Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum What To Learn?

Yes, I think he is a troll. This kind of ignorance seems to be very showy.

Actually the multi-quoting did remind me of someone else a half a year or so back (the guy with 12 Steinways that argued against reading sheet music in the Pianist Corner).

I don't think a troll, more just a 22 year old who believes his own spiel. More interesting is the ongoing debate about a teacher or not. I have taught quite a bit and find piano teachers quite perturbing generally, including my first, who told my mom not to waste her money on lessons for me. That was sixty years ago and I have never stopped playing. And much of that musical journey was enjoyed with a great teacher!

It has been my experience that a lot of musicians regard their opinions like money in the bank. The stronger the opinion the more secure the investment. Even when the opinions are patently absurd. I have spent a lot of time with jazz players, for example. It is not uncommon to hear criticisms regularly of geniuses like Coltrane and Monk, supported by lengthy reasonings as to why this is so. As if any of these guys could even approach the shadows of such greats.

If you are angered by authority teachers might be a target. If you are ruled by logic teachers might seem a necessity. Music is soooo big. Every story is true.

I don't think there's really much debate.

The bottom line is, if classical - and playing the advanced classical oeuvre - is your goal, a good teacher (more likely, teachers) is mandatory. At the very least, for the first few years.

For all other genres, it's optional. Quite a few poppers and jazzers pride themselves on the fact that they are self-taught. I have a jazzer friend who earns good money playing gigs with his friends, and he, like them, is self-taught and cannot read music. They play entirely by ear. He makes far more money from his music-making than I do, in fact, even though I've had ten years of non-stop lessons. (I earn precisely zilch from my performances).

If you hear someone playing advanced classical music - say, a Beethoven sonata - very well, who claims he was entirely self-taught, take that with a barrelful of salt. It strikes me as odd that some classical pianists (including someone in Pianist Corner who takes part in amateur competitions, and a finalist in the last Tchaikovsky Competition) proclaim they are "self-taught" just because they "only" had lessons for a few years when they were younger, and didn't have lessons again until older. Here in ABF too, there are one or two who have been claiming 'self-taught' status before letting slip that they had eight years of lessons as kids, but (obviously) hated their lessons and learnt 'nothing', so as far as they are concerned, they are self-taught. (No names mentioned).

Really??

I agree but would go even one step further and say that even for a lower than advanced level of classical(say Mozart K. 545, Beethoven Op. 49, Chopin Waltz in A minor from Op. 34), a good teacher is necessary to be able to play that level music at a good musical and technical level.

It's possible a few people could reach that level without a teacher but it would certainly take much longer that way. And it would be very likely that they still had at least some musical and technical shortcomings that were evident even in those less than very advanced pieces.

I am perhaps a little late on this thread and my head is kind of spinning reading it all through. So forgive me if I am missing something, namely what instrument he is going to play on - and maybe access to it. Also, if a beginner to be able to practice for that lengths of time indicated will be difficult and possibly injurious. The advice is little and often with breaks in between.

This link may or may not be helpful. But with a degree in pyschology he should be able to understand everyone's motives.

60 tips

Thanks for the marketing pitch. This is how a creative art is turned into a business with all of the maladies associated with money pollution.

It's not a debate, it's a sales pitch. And if you need to believe this in order to justify the 10s of thousands of dollars you've paid for lessons, well I empathize. As for me, I am quite content with learning what I learn, in my own, way, and without any judges telling me I need to spend more money on lessons.

Nice link, Colin, will read it thoroughly when time permits.

Yep, good tips. Don't forget that the right pedal is the accelerator and the centre pedal is the brake. Every pianist needs to know that.

An observation on teachers versus teaching oneself. I played piano for three years as a kid. I'm a pretty good fiddler and play in a contradance band. I'm also decent with guitar and mandolin. When I started teaching myself piano a couple of years ago, I thought I didn't need to waste money on a teacher, and I took myself through the first two Alfred books and was (I thought) doing pretty well--playing some simpler Bach pieces and so on. About four months ago, I decided to try lessons with the same teacher who's working with my grandson. I can't tell you the difference this has made for me. I believe I have made more progress in those four months than in the two years previous. The biggest help for me is with just basic piano technique. It's a whole different beast than violin or guitar. My teacher keeps telling me that even though I have a lot of musical knowledge, I just have to put in the time to develop on the piano. I also have a regimen that includes daily scales, arpeggios, chords, and Hanon, but I just sound better and pay more attention to the music. My wife studied piano at the Peabody in Baltimore, and the other night she said--wow! that actually sounds like music.

Hey hartsfield, welcome to the forum even though it’s six years tardy. I see you joined in 2012 and this is your first post, that’s got to be some kind of record. Good first post.

right, I follow the logic.

I would maybe think about the amount of time you're spending on c major scales and arpeggios - there may be something sub-optimal about what you're doing if you feel that you need to spend the amount of time you indicate. . Maybe mix it up a bit and see if what you think you learned on the C major exercises translates well to a different key, or to the various forms of minor. In the same spirit, you might want to check your learning by applying it to a simple piece of music, and see whether there is progress.

Hi Bennevis. Are you a jazz player? More than anything else, jazz players go to school on each other. And, if you are not a dedicated jazz fan(atic) you may not hear that 90% of jazz is subpar to those who know what it is all about.

Two examples: I studied with a truly great teacher and player, the late Connie Crothers. An important part of the system she taught ( yes, she had a very defined system, taught to her by Lennie Tristano, an innovator of jazz improvisation.) was singing with jazz greats like Charlie Parker, Lester Young, Louis Armstrong ( early Louie) Billie Holiday ( especially Billie), Charlie Christian, Warne Marsh and others. The purpose being that singing with these legends took you into their world of musical feeling. You can't really do that with Glen Gould, but in jazz the masters are available as intimate teachers. It was arguably the most important part of her teaching.

Second example: I had trouble singing with Bird. His sax playing was just too fast! It was the early seventies, so when I complained I couldn't keep up with Parker's solos she advised me to get a turntable with 16 rpm. Yes, 16 rpm. Well, that cut the speed in half and I could keep up. But the more amazing thing was hearing how Charlie Parker hit every 64th note and faster square on. No blurs, hesitations, missteps. He was present with every note, with his original feeling. Always! Few other jazz musicians withstood that test. All the deficiencies in their whirlwind playing became apparent. Most accept jazz as being jazz, but it isn't. It is as demanding in attention and feeling as the best classical music. Particularly because it is not read off of sheet music but improvised on the spot. I am not saying jazz players do not have a vocabulary, they do, but the freedom the great ones have with it is perpetually flexible, like Shakespeare or Faulkner or Joyce.

So, Bennevis, it is not so simple as saying jazz players do not need teachers. The great ones all learned from mentors and peers. It just wasn't rigidly structured with weekly lessons And payments. It was taught on the bandstand from one generation to the next. Or in rehearsals, or all night jams. It was taught through records and it demanded discipline and study. I would say all the really good jazz players had or have teachers. Even guys like Miles or Bird.

I don't Bennevis' comments or my similar post have anything to do with a sales pitch.

I think the percentage of pianists who play well at an intermediate or advanced level without having taking lessons is miniscule, like 1% or .1%. And I think none of those pianists progressed as fast without a teacher as they would have with a teacher.

There are plenty of pianists, on Youtube for example, who obviously think they play well since they post videos. But many of them have major musical and technical shortcomings they are unaware of. I think the overwhelming majority of completely self taught pianists who think they play well simply don't know what they don't know.

With a single exception that I know of(Godowsky), all the great pianists have studied piano, and most did so for many years at a level of dedication unthinkable by most amateurs. If they needed lessons to reach a high level, why would one think an average person almost always with far less talent could reach a high level without lessons?

Which supports my point. The music industry is judging what is intermediate and advanced and then charging money for anyone who wishes to gain entrance into these totally arbitrary categories of musicians. Whole industries have been developed around competing exam busineses. It's all manufactured to make money.

I enjoy some folk, pop, and classical tunes and ultimately, for me, life is all about enjoying ones own discoveries and creations. I don't care one iota about any certificate bestowed upon me by the music industry, nor do I seek applause from audiences, and in the process I save myself thousands of dollars in lessons. I enjoy the little things in life and I'm not taken in by any Tom Sawyer-ish marketing pitches.

Those who wish to spend money on lessons, will do so. But to make spending tens thousands of dollars in lessons somehow a requirement for learning to play the piano is just a sales-pitch for the music industry.

With all due respect, I don't understand your antagonism and cynicism. Bennevis' comments are spot on - and he does make a distinction between classical music and other genres. Ultimately it depends on your goals as an artist and the particular genre you are working in. Ove the years I've interfaced with artists in all arts disciplines. Broadly speaking, the most successful artists are those who possess a solid technique - usually achieved through some amount of formal instruction in music, dance, theater, visual arts, etc. With a solid technical background, the "creative" aspect of the artist's work can reach even greater heights.

Funny, I've never considered piano teaching to be an "industry." To me it's a profession. The distinction between intermediate and advanced is pretty obvious based on the type of repertoire played and how well it is played. Nothing arbitrary about it. You are correct, however, in your assessment of the exam business - but those competing exams are optional and certainly no guarantee of success. Certificates and/or academic degrees do have their place, however, particularly if one wishes to teach piano professionally or at the college/university level. Your own personal goals are different, and obviously work for you. That's terrifric !! But please resist the temptation to dismiss others who have higher aspirations. I haven't had (or paid for) a lesson in over 40 years, and given my personal goals (and frugal nature), that works just fine for me.

As someone else previously pointed out, if you wish to have a profession within the music industry, then you pay to get in. That's how the business is set up. After that, comes the marketing and sales.

I have no care about how others pursue their studies. What I do care about is the
perpetuation of the myth that it takes thousands of dollars of lessons to learn and enjoy the piano.

That depends on what you mean by "to learn and enjoy". You give zero evidence that any but the most minuscule percent of people can reach even an intermediate level without instruction. But there is clear evidence that with instruction people can reach that level.

Intermediate?? A totally arbitrary and manufactured term, used to stratify people, so that they'll spend money to get higher in the pyramid and possibly even make a living pushing others up this mythological pyramid. It's meaningful only for those who wish to play that game. Who wish to pass a Level 5 test and hold an intermediate certificate. Fine, if that is what someone desires and wishes to pay thousands of dollars for it.

As for me, learn and enjoy is just discovering new things every day about myself and music and enjoying the process. No angst. No pressure. No self-doubt. No competition. No stress. And no one telling me how I should discover the nature of music. Just me, my piano, and YouTube. It's actually quite a lot of fun.