Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum What are piano lessons for an adult (beginner/ intermd) like

People who personally knew me would have wanted to honour kill me for wanting to study music or do anything they considered westernised so there's also that. Apologies that I did not become a well adjusted adult.

I too feel the same way. If I knew as a kid what I know now I would’ve insisted that my parents get me a piano, a teacher and lessons. My current job is good but I feel I need more out of life beyond my profession - I need to keep learning and combine it with a passion that I have. The only difference though is that I push myself to take exams and I’ve taken 3 so far. They’re a little scary and my hands always shake (for some dumb reason 😂) but I wouldn’t pass up on that opportunity.

I have also decided not to respond to him. I saw one post this morning that was extremely rude. I have never reported a post before but I was ready to report this one. When I looked later, it was gone so I assume someone else did. I just hope that new beginners don’t listen to him.

I didn't notice if your on a piano or keyboard, but if you have a keyboard and plug in to a computer running Piano Marvel or Playground Sessions you play with a backing track. I'm also an adult learner following Alfred's Adult All-In-One Method which is in the Piano Marvel library. My teacher compliments me on my rhythm, which is I believe from practicing with the backing track. Worth a look.

Be careful when you make claims like that on this forum. There are certain members who will think you are not really learning rhythm, and in fact you are "cheating" by using an external track.

Hi AZN, which volumes do you use or would you recommend using for this? I've been working on my sight-reading, but seem to have just one book (Progressive Sight Reading Exercises by H. Smith) which actually works. I tried supplementing it with Grade 1-2 material I have lying around, but that's already too difficult for me. (For context, I'm learning RCM 4-7 pieces. I'm not really following any grading system for repertoire selection; I just pick things which look about the same difficulty as things I've learned previously).

So, if I'm reading your post correctly, your repertoire is currently more than 2 levels above your sight reading. Is that right?

You might want to ease up on learning new repertoire and go back to focus on several aspects of sight reading. For example, are you able to find notes on the piano without looking at the keys? Can your fingers feel their way around the keys?

Or do you have to see the correct keys with your eyes before you press them down?

Try the series by Kevin Olson and Helen Marlais, Sight Reading and Rhythm Every Day. You can skip the rhythm exercises if you don't have a problem with it. My students who are REALLY bad at rhythm have improved using this series. I've literally rescued Transfer Wrecks with these amazing books. I have the Smith book on my shelf somewhere, but I haven't touched it in ten years.

For sight reading repertoire, I prefer Journey Through the Classics, compiled by Jennifer Linn. The only problem with that series is that they don't have a lot of modern, copyrighted music. But great care has been given to the leveling of the repertoire in a progressive manner. Older anthologies tend to jump around in difficulty, or they put the pieces in chronological order, which doesn't really help with sight reading purposes.

*plonk*

I learn all my material by keeping my eyes glued on the sheet. Well, mostly. I do glance down for jumps spanning more than an octave, and even those are going a lot better these days. My aim has always been to actively read as I play, and to never learn something I must memorize in order to learn. So yes, I can navigate around the keys without looking. I can play most harmonic and melodic intervals within the octave on instinct, even with non-ideal fingering (like a 5th with 2-5, a 4th with 1-2 or 1-3, etc.).


Brilliant, I'll check out both your suggestions. I'd say my rhythm is pretty strong, though not so strong I don't need a metronome during my practice to produce satisfactory recordings. It can't hurt to put extra practice in.

Oh, one more question then. This one is probably pretty obvious anyway, more of a in-need-of-confirmation query. When sight-reading, it's more important to be accurate (and 'too slow') rather than closer to in tempo and inaccurate, right? I've always understood sight-reading as 'the ability to play, first-time, a piece accurately, in tempo, and with musicality, where we continue on when we make a mistake without missing a beat'. I assume this is more easily trained when we start slow and go for accuracy?

I agree a person should also learn counting the rhythm which I am not very good at, but I don't see much difference between a metronome beat and a kick/snare drum beat except playing with a rhythm track is way more enjoyable as it sounds musical.

Yes.

I really am no expert but i do see a difference between counting and using a metronome, which I think of as methods for playing in time, and listening to a recording of a piece or a backing track which as well as being a playing aid also help to recognise and feel the rhythm.

Personally I don't have a good sense of rhythm at all. So I like to just rely on counting without using additional aids until I'm able to play smoothly enough that I can perceive the rhythm and play to it. This clearly isn't the fastest way of doing it for any individual piece (particularly for me) but I have a natural weakness that I would rather remedy than work around for ever.

But 'cheating'? Not at all. Learn with whatever methods work best for you.

If you never have to play without a backing track, a click track or a drummer, or a metronome to keep you in time, you don't ever have to learn to play in time without an external source of regular beats.

There are lots of non-classical musicians who never play solo (at least, in public), so they are in that category.

I discovered a few years ago that my jazzer friend (who can't read music and plays only by ear with his band) cannot play in time at all without an external beat, despite having been playing piano since he was a kid. He was playing his own version of Over The Rainbow on his piano for me once, at his home. At my request, he didn't use the backing track from his iPad (connected to his amp and speakers), and at first, I thought his extreme rhythmic waywardness (certainly not a recognizable 'rubato') was deliberate. But when he played it again with the backing track on, his rhythm normalized.........yet he thought he was playing it exactly the same way both times.

I'd say to those who habitually practice along to their metronome (or backing track, or any other source of external beat), and believe they can learn to play in time by doing so: record yourself playing your piece without the metronome, then listen to your recording with the metronome ticking (adjust the speed if necessary). Were you playing in time without the metronome?

I suspect that the comment was tongue in cheek, and a bit of a swipe at a conversation that's been going on in the Teacher forum.

It may be that I'm such a rookie, but when I first learn a piece since I can't "hear" it reading through the score I need to hear someone on Youtube or something do it first to get it in my ear, then I can start trying to make my attempt sound like that. So I would practice the piece with Piano Marvel providing the backing track and after I was ready I would make a video of me playing it without the backing track for my teachers feedback. So when she was complimenting me on my rhythm it was without backing track. Don't get me wrong I do believe learning to count is a skill I need to learn, but starting a new piece there is no way I can read the notes, figure out which fingers go where and count at the same time. After I have it somewhat figured out I can fumble my way through the counting as well but it is easier for me to know it somewhat first.

I agree.

Brilliant, thanks for your help!

"Rhythm and beat" is really just counting. It's math. You don't need to have good natural rhythm to count. Start with very simple time signatures and work on those slowly with a metronome.

Surely you don't think I would do a thing like that ??????

But on this occasion, if you look at the post, you'll see that I was simply commenting on the 'cheating' remark in the thread I quoted without reference to anything else. Actually i haven't looked in the Teacher forum for a long, long time, I did check it out when I first started coming here but, at the time, that section seemed to be full of grandstanding and bitterness and I left it most expeditiously. Maybe it is a better place there now but I haven't been back to see.

Sort of a comment on all of the above. I started out age 78 never had a music lesson ever. Unfortunately I had the wrong teacher—had me write every note on the score. Not only did I have a problem learning the keyboard, I never learned to read . 2nd teacher gave me material WAY above my ability, and still not really reading. Finally found a teacher who liked teaching adults (with all our foibles), and it made all the difference in the world. With her, I finally Learned to sight read and know the keyboard. No, she doesn’t require a lot of rote learning
, although she throws it in on occasion, and she gives me material that I enjoy learning. And if I don,t enjoy a particular piece, she gives me another which will serve the same purpose.

At this stage in life, her concept is that playing is to be both learned and enjoyed, not to beat yourself up. So I’m learning the classical music I enjoy, and keep in mind that old saw: it’s the journey...