Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Good at classical, but can you pop?

I wonder how a person with great technical skill, due to classical training, does with pop music, TV/movie themes, etc? Do you find them extremely easy, or you have to wrestle with them just like the rest of us?

Do you mean playing them from the score, from lead sheets, or by ear? Because if I have the sheet music for a pop song or movie music, etc, it is usually a lot easier than anything else I'm used to playing. I can play basic chords/ arpeggios and melody from a lead sheet if I know the song, but can't make anything interesting out of it. And I cannot play by ear worth anything. I just realized that big gap in my ability lately, and have started working on it.

Yes I mean from the score.

It's easy. I actually started out playing movie themes.

It depends on the pop for me. Some of these modern rhythms throw me off when the music is set in front of me and I'm expected to play it. It all depends on the piece. I'm so used to sight-reading classical styles, that it becomes difficult when I try to apply the same rules to pop: that can be a bad idea sometimes!

I can do it, but I have a fair amount of experience with pop music.

The trick with pop music is that even when you've got a score in front of you, it still has to come from the ear. All pop scores are pretty much an approximation of what's really going on. (Because pop music is generally written by people who go from the ear first and don't deal directly with notation, as opposed to classical composers who often have notation in mind during the composing process. That's just one of my little unprovable half-baked theories, though.)

I agree with Kreisler. Mostly they are alot easier than classical compositions, also because the 'rules' on how to play it 'right' seem alot less strict. And any audience you are going to play for is going to be WAY less critical than in classical music nowadays. Atleast, thats my experience.

It makes sense to me that classical musicians would find the technique easy, and would know how the notation goes and would know lots of theory, but would lack in the following areas:

* Creativity
* Using the ear
* Knowing harmony theory

in my opinion, and experience, if a musician enjoys playing a piece then it doesn't matter what genre it is, everyone has a natural feel for music regardless. it's easy to play a Chopin Nocturne with a Chopin Nocturne feel and then playing an Elton John song with an Elton John feel. and i don't see how classical musicians lack creativity just because they're classical musicians. if anything classical music demands much more emotion than pop music.

Do you honestly believe that? I mean the creativity part I could understand that you think that, however those other 2 seem quite absurd :|.

The scores for pop music are nearly always wrong. Half of the time they're not even in the correct key. It's better to learn it by ear.

I agree with Kreisler - playing pop/rock/TV themes and so on doesn't work particularly well if you try to play directly from the score - because so often it's an approximation of the piece - and quite often - not a good one to boot.
So if you have a good ear and/or you understand chords or lead sheets - no problem playing it. It doesn't take a great deal of creativity

It's funny that there is a perception that classical musicians have no creativity, can't play by ear and have no idea of harmony. I don't understand where that comes from. It seems to me that most musicians have elements of all these things - but they choose to focus these skills in different areas - be it pop, classical or jazz. Choosing one form of music over the other doesn't necessarily indicate an absence of skills in any particular area.

Quite absurd?????????? No..........

Classical musicians might know regular theory, such as counting, notation, chords, scales. But do they know how counterpoint works? How about secondary dominants? Do they know what a lydian scale is? Do they even know what a harmonic major scale is or a superlocrian scale is? Do they even know how to modulate from key to key? How about which scales go over which chords?

Classical musicians often lack transcription skills, such as hearing notes by ear. Can most classical musicians learn a song by ear?


If this was all easy for classical musicians, most classical musicians wouldn't have much trouble with improvisation. Yet most of them do in the very start of their pop career. I had a friend of mine named Rachel, and she was a very good classical pianist. However she became a jazz musician, and she couldn't improv very well. She was good at sight reading, notation, and theory, but she lacked in ear training skills and improvisation.



Of course there are exceptions to these rules, if that's what you mean. It depends on the skill of the classical musician, and since everyone is on a different level, you can't really make any real conclusions as to who can do this and who can't do that, etc...

Euhm... there's really no point in discussing this with you, as you seem to know nothing about classical music at all. Counterpoint? No you'r right, you will never find that in classical music, especially not in Bach, he never did anything with counterpoint. Modulating from key to key, nope, another check, all the Beethoven sonata's are in the same key, from start till end....

I mean, come on, are you really serious? You just pulling my leg aren't you

Can they? I'm sure. It might take a little longer, but playing lots of music trains your ear whether you realize it or not. I never thought I could play by ear, but then I sat down and tried to play "My Immortal" and was surprised that I could.

My personal experience involves both pop and classical, so I'll confine my comments to the classical musicians I know. In terms of playing rhythm parts any musician who's heard any quantity of pop music can usually approximate the rhythms by ear. If they can get their eyes off the score there won't be a problem.

When it comes to soloing that's a different matter. Most classical musicians have never improvised a solo over changes and tend to confine their playing to diatonic notes. Throw any chromaticism at them and things get challenging. Some pick it up pretty quick, others not so much.

Man you seem to really misunderstand this stuff and you have got it all wrong. Beethoven and Bach were composers, and he was a classical musician, and he was creative, and he could improvise very well. But they were the BEST classical musicians. I'm talking about the everyday classical musician, the common classical musician.


Sure composers know harmony theory and ear training skills, that's because they are composers. But the rest of classical musicians do not compose and like to focus more on playing then creativity.

Sure counterpoint and modulation were written in the music of Beethoven and Bach, but do most classical musicians(non composers and non improvisers) today really understand these concepts?

But we have no Beethovens here today. If you want to argue with that, then how come there is no brand new, unique styles coming out?

You left out musical pitch out of the equation. Most people can figure out a rhythm... There are two parts to ear training - rhythm and pitch. Most classical musicians however, do not focus on relative or perfect pitch, and can't guess pitches and learn songs by ear.

Yup, sure. In the beginning maybe they can't, and yes they can improve to the point that they CAN play pop, but I'm talking about making the transition between classical and pop. I am talking about the very beginning here.

To answer your question, 'do most classical musicians today really understand these concepts'

yes

In order to really be able to perform the pieces they play, they have to understand them. This takes a long time per piece, of fully examining and understanding every thing of the piece. It seems to me that you think of classical musicians just as some sort of robots who mindlessly play the notes from a sheet. Its quite disrespectful, if this is indeed the case.

Also alot of professional established classical musicians have perfect, or atleast relative pitch. Ever noticed there aren't any frets on a Cello? Again, you seem just to be wildly guessing what classical musicians do and can do, maybe you should try talking to someone who has experience in the field instead.

When you guys mention "pop" is it mainly movie themes/soundtracks or are you including my favorite music? Songs like Stardust, Deep Purple, Lazy River, Birth Of The Blues, St. Louis Blues, etc.

My favorite movie soundtrack is from the movie Out Of Africa. Beautiful.

Bech

You're talking about the professionals then? Well then I agree with you. But if were talking about amateurs, then no.
The concepts creativity, ear training, and harmony theory often lack in amateur classical musicians. In professionals, however, its the other way around.

I don't know what exactly you're talking about, is this subject about professionals or amateurs? Of course professional musicians have these skills, they HAVE to be good, just to make it in life. If proffesional musicians is what this subject is about, then what is the point of this thread?

Of course professional musicians can play pop, improvise, know harmony theory, compose, and have relative or perfect pitch. They have to be able to do those things in order to be considered "good", and they have to be "good" to make it in life.

I don't know, but to me, talking about amateurs, would be utterly pointless. There are classical amateurs that have never once taken a lesson, and play fur elise alot. And there are classical amateurs who follow lessons from all kinds of great teachers, know all about musical theory, and can perform on professional level. There really is no point in talking about amateurs in general, there is no common ground in that whatsoever.

Yup, I betcha that fur elise kid cannot improvise, compose, know harmony theory, and ear training. He however is great at notation and sight reading, and chords, and basic theory.

However, those so-called professional classical kids who were trained in those areas, hopefully CAN and were well taught and mastered these skills.

I'm sorry but I still don't get what you are trying to say.

With: Yup, I betcha that fur elise kid cannot improvise, compose, know harmony theory, and ear training. He however is great at notation and sight reading, and chords, and basic theory.

What do you do you mean by that? For all we know he could not be able to sight read, and has memorized the piece? And maybe he likes to improvise alot, and is quite adept at it? And what do you mean with 'so called professional classical kids'? It could be just me, but I sense from you a very negative vibe towards people who enjoy playing classical music. Did this now become some sort of competition, of classical trained vs pop?

Yup, when I was talking about the "so called proffesional kids", I was refering to you previous post that said "And there are classical amateurs who follow lessons from all kinds of great teachers, know all about musical theory, and can perform on professional level."

The people that are trained in ear training, composition, theory, sight reading, etc..., will more likely be skilled than the people who are not trained. Those amateurs that play on a professional level(professional kids, professional adults, amateurs, whatever you call them), will be better at these skills.

The kid who plays Fur Elise(the amateur pianist) however without any training might be very good at classical, and have the following skills - sight reading, notation theory, basic theory, chords. However, he might not be good at improvisation or ear training or harmony, simply because he has never had the need to compose, improvise, or know harmony and never has done these things before in his life.

And to one of your previous posts, "In order to really be able to perform the pieces they play, they have to understand them.". I disagree with that one. There are people who CAN play classical music without understanding the harmony. You don't need to know harmony in order to play difficult classical pieces, but since classical music is currently more directed towards notation and playing rather than focusing on creativity and improvisation, notation is the recommended way of learning a classical piece(unless you want to learn it by ear).

All that is currently necessary in learning a difficult piano piece is learning notation, knowing basic theory, following the score, the dynamics, rhythm and pitch, and interpretation.
You don't need harmony theory in order to play them. You just do it.

That's all based on what you mean by "understanding" pieces. If you are talking about understanding harmony, then no you do not have to know harmony. If you are talking about notation, then currently yes, you do have to understand it.

There are people who compose very complex pieces of music, and know hardly anything about harmony and composition. You don't need to know harmony in order to compose a song, you just listen to what you think sounds correct.

Victor, fwiw I think Claude is quite right. Classical pianists-- from people who do it "for fun" to those in conservatory-- generally focus on learning notes, overcoming technical obstacles, and applying musical expression and sensitivity. They may take a theory class or two, but they generally don't know very much theory, and what they do know isn't integrated back into their playing-- so they don't use that theory to improvise. There is a huge gulf in this respect between today's classical players and its composers. And I don't know if historically it's ever been all that different (even if historical performers did improvise cadenzas and play figured basses).

What's interesting is that the gulf is much less with pop music: both players and songwriters generally improvise and play by ear and think about chord progressions. What's the cause of this difference? Well, what's the main difference between classical and pop music anyway? For me, the main difference is that classical music is 100% fully notated (down to whether a sonata's final chord doubles the root), while pop music, with basically no exceptions, is not. The two genres just have a fundamentally different relationship to the printed note.


-Jason

This.

Plus, keep in mind that classical piano music was written for the piano.

Whereas pop music sometimes is, (such as Billy Joel), but often is not.

And not a lot of pop is solely performed on the piano, if the piano is even in the mix.

Instead, pop typically is a sophisticated and mega-tweaked studio mix of all kinds of instruments. Trying to duplicate that on the solo piano becomes an exercise in frustration, especially for teen beginners who want to play some Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus in addition to their recently learned Fur Elise.

Yes I agree with you Rocket88 and I agree with you Kreisler.

Most pop sheet music IS an approximation of what is really supposed to be played. If you were aware enough, most pop sheet music only has the chord symbols and the melody. It was only recently that people have been transcribing pop songs thoroughly, rather than resorting down to simplicity, thanks to a great number of transcribers and computer software such as Transcribe!
But even the most accurately transcribed songs are not totally accurate. If you look at many of the jazz transcriptions, a lot of them have many flaws in them. If you want to be perfect and get the note for note accuracy of a piece, you better transcribe it yourself. For example, I was studying Art Tatum a while back, and I saw the transcription of his Tea for Two. There were many inaccuracies, so many, I would even consider the transcription a joke.

Pop seems to be the easiest thing to play for me, even by ear. Harmonically, most pop songs tend to revolve around a couple basic chords, not to mention the technique involved is usually really repetitive. I admit, there's a couple pop songs that range higher in difficulty, depending on how they're arranged. TV and movie themes tend to range in difficulty too. Look at The Simpsons' theme for example, I saw someone play an arrangement that looked quite difficult, but then again, I'm not sure what genre it was.

It's not like Jazz where you have to understand a higher level of harmony and melodic structure along with the syncopated rhythms. Pop tends to be just a more simplified and paraphrased version of classical in my opinion.

BTW, I improvise and compose regularly.

I've been studying piano/theory now for only four months and I can give a basic rundown of everything you just listed. I'd be amazed if some of today's pop artists have any clue what you're talking about. In fact, I could list several of them that don't write their own music, can't sing very well, and either don't play an instrument or play one very poorly. It doesn't take a genius to write some of today's music. All you have to do is appeal to the proper audience.


Is that true? Someone can study at a conservatory and learn almost nothing about musical theory? I'd always assumed the study in theory would be extensive.

In the Netherlands it is.

It is. The basics that Claude listed are usually gone over in Theory 101 at your local community college.

pianoman76,

In case you didn't know, I am coming from a jazz point of view. The only extensive studies that I have studied is in classical, jazz, and film music.

I studied jazz and composition though, thats why I would know that stuff. Before, I was the average beginner and I studied classical, and I knew basic theory. However, relatively advanced theory came when I studied composition and jazz.



And stores, you are correct about music theory 101 being in your local community college(although I never took the class). That's if you might want to pursue a career in music. If you want to be well rounded, its reccomended that you take the class. Musicians who play at the professional level better consider this.

It is when classical musicians who wish to pursue a career in music begin to take college level classes such as Theory 101, that they begin to understand composition and advanced theory, and ear training, sight reading, etc....

However when your an amateur classical musician, most likely your teacher will teach the following things(depends on what he teaches or what a student wants to learn): notation, sight reading, scales, chords, basic and intermediate theory, technique, etudes, popular classical pieces). The teacher will often exclude the following areas - composition, ear training, advanced theory, advanced and transcendental technique, improvisation, music appreciation, music history, science of music, technician training, jazz band, jazz, etc... which is later dependent on college courses such as Theory 101 to help you in those skill sets. However this is not definite, so there are exceptions to these statements.

Thanks for the input everyone. It seems to me from the replies that being a skilled classical pianist does not necessarily mean being able to learn other genres with total ease. You still have to polish up and hone your skills, especially in ear training and chord progression, improvisation, etc. I remember once asking a Russian concert pianist that same question, i.e., whether he can do pop easily, and his answer, which I still remember 20 years later, was a short and satisfying quip "it's not what you think".

At the conservatory, in my country, the theory course is mandatory. It includes extensive theory (scales, harmony,etc), and extensive ear/rythmn traning. One has to write down what the teacher is playing at the piano (one hand, 2 hands, chords), or the rythm that he is playing. We also have to read the notes on a score very quickly on all clefs (I learnt 5), or to read the notes with complex rythm. Finally, we have to sing an unknown piece from the score (generally not very melodic). I'm talking of amateur level here, and of normal conservatories. At the superior conservatory, the level is insane...
However, until very advanced in the course, composition/improvisation is not taught. In fact, one can be a good classical player without a very good ear (good is enough), and with almost no improvisation/composition skills. Technical skills and musical sensitivity is generally enough at amateur level. In contrast, jazz players need to have a good ear, along with strong improvisation/composition, and theory skills. That is not an option, even at amateur level.
As for pop, one obviously also needs to have all those skills to compose, but to a lesser extent, in my opinion, as pop is generally far less complex than classical and jazz.
To sing, on the other hand, a good ear is probably enough. I suspect most pop singers know very little of music theory...

Are you kidding me with this? What kind of real musician can't do these things? That's absolutely ridiculous. If you don't know your theory, you'll suck, and that's the end of it. If you can't really play some stuff by ear, you probably suck as well.

You think secondary dominants are challenging to the classical player? HAHAHA..

Man you are going to have a real problem when you encounter analyzing late 19th century music, and I'm talking numeral analysis. Or actually having to write a fugue. Or analyzing a Shostakovich symphony.

And how can a serious classical musician not know how to modulate? That's in the FIRST, most basic theory class!

Thank god finally someone reasonable joined in. I thought I was the only one who thought it was hilarious. Claude56, what is exactly your experience in the classical field? It seems you actually know little to nothing about it.

Again, your speaking about the professional world. When you take music classes in college, you will know your theory and how to write a symphony. Of course I agree with you.

However on the other side, amateurs might not/may know how to modulate, based on what they were taught.

And when did I ever say in my posts that I think secondary dominants are challenging to the classical player?

I actually don't think secondary dominants are challenging for the classical player. They just may or may not know what exactly they are, but that's all based on what they were taught.

" If you can't really play some stuff by ear, you probably suck as well."

Again, this is just an assumption. Did you know that many classical players did well in their careers without playing stuff by ear?

"If you don't know your theory, you'll suck, and that's the end of it."

No you don't have to know theory. Did you even know that many composers hardly knew any compositional theory, and still composed their masterpieces? And did you know, many jazz musicians did well without theory? There are many musicians out there who do well without theory.


You better think carefully on what you type - a lot of it is a bad interpretation of what I really am saying, and a lot of your stuff is based on false assumptions. If only you could stoop to my level then you would understand what I am saying. Unfortunately for you, I would have to explain it to you for hours to get you to understand.












The most original musicians use little theory to no theory at all in order to compose their masterpieces. For instance Bach used counterpoint, but he didn't just stick by rules. He used his ear to achieve things. He is the one THAT CREATED his style. The theory about the music of Bach CAME AFTER he created his style. And he is the one that created the symbols he used in music, many of which LATER became accepted in conventional theory!!!!!!!!!!!

He didn't copy music and use theory, he was original and he CREATED!!!!

Another example is the use of the 256th note, which is unconventional theory. Certain composers would use conventional durations such as the sixteenth note, but every so often they would add 256th and 512th notes to their pieces. The composers are the ones that made all this stuff up!!!

This is something I ran into over the years. Many people want to pigeon hole classical musicians, like well that is all they can do is those big classical pieces. It has happened to me many times, usually before I get the chance to do any actual playing.

This thread feels like it is searching for the answer, oh classical musicians are not equipped to play pop music, this is an absurd notion, pop music also comes from western music styles, and classical musicians are more then equipped with the tools to figure things out. Look at classically trained keyboardists, Keith Emerson, Elton John, Billy Joel, Neil Sadaka. I don't see too much struggling or lack of creativity.

I think that this observation should be challenged.

When one plays classical piano repertoire, one is playing exactly what is written on the page, nothing more, nothing less, except, of course, the addition of interpretive elements.

Most popular music, on the other hand, is written at a very basic grade level, and if one plays only what's written on the page, one comes up with something very elementary and not particularly interesting. The skill in performing popular music comes in understanding the harmonic structure of a song and the harmonic progressions used in popular music, and how to fill in chords and voice them in a musically interesting way. This is part of what improvisation is about, and many classical pianists do not have that sort of training.

I think, then, that it's false to say one can play Chopin and Elton John equally well. Yes, one can if one has the training in both classical and pop, but not all classical pianists have the extra training. Too many classical pianists are trained only to play what's on the page and that, I repeat, is usually not very interesting when one plays popular music.

Regards,

Good points, Bruce - improvising seems to be a lost art among pianists nowadays.
I think that helps contribute to the idea that classical pianists are expected to respect classical scores so much, rather than take risks with the material.

Gone are the days when pianists would have 'improv' competitions - and this would be a major component of how they were judged musically. Now, the major component in judgement is how well we hit the notes on the score. If I had a nickel for every time I read a post where someone said "so-and-so gave a great performance, very touching, but they made a few mistakes in the 2nd bar of the 3rd so-and-so and had a short memory-lapse there at this-and-that that marred an otherwise great performance", well, I'd have quite a bit of money.

Perhaps some brave teachers need to start incorporating more improvisation into classical student's development? That usually comes later only when they are taught modern pop music or jazz, sometimes not until college.

Which is exactly what I agree with.



And Bruce, I agree with your statements too.



If most classical musicians are very creative, than how come we don't see any Mozart's around this day of age? That's exactly why you don't see many classical musicians improvising these days, because it IS a lost art. Many classical teachers DON'T even teach improvisation - at least not until college. If kids learn to improvise, it's most likely because they are taught by a pop teacher or someone who teaches jazz - for which improvisation is more likely to occur in pianists.

You may not want to use Bach, as your example in relation to theory, nor, if I may make a suggestion, argue any further with some of the points you've made here. Just sayin'.

Are you arguing against me or what?

Ofcourse he is, haha!

You are saying: For instance Bach used counterpoint, but he didn't just stick by rules. He used his ear to achieve things.

And Bach is basicly THE example of using rules and math to create some of the greatest music ever written.

And AGAIN my question is, WHAT are you comparing here?

Amateur Classical Pianists vs Amateur Pop Pianists?? How could that ever work? I mean, you would atleast have to give us some more material/background info on either to have this work!

Well I am just repeating information based on what everyone else in piano forums once DID say. Everybody makes it look like I am wrong with everything. Everything I try to learn, it all ends up in a bunch of useless babel, and everybody begins to disagree with what I say.

It's like I am not supposed to learn anything, and if I do, it's all a bunch of lies.

How much information on piano forums is wrong?

I don't understand, what is that that everybody once 'did' say and you are repeating? On how much information is wrong in this forums, well plenty haha, look up all gyro's posts :P

There are still very many composer's around composing great classical music, though they may not be as popular as they would have been even a hundred years ago.

Well, for example


"The most original musicians use little theory to no theory at all in order to compose their masterpieces. For instance Bach used counterpoint, but he didn't just stick by rules. He used his ear to achieve things. He is the one THAT CREATED his style. The theory about the music of Bach CAME AFTER he created his style. And he is the one that created the symbols he used in music, many of which LATER became accepted in conventional theory!!!!!!!!!!!

He didn't copy music and use theory, he was original and he CREATED!!!!

Another example is the use of the 256th note, which is unconventional theory. Certain composers would use conventional durations such as the sixteenth note, but every so often they would add 256th and 512th notes to their pieces. The composers are the ones that made all this stuff up!!!"


Some of that information came from reading a book, some of that information came from reading piano replies and some of the information came from Dolmetsch.com. Those were just repeats of what other people said.

Well do you think Gyro's posts are dead wrong, or rather just opinion?

They might be good classical composers , but what about originality? Do you consider the composers original or they just base their works on let's say, Mozart has already done?
To me, that is just pure copycat, not originality.

Many of these composers you are probably talking about I am probably unfamiliar with. Could you please name some of the composers you are talking about?

It looks like this information came from observing how a computer sequencer quantized notes in a midi file. What composer uses 256th notes? Can you point to an example?

I don't remember precisely which source this information came from, but I do remember it came from reading a pdf file, and not based on observation of some computer sequencer. It could of been Stravinsky that uses 256th notes.

Actually they occur in the works of Vivaldi and Beethoven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_musical_symbols

"Durations shorter than the 64th are rare but not unknown. 128th notes are used by Mozart and Beethoven; 256th notes occur in works of Vivaldi and even Beethoven. An extreme case is the Toccata Grande Cromatica by early-19th-century American composer Anthony Phillip Heinrich, which uses note values as short as 2,048ths; however, the context shows clearly that these notes have one beam more than intended, so they should really be 1,024th notes."

so where can I find a 512th note then? I would like to meet one And i would also like to know what it is called in England.

If my oldest sister is dominant, then is my second oldest (half) sister a secondary dominant? She doesn't boss me half as much.

That's funny.

So you're saying that 256th and 512th notes didn't exist before composers used them? Here's a little test for you...where can you find those 128th and 256th notes in Beethoven's oeuvre?

By the way...you're right that Bach, did create HIS own style (key phrase there), but he did so within existing framework(s). There were CERTAINLY rules that Bach adhered to...of COURSE he used theory. Please don't get me started on Bach, because it's getting too late...

I think a good classical musician can easily learn any kind of music, because his training should have included all the tools to face pieces he doesn't know.
However, that doesn't mean he will be able to do so instantly. Foreign harmonies, rhythms, those take time to understand, both rationnally and ear-wise.

When I was young, I spent a few month learning and playing with a professional jazz pianist, and he told me, "you're really lucky that you can read sheet music like that". Like many jazzmen, he couldn't read the music, or do so very well ; it took me some time, years I think, to understand what he meant : not that he wished he could sight-read or compose on a sheet (though both are great fun), but that he thought it was a valuable tool to possess when you like music.
There are many other tool, jazz notations, harmony, you could even say chamber music / playing with other is such a tool. Obviously playing jazz in a band is not really the same as playing chamber music. But it quite involves the same "skills", and though I could very well be biased, I feel classical musicians that are well trained do get to learn most of the useful musical skills.

Many classical pianists have great transcription, improvisation or composition skills. I've been thinking on Rach(maninov) second sonata lately, its different versions, and the Cliburn and the Horowitz version, and it's amazing what those pianists did with it, how deeply they understood it. I'm also playing Pletnev transcription of the Nutcracker or Busoni's Bach Chorales, all are well thought and great fun !

I think it really comes down to how much pop the classical pianist is listening to and how much interest they have in it. Obviously the people mentioned above had absolutely no trouble incorporating classical training with pop music. Elton has said that although he kind of resented the classical training once he knew that wasn't what he wanted to play he's thankful he had it because he could see later that it influenced the way he wrote music. There were things he'd done in songs he doubts he would have thought of if it weren't for all the classical study. When it was suggested that Billy wasn't really a "rock-n-roller" because he studied classical music his reply was "I didn't realize not knowing how to play your instrument was a prerequisite."

Exactly!

The whole point that I was trying to get across throughout this whole thread was that classically trained pianists CAN achieve improvisation skills, theory, and ear training - I NEVER in one post said they couldn't achieve those things. However, what I was referring to, was the fact that due to the way teachers teach their students these days, their seems to be a LACK OF TRAINING in improvisation, ear training, and compositional theory in classical musicians, therefore that's what I meant by "lack of" in one of my previous posts. That's why classical musicians "lack" these skills. That does not mean they can't achieve these things however, because eventually if they practice and are trained well enough in these skill sets, they might be able to achieve them. It's just that they might not "instantly" achieve them but "eventually" will, like Mostly said two posts before me.
Jazz musicians on the other hand, can also achieve classical skill sets, if trained to do so. I never said nobody couldn't do these things.

In college, there is a class for pretty much every skill set you can think of. When classical musicians take music courses, if they are trained in certain skill sets, they will most likely achieve those things. On the professional level, that is why you see many professional classical musicians with these skill sets. When you are an amateur pianist and are taught by your local classical piano teacher however, there will most likely be a lack of training in these areas, due to the classical teacher's recommendation that you learn simple theory, chords, sight reading, notation, and technique. However, that all depends on the teacher and the student, because if the student wants to learn improvisation or compositional theory from a classical teacher, there is the probability that he will get some improvisation and compositional experience from that teacher, depending on if the teacher teaches improvisation and composition or not.

And like I said to one poster who complained that I thought that classical musicians have trouble with secondary dominants and counterpoint, which was an outrageously ridiculous assumption, I said to him that I don't think that classical musicians have trouble with secondary dominants or counterpoint at all. The reality is I just think that classical musicians currently may or may not know what a secondary dominant or counterpoint is, depending on their training experience. They lack the training, that's what I am saying and that's what I have been saying throughout this whole thread. So in conclusion, most likely if you lack the training, you lack the skill. If you are trained, you are most likely to get the skill.

Michael Daugherty, Denis Eberhard, Essa Pekka Salonen, Lowell Liebermann

Can't find one in Beethoven, but I can find one in Bartok:


Here is an example of the 256th note!!!!!!!!!!!! This is Bartok Rhapsody Op. 1 :

At the VERY END you will see the 256th note.



http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/a/a2/IMSLP42570-PMLP03081-Bartok-Sz026rv.pdf


There is no limits to musical notation. For example: I could go up to a 4096 note if I wanted to, but I wouldn't, because I'd rather keep things simple.











128th notes occur in Beethoven's Third Concerto

Claude 56, classical musicians usually have greater knowledge in all those subjects you mention than pop musicias. Sure there are well trained pop musicians, but are tyou seriously trying to say the average pop musician has studied for 10 years? Please.

One thing is a session musician, a guy who basically has to be better than the rest to get gigs (most of the times, to play music he finds boring and uninteresting, you forgot to mention that). I 've known guys who were great instrumentalists , guitar player for Elton John, that kind of thing. Top session pop musicians. Like i said, tehse guys have been to Berklee and places like that, but these are the pros. If you're seriously telling me the Oasis guy or the guy from Colpplay probably have better knowledge of counterpoint than a guy who s been at he Conservatoire for 6-7 years, well, im out of this discussion.

Good job making use of Google.
I'm really not sure what your point was about composers using unconventional durations, but you made it sound as if it's somewhat commonplace, which it's not. You still didn't address my question of, "are you saying that 128th, 256th, and 512th notes didn't exist before composers used them?"

At one point in this thread you claimed that Bach didn't use theory while composing as well as other composers who (you didn't mention who) knew little or no theory at all while composing masterpieces. Please tell me WHICH composers...I'm very curious. Also, could you please give me examples explaining how you come to your conclusion that Bach didn't use theory while composing. That's quite a bold statement, so I don't think asking for specifics is out of the question. Apparently, you're quite familiar with Bach's work, processes, etc., so I'm hoping to learn something here.

By the way, LVB made use of the 128th much earlier than op. 37.

Anyone saying a classical pianist can't do anything is just wrong. A bad generalization. What about people that can improvise and all do it all. There are those who play multiple instruments and have experience with improvising. Theres always going to be exceptions to any generalizations. Categorizing people isn't really a good way to know someones skills. It all depends on the persons history and everything.

Claude, Bach definately used theory, as Stores says. He just happened to add to that pre-existing theory, change it, evolve it, etc. Bach just happened to become famous after his death, so many of us miss out on his contemporaries or predecessors who were writing similar music and who ended up being ignored in history in favor of Johann Sebastian.
Bach was considered pretty old-fashioned by the middle of his life, including many of his musical ideas and theory. Even his own children were probably annoyed at being asked so many questions about their dead, old-fashioned dad and his style of playing, writing. Bach was good at improvising, but the theory behind the improvising probably informed him while he did it.

Bach was a great composer, but not exactly a revelation in new theory or ideas that shook the musical world - just a supreme example of musical perfection, in many people's opinions. He shakes the musical world now, to our benefit.

Yes, like anything - it just requires some time and effort.

To clarify here, most composers working today sound nothing at all like Mozart- classical music has changed a lot from what it used to be, in search of originality. I'm not the best person to recommend modern composers, but here's a few I've been listening to.

John Adams
Morton Feldman
Arvo Part
George Crumb
Harrison Birtwistle

Classical musicians DO generally have more knowledge than pop musicians. However when it comes to jazz musicians, jazz musicians tend to know more theory than the rest of the pop musicians. Jazz musicans tend to know just as much theory as classical musicians. That's because they generally have to(unless your some extremely gifted jazz pianist), in order to improvise and be able to compose.

However the question is, what areas of study classical musicians and jazz musicians are well trained in?

Jazz musicians tend to be trained in improvisation, composition, ear training, harmony theory. Classical musicians on the other hand, tend to focus on technique, and reading from the score. I hope you can't argue with that one. However, this may change in college, depending on which music classes you take there.

That's what I was taught, and it came from many resources, such as piano forums. It's what people on piano forums once did say.




If you read all my posts, I never even once said classical pianists couldn't do improvisation, or these skill sets.



Yes basically thats what I am saying. How can a concept exist when it has never been thought up by people?



I never claimed that Bach didn't use theory, I said he used counterpoint, which IS theory. However, I was referring to the fact that he MOSTLY used his ear(to hear the notes in his head), to create his own style. If he had strictly used just theory for creating his own style and never used this ear, then I would say he used theory for his works and he was a composer that would stick by "rules". In that case, than I wouldn't be arguing with your points. But, the question here isn't whether Bach used theory or not, because Bach DID use theory. The question is, HOW MUCH theory did he use?

I am familiar with Arvo Part and George Crumb, but those other 3 I am not familiar with. In general, I don't respect much of modern day classical, except maybe of that of film music(if you consider that classical), and btw I love film music. Classical music was better back a couple hundred years ago, and in general MUSIC was better back a couple hundred years ago.

Subjectively, today's orchestras don't even sound like good orchestras anymore. Everything has to be very dissonant these days to the point that it has an ugly sound to it, and when it gets ugly, I don't have any respect for it. Maybe its just because I am listening to the bad examples of music in the genre of modern classical, instead of the good examples.

Pfff this thread is getting so weird and tiring. First it was about technical skill from classical pianists to be able to

Do you think the state of modern 'classical' performance music (not film-scores) has had something to do with pushing more and more people away from classical, and into pop and jazz? There was a period where any criticism of or honest curiosity of modern music was met with "you just don't get it" (you will still hear it today, sometimes on this forum), and classical music probably lost some possible listeners because of this.

But with the topic of the thread in mind - do you think classical performers would benefit from embracing other musical genres? And would it be beneficial to their classical understanding, or just beneficial for the sake of learning a new genre?

It's quite possible that it has, but the thing is I haven't been around THAT long, so I wouldn't know. But even kids today, just because they want to keep their social status, tend to not have an interest in classical music, where it be modern classical or the classical music that was around 200 years ago. At least, that's my experience.



Oh sure, I do think classical players would benefit from embracing other genres. As a musician, it's best to be well rounded. Classical musicians, while they might have a deep understanding of classical, might not get the experience of pop music if all they ever try to understand is classical music. The best thing to do if you want to get experience in other genres of music is to study each genre and find out the differences and similarities between each one. After all, the more you push your brain to learn new things, the more things it will be able to do. The brain is like an adaption mechanism in itself, only it takes a lot of work to make it adapt.

Why would I want to play pop music? I listened to it while I was in my mid teens enough and now I hate 99% of it.

Stuff like Floyd and Zeppelin though I love.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "successful classical pianist." Someone who often plays solo at concert halls? Someone who has taken lessons well enough to play Bach minuets??

In my experience, most people who have taken traditional/classical type lessons -- even at the college level -- are pretty clueless at how to even read chord symbols or play out of a fake book. Transposing on the spot? Playing by ear? Forget it. I actually have better ability than most piano degreed people I know at that, and that's not saying much!

In fact, what's interesting is that the people I know personally who DO have those skills, are all:

1) Non-degreed musicians; and/or
2) Men

Redhead

Of course he used his ear in addition to theory...what composer doesn't? Bach, however, was so thoroughly grounded in theory as to be able to provide 4 part fugues on the spot and upon request. How much theory did he use you ask? There are entire literary tomes devoted to the theory/groundwork that a SINGLE Bach work is based upon. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the theory involved in the Goldberg Variations. We could fill many pages simply discussing that one work itself. If you don't think that Bach worked within frameworks governed by theoretical rules then you have much to learn about Bach.

Hahaha. The durations themselves have ALWAYS existed. No person "thought it up", they simply employed what's always been there.

I get it ! That proves the existence of God !