair to the OP I don't think that's necessarily what they were doing. At first glance it did look like a bit of a boast-post but I think there are other plausible explanations. It is possible to want to seek validation (often a sign of insecurity - something I personally know all too much about ) without a desire to make others feel small. I could be wrong but I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I agree. It's good to give people the benefit of the doubt because the charitable interpretation might be correct. Even more, putting a charitable interpretation on others can sometimes shift them towards a state in which the charitable interpretation is correct, even if it wasn't completely correct at the start.  Trusting people helps makes them trustworthy, not always, of course, but often enough to be worth it.

[essence]

It takes maybe 50 years to learn the first couple of lines of Chopin Ballade #4 or Schubert Bflat.

OK, maybe 10 years.

[ranjit]

Competition and comparisons can have a place, particularly for setting certain goals or understanding benchmarks, they’re best viewed as tools rather than ultimate measures of success.

I think this can be very important. Left to myself, I think that anyone should be able to fully memorize a decent sized piece of music (like a Chopin Waltz or Bach Prelude) securely within a day. It is a little bit of an illusion since the number of notes is so few if you think about it. Outside comparisons really help me pace myself a little better, because they tell me that such a pace of learning is, in fact, extremely rare, so I don't have to get too down on myself if I don't manage to achieve it (and it takes three days instead). I can see a little bit of that in the OP, but I might just be projecting.