Self taught?

[fowler]

Hello to everyone,

I am wondering how many people who use this site have taught themselves to play the piano, and done everything themselves throughout their years of playing and reached a good/very good standard. This is the case with me, as I am not accademically trained what so ever, I am not graded (not even grade 1) but play pieces that are of an advanced level. I played for years and developed my technique etc.. then met a piano teacher and had lessons and was going to take grade 8 but now I am going to stay ungraded beacuse I feel better off learning the way I want to, I feel I was wasting money on lessons in fact.

Does anyone agree with me that musically when playing you cant be taught the emotions and feelings that you can put into a piece, thats inside you from the beginning, technique comes with practice also done by yourself, I felt my teacher was only a mere guide to playing a piece to the highest standard, nothing more.

I practice on a very good digital piano also, does anyone else think they are good enough to learn on? Is it essential to have a real acoustic piano in order to be a proffesional?

[mound]

Of course teachers are a guide and nothing more. That's the point. 95% of the learning you do will be on your own time.

The problem with going at it alone the whole time is that you would have to be very lucky to not ever make any mistakes and guide yourself in the right direction along an unknown path the entire time.  If you are not so lucky, you'll make mistakes, many of which you'll never be aware of, that could ultimately be very difficult to undo.  Having a teacher as a guide will ensure that all of the learning that you do on your own is in fact in the right direction.

The artistic vision will eventually come from within you of course. But there is much study and prepertory work, both intellectually and physically that is required to get to the point where you are able to express your artistic vision to your standards. That study and prep work, I believe (others do  as well I'm sure) requires proper guidance (at least if we're talking about "classical piano")  Unless you are some kind of prodigy, there is simply no way around this.

I would be interested in hearing some recordings of your playing! I recall some time back somebody came to these forums, I don't remember who, and was showing off a recording of the Fantasie Impromptu, having been "self taught" and such. While I have to applaud anybody who has the motivation to teach themselves a piece like that, the performance was severely lacking in many of the areas that a good teacher would have fixed quickly and early on. Perhaps his ability to perform that piece well is permently scarred because of having "taught himself". Perhaps not, but it is food for thought.



re: digital vs. acoustic, that thread has been covered here many times.. There are benefits of both. To be a professional? Yes, I think you'd need a real acoustic grand piano. I learn on a high end digital piano, and it's a great tool for working on learning notes and being able to do it at all hours. I don't have the money or space for a grand piano. But I do go and sit at one every weekend for 3-4 hours, because the technique you can utilize on a grand is far superior to that of an acoustic. Pedalling is a huge thing, with the digital it's on or off. You have so much more control of the pedal on a real piano.. Not to mention the increased range of expression using real felt, wood and iron.   Digitals can be great practice tools to have, but they are not even close to a equal substitute.

-Paul

[pocorina]

Well, I started teaching myself from age 5, up until about 7. In that time I acheived around grade 6/7 standard (english grades from 1-8). But since I got a teacher, I came on so much more.

[Derek]

I'm completely self taught at improvisation (with a bit of encouragement along the way), but since I'm not naturally a perfectionist at all, I find that my teacher has been quite beneficial to me in terms of developing better technique and ability with reading music and interpreting repertoire.

[rhapsody7900]

Hey, I'm self-taught as well, AND I've always learned on a digital piano.  (Having played throughout college and now doing grad school, never had time for a teacher or the space for an acoustic piano).  I'm learning pretty advanced pieces... well, for my standards... I have a couple friends who play a bit of piano who've had lessons in the past - they are always impressed with the pieces I play, but I'm secretly more impressed with their technique (even if it's exhibited in a piece that's a lot more elementary). 

The great advantage of learning on my own has been being able to learn exactly what I want to play, even spending a lot of time on pieces that I am not ready for technically and expressively.

There are some drawbacks, of course; I have very little understanding of theory (although I am absolutely fascinated by it!)  ... learning that on my own has been difficult.  Also, my sight reading is somewhat poor because I've only learned pieces that I'm familiar with, so it's hard to help out friends who need accompanyment, etc. 

So fowler, a lot of what you said resonates, I'm curious as to what pianists who have taught themselves have to say... what pieces got them started?  What pieces of the standard repertoire did they avoid/skip over?  How and where have you performed?

[Daevren]

I am not much of a pianist. But I am mostly self taught. I did have some guitar lessons when I started out with music. But most things I learned I learned myself. But all those things rest on a very small foundation but down by my guitar teacher. I could say I learned alot about music.

A teacher than only show you how you can learn something, which is very important.

Personally I have had the talents to develop the gift to be able to teach myself everything I would like to learn. This would be utterly impossible without internet.

I would not recommend people to try and learn something by themselves if they really want to learn it.

[mound]

I'm learning pretty advanced pieces... well, for my standards... I have a couple friends who play a bit of piano who've had lessons in the past - they are always impressed with the pieces I play, but I'm secretly more impressed with their technique (even if it's exhibited in a piece that's a lot more elementary). 

Exactly, as I'm sure you're aware, why a teacher is so beneficial.  I'm fully convinced that anybody with enough motivation can teach themselves to execute the notes of any piece out there. That's not the point (in my little mental world at least it's not) - I too am a perfectionist, I like everything I do to be done as best as I can possibly do it. Not just in piano, but in everything I put a great deal of mental energy into. To me, that goes so far beyond the mere playing of notes, I want to make the piece mine so that I can be engaged with it completely on so many levels as to baffle me.  How do I achive that? On my own? Hell no, I didn't even know this "world of thought" existed until I started studying piano with a teacher.  I spent 10 years as an electric bassist in rock and jazz/fusion bands, and I thought I was all that.  In reality I wasn't. I had taken lessons on jazz bass a couple times, but only a couple, and always prided myself on being "self taught". Having essentially given up bass, if not only for the fact that I'm so absorbed in piano, and been engaged with an excellent teacher the entire time, I look at my whole "career" as a bassist as an absolute joke - intellectually that is. I had NO IDEA what I was getting myself into that day I said "hey, I want to start taking piano lessons again" (I played a few years when very young) - and I was focused more deeply and practiced harder, in a year on piano, than I had the entire 10 years I "taught myself to be a bassist".  Granted, "classical piano" is orders of magnitude harder than rock/jazz bass, but the point remains, until you allow yourself to be led by a good teacher, you have no idea the disservice you are doing to yourself, to your rate of progress, by going at it all alone.

anyway..  where was I.

The great advantage of learning on my own has been being able to learn exactly what I want to play, even spending a lot of time on pieces that I am not ready for technically and expressively.

I don't understand how this is an advantage? It should be a given with a teacher. If your teacher doesn't work with you to ensure that this is the case (not including conservatory students) then you need to find a new teacher. It's not the teachers fault you're not getting this, it's you're for not finding it.  Since I began with a teacher, I have worked on actual repertoir (no method books or hannon or the like) to develop my technique by studying pieces that utilize technique I don't yet have.  That way I get the technique. If I don't like a piece, we don't work on it. If I bring a piece I want to work on, if it is honestly far outside my range, my teacher will find a piece similar in style/period/performance yet closer within my reach, but definitely not quite in my reach, we work on that instead. It's a give and take. I wouldn't have it any other way.  At the same time, he's always showing me new pieces, new composers I've never heard, and everytime that's happened, I've ended up with a great piece of repertoir that I would not likely have found on my own.

There are some drawbacks, of course; I have very little understanding of theory (although I am absolutely fascinated by it!)  ... learning that on my own has been difficult.  Also, my sight reading is somewhat poor

I feel you're pain. I too an fascinted by theory, and I do my best to get as deep into it as I need to, and my teacher is always digging deep into pieces with me on that level, but I admit I'm still not even close to "fluent" with the language, so to speak.  Sight reading as well, has always been a problem for me, 'cause I tend to memorize.  Just tonight I had this conversation with my teacher. My teacher said "you're technique and musicianship are light years ahead of your sight reading skills" - he's right and I know! With sight reading - it's up to me to practice it on my own time.  I don't need him for that, neither do you. The probem is I don't practice sight reading as I should and so I don't really improve at it.  That's me, not my teacher. Musicianship and technique however, do I learn that on my own? No, I only continue to develop it on my own, after my teacher has shown me in detail. As I experiment with it, I learn more about it on my own.  Then it's "mine".  I had, when I first got started thought about just using books and videos, and I'm glad I chose not to. It saddens me now to think that if I had not chosen a teacher to show me this path, I'd definitely never have known it was there, and to this day would be without that technical or musical abilty. ie. I'd be a fraction of the pianist I am now.  That is what I fear one will miss out on if s/he chooses to teach themselves.  Is that what you want for youself? If not and you are serious about learning to play the piano, do whatever you need to do to get yourself a teacher and stick with it my friend, it is not a decision you will soon regret.
-paul



-paul

[whynot]

I'm a self-taught classical pianist.  I play at a high level, and I worked almost completely on my own from age three until the last few years (mid-thirties).  Now I coach with a brilliant pianist who doesn't say much in my lessons, but is inspirational in his playing and attitude.  I am not sharing this in order to brag that I did it on my own, my family simply couldn't afford the lessons.  Nor do I wish to imply that others take this route.  I DON'T recommend it.  A good teacher is worth his/her weight in gold, and my life would have been very different if I'd had a good teacher as a child.

The positive:  Musically, I came out fine.  I can do most of the things that I want to do,  and I have a combination of skills that many traditionally- trained pianists may not.  I sightread unusually well and play by ear just as well, and I'm strong in many styles.  I have stamina, I can play all day.  I didn't seem to form any unhealthy habits, but I was LUCKY, because that can easily happen.  Mainly, I wasn't willing to be uncomfortable.  I never over-stretched, over-arched, or did anything else that didn't feel good. 

The negative:  I don't know if it's possible to have a solo career with my (not-young) age and background.  I didn't go through a graded program with testing and competitions, make connections, or have a teacher to mentor me or recommend me for things.  I don't know if it happens without that structure.  The even larger drawback is that, until pretty recently, my playing was unpolished and sometimes really crude (I didn't realize this or I would have polished it, you understand-- I had no idea).  I didn't know anything about various classical styles or how to be musical at all.  It was actually a non-pianist but wonderful musician who helped me with that, and I play completely differently now.  But again, maybe a little late.       

I think I was able to learn a lot because I was so incredibly ignorant of the enormity of the task.  I didn't know it was hard to read music, so I tried to read everything, even pieces with notation I didn't understand at all.  I didn't know memorization could be difficult, so I memorized a ton of music.  I didn't know that playing by ear was different from reading music-- I thought it was all just playing-- so I tried to play everything I heard.  I'm not a genius, I wasn't a prodigy, I have the same amount of potential/ talent/whatever as other naturally musical people.  But I had lots of time and curiosity, and very little discouragement-- until I was older, but that's a story for another day... 
Anyway, I thought I could do all those things, so I did.           

[chromatickler]

one advantage to being self taught is thinking your playing is much better than it actually is.

[whynot]

Was that aimed at me?  I said I am not a genius, nor was I a child prodigy, just that I learned a lot of things and can play at a high level.  Many people do, especially on this board.  I was just trying to answer the original question honestly, and also speak in support of good teachers everywhere and how important it is to have one if you can.  I think the traditional path to a solo career is very sound, and I would have taken it if I could.  I am very sorry if I offended anyone by sounding proud, because I'm really not.     

[Derek]

Being self taught and being an amateur is probably the best. It doesn't even MATTER how good you are. You are free to go through phases of thinking "MAN I RULE" to thinking "WHY AM I EVEN TRYING"  and it simly doesn't matter, to yourself or to anyone else!  The only thing that matters is that you ENJOY what you play.

[chromatickler]

Was that aimed at me     

no, it was a general observation

[fowler]

Thanks for the replies, I am very late in replying myself, I have to say there are too many negatives popping up in my opinion. As for the person who said there is an advantage to being self taught being you think you are better than you actually are, well thats not an advantage is it! did I miss the point there? In my case I would dissagree strongly as I have been told by many people how good my piano playing is, this by the way is not me showing off. I know for a fact that learning my own way has made me a better muscian. I learned by ear first and have always played everything from memory, never straight of the score. If you were giving a concert you wouldnt sight read a piano concerto anyway, well its got to be rare, I have trained my memory over the years through playing, with a teacher it was always straight off the sheet music, never liked doing that.

[edouard]

Hello Fowler,
"
If you were giving a concert you wouldnt sight read a piano concerto anyway, well its got to be rare,"

that's beside the point. 
Good sight reading skills help you play chamber music, accompaniment etc and especially:
once you reach a certain level, enables you to LEARN MUCH MORE MUSIC (ie much faster) even if you then memorize it afterhand.

What is learning by ear? Learning how other people have interpreted a given piece? What if they have exaggerated a particular rhythm. You may then tend to repeat the exaggeration without realizing that the score is completely different. I did this often some years ago with the debussy preludes and now my favourite way of learning them is to first sing them away from the piano, beat the rhythm etc and then play it.

best,
ed-

ps: I guess the most famous self-taught pianist has to be Godowsky, or is my info incorrect?

[bernhard]

ps: I guess the most famous self-taught pianist has to be Godowsky, or is my info incorrect?

Yes, he liked to claim that. But have a look here (reply #3):

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3689.msg33124.html#msg33124
(the myth of self-taught pianists: Godowsky, Richter and Chopin)


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[edouard]

Thanks Bernhard,

I was expecting something of that order concerning Godowsky, so thanks for the clarification!

best,

edouard

[fowler]

"What is learning by ear? Learning how other people have interpreted a given piece? What if they have exaggerated a particular rhythm. You may then tend to repeat the exaggeration without realizing that the score is completely different. I did this often some years ago with the debussy preludes and now my favourite way of learning them is to first sing them away from the piano, beat the rhythm etc and then play it"

In reply to this statement, I meant play by ear not learnt by ear, in other words I have always listened to cd's etc.. and picked up the notes from that particular source having no need to get my hands on the written score, saves money also. I learned alot of ludivico einaudi pieces through this method, hope someone has heard of him, granted they are of a minimilistic nature, but very beautiful to play. I can also read music very well now after practicising for years, the only thing I cant do well is to read the music straight off the score of a new piece I dont know at its recommended tempo, however if you were to play a new piece for a recital or whatever you would have time to learn it wouldn't you.

I am not keen on having to sit down and read new pieces straight off, I dont see much point in it unless its for people with poor memories, surely the piece will be more polished having taking it away and learning it and commiting it to memory so you can actually look at the keys of the piano and of course your hands.

I always listen to good or great recordings, so if I was to listen to how they are performed in helping me to play the piece and interpret it, it wont be incorrect will it, anyway I would look at the score for myself also, so I cant go wrong.

[yossarian]

I am wondering how many people who use this site have taught themselves to play the piano, and done everything themselves throughout their years of playing and reached a good/very good standard.

fowler,

I guess it depends on your definition of "good/very good." I took lessons up until the time I was 17, and the last piece I played was Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu, which I learned on my own. When I played it for other people up to tempo, they immediately assumed I was a virtuoso, when nothing could have been further from the truth.

It's not that I played it badly -- all the notes were there and I made an attempt to be as expressive as I could. But it wasn't even remotely close to the performance and interpretation standards of a serious pianist. My technique was flawed in many different areas I could not see on my own due to lack of knowledge and experience, and because I had learned the piece without supervision.

I recently began, again, to take lessons from a graduate of a Russian conservatory (I am now 23.) After hearing me play, she immediately pointed out half a dozen issues with my technique that would have otherwise gone unnoticed by the majority of people. And this was only scratching the surface.

She did not even address specific interpretation and technical problems with the piece itself.

As I have implemented her instruction into my practice, I have made leaps and bounds in the quality of my playing. I now understand that the standards of a "high level" I had previously set for myself were incredibly low. When I hear recordings of my playing from back then, it makes me cringe and I often have to turn it off.

In short, it depends on your goals. If you wish to reach a point where you are an impressive pianist to 95% of the public, you are probably already there. All that is required for the task is to learn a few flashy pieces and keep note-stumbles to a minimum.

But if you want to become a serious musician and, more importantly, realize your full potential, this can not be accomplished without a teacher, no matter your talent level.

The same holds true for all activities.

Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest and most talented investor of all time, was mentored by Benjamin Graham.

Miles Davis was mentored by Charlie Parker.

Tiger Woods still takes golf lessons.

Without guidance and instruction, these people might all have turned out  extremely talented hacks at worst, and far below their potential at best.

So again, it comes down to what you define as "good/very good" standard.