Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum How long is an "average" player a "beginner?"

Sight reading has nothing to do with how well one does it or if one plays the music fluidly or if it sounds like music. Sight reading is just the first time one plays the music no matter how well or how poorly it's done.

That seems to be the general challenge in human communications ... but the subject is really not that complicated. I think the biggest issue is that some people overcomplicate simple topics.

Historically this has most always been the case on these forums. I won't qualify the word "historically" nor overcomplicate it lest it becomes histerically historical. . . .which would or could invoke the displeasure of our esteemed Moderators.
Of course, that could generate much more interest than the original subject. But that too, is nothing more than historical conjecture.

FWIW I consider myself a relative beginner and average player. I don't know what the rush is to be an intermediate or advanced player. There are steps no short cuts.

If you’re doing an exam, it does matter how well it’s done, I think.

It matters in terms of the grade one gets, but no matter how low the grade it's still the sight reading exam. No matter how poorly one plays the music for the first time, it's still called sight reading.

I think there are 2 questions in your post. 1-when do we stop being a beginner and 2-what is the average progress rate.

On the first one, it depends what definition or meaning you give to the word. Some would consider that after a few months after you start you are not a beginner anymore. On the other side I have read people who even though they practice difficult Chopin piece still call themselves beginners (obviously a rather extreme meaning). I consider beginner as describing a range of grading from complete beginner up to a certain grade in a given system like RCM or ABRSM. One can also further slice it into complete beginner, intermediate beginner, late beginner, and so on.

I think the RCM or ABRSM system is one way to assess what your level is. It is simplier than trying to determine if you are still a beginner or not.

On the second question, does it really matter whether you are above or below the average progress curve ? Depending how many hours you practice (and the quality of it), your abilities and many other factors you will progress slower or faster than someone else or that the "average" curve. What I think is more important is that you can see progress, at whatever pace it can be, that you enjoy playing and learning music.

You wouldn't be the first to stop posting for very similar reasons.

Ok, so you ask this question.

And you find out that generally people progress more slowly than you: So Woo Hoo! You are making progress!

And you find out that generally people progress at about the same pace as you: So okay, you are sitting at the top of the curve and making progress!

And you find out that generally most people progress more quickly than you: So what? It will take you more time to make progress. Of course no one is thrilled to be a "slow learner" but still you are making progress, learning, and enjoying yourself, so, so, so... SO WHAT?

Some people like myself are "slow" learner by choice after moving out of playing beginner's repertoire. People would spend weeks to months leaving 1 or very few pieces that are beyond our level instead of playing more pieces at a comfortable level.

A few years ago I met a man who got into the piece he always wanted to play that he picked up piano just to learned it. He followed finger sequences on video demos. No Hanon exercises, Czerny Etudes, beginner's books or music theory. When it comes to reading music or counting beats he is an absolute beginner but learned to play the entire 7 min. piece from memory (by ear) in less than half a year. His playing is very expressive that many think he has been playing for much longer. On the other hand, he wouldn't go to a conservatory exam even at the Gr. 1 level and pass it like myself.

I hope you don't stop posting. Much of what you write I think can be beneficial to many struggling adult learners.

I think the topic on the best way for an adult student to learn the piano has been debated ad nauseam on these boards and often met with criticism, arguments, and sometimes ridicule. But I think posters such as yourself and Qazsedcft are onto something and your observations regarding adult learners are pretty much in line with what I have seen as well and are also in line with the several years of study and formal research I have had in brain science and theories in motor control. I also think that the optimal method in which to teach the adult student has not been figured out yet to the point that some piano teachers just throw their hands up in the air and give up saying "I don't know what to do with these students. Apparently you can't teach an old dog new tricks"

At the risk of starting another endless debate that doesn't end well and at the risk of taking hostage a thread about the length of time it takes for a student to no longer be considered a beginner, I'm going to repeat some of the same stuff I had written in past threads over the years. I think we just have to recognize that the brain in the adult learner versus the child/young adult learner are fundamentally at different stages of development and if the adult learner wants to learn how to play the piano efficiently the adult can't utilize the same methods used to teach children and expect the same results. Unfortunately for adults but fortunate for children the syllabus for RCM/ABSRM had to be written in such a way that it could be utilized to teach a young children throughout their various stages of brain and body development. As far as I know there is no RCM/ABRSM syllabus that takes advantage of what the adult brain has to offer.

The difference between the child/young adult brain and the mature adult brain boils down to neuroplasticity. The child through young adult's brain is still malleable ie. plastic such that it can reorganize in such a way that it can still lay down neural pathways and trim away pathways it doesn't need such that it works optimally. You can teach it to do things more efficiently, fluently, and with less effort than that of the adult human brain which at a certain point in later development becomes more or less already hardwired. When piano teachers have young students learn scales, do Hanon exercises, emphasize the correct technique over and over again, and they proceed carefully and cautiously whether they are aware of it or not they are laying down neural pathways that make performance of these tasks optimal. In essence they are laying down- to use and analogy- bundles of fiber optic cables in these children's brains. At some point in the mature adult's lifespan the ability to lay down new neural pathways ends and the brain is less plastic. It is simply too late.

Neuroplasticity is not the same as "learning". It's just a concept that explains how malleable/flexible a young person's brain still is. I once posted a couple of articles regarding children who had intractable epileptic seizures and the only solution to stop this malady was for a neurosurgeon to perform a hemispherectomy- essentially scooping out half of the child's brain. These children went on to live normal lives which involved even playing the piano. This is a perfect example of neuroplasticity in children. You perform the same procedure on an adult brain and if they survived the procedure they were more or less a walking vegetable.

Getting back to learning- research that children and adults can learn motor tasks at pretty much the same rate. Both adults and children can learn scales for example at relatively equal rates. The difference is that children lay down brain neural pathways to enhance their performance- they become fluent at these and if they practice these scales throughout the critical learning phases of brain development they would have laid down the proper tracks to optimally and fluently utilize these scales when learning music pieces throughout their lifespan. This is why teaching children scales, arpeggios, and Hanon are important and very beneficial to teach when they are young. As an adult learner there is some benefit to learning scales from a didactic standpoint but from a performance standpoint there are diminishing returns simply because you will never lay down those pathways nor will you be able to utilize scales fluently in the pieces you are learning. So the question begs, with the limited time you have do you really want to be learning all of them? Learning theory is a different matter. That's explicit knowledge that anyone can learn equally well at any point in their life without detriment or a learning hit. But again the question is, what is your goal. Do you want to learn how to play the piano well or do you just want to finally finish Fur Elise and impress your friends on your theoretical knowledge of the piece. Wouldn't you rather be learning more advanced pieces?

My suggestion is if you accept the fact that the adult brain is fundamentally different than a child's brain then stop learning like a child as Qazsedcft often suggests. Stop thinking that you can't understand complex issues. Stop thinking that you must learn sequentially. Stop thinking that you can't multi-task. Stop thinking that you can't do more than a child. You are adult aren't you? While your brain doesn't have the advantage of neuroplasticity its maturity allows for it to complex topics and situations and it can learn at a faster rate simply because you ARE smarter than a child at this point in your life. Use all the advantages that the adult human brain has to understand complex tasks to learn how to play the piano and in my mind you are learning efficiently.

One of the things you can do which many children cannot do is to tackle more advanced pieces earlier. Stop thinking of these pieces as "stretch" pieces and start looking at them as "expansion" pieces. You're not going to ruin your brain. You are not going to learn fundamentally bad habits because you can't lay down the neural tracks to do so. So you learn a bad technique for a week. Don't worry about it, it will go away. That's the nice thing about having a less plastic brain. The optimal way to learn is to follow what we've learned in motor control. Keep pushing yourself. Play the advanced pieces, but work hard at hit. Repetition is key. Proper technique is key. Proper technical teaching is key. But you are an adult and if you work hard and mindfully enough on these more difficult pieces you will learn the proper technique and you will learn much faster than those taking the child's way of learning. You want to improve your "reading" ability? Tackle harder pieces. You want to improve your "technique"? Learn harder pieces. As the director of my program says on her website. "There is nothing hard or easy about playing the piano, either you know how to do it or you don't"

I'd say the very proof that this kind of learning works is just to watch some of Ranjit's videos. I've been at this for over 40 years and he's doing things on the keys that I couldn't imagine learning in only 5 years. I want to know more of what he's doing! It's not perfect yet, but kudos to him!

Well, I can't really say whether my approach is "better" for an adult. It's just different. There is probably no optimal approach for an adult because everyone has different aptitudes and mental habits that are pretty much established at this point. But I find it interesting to share experiences and also very frustrating when people dismiss those experiences as invalid because of their own experience of learning the piano (most often as a child using standard pedagogy). There is nothing standard about learning piano as an adult so stop trying to put me in the straitjacket of your standard methods.

My method has worked for me, so I'll stick with it. I can't complain. I've positioned myself to be able to enjoy piano for the rest of my life, what more could I ask for?

Maybe I'll make an NFT of my adult piano methodology ... haha

I think your comments indicate that your sight reading skills or, more basically, your reading skills were poor and/or that the piece that took you months to learn, assuming it was not very lengthy, was too difficult either technically or in terms of the difficulty in reading the notes.

Some piano students only rarely read music other than the pieces they are learning, and then it's possible that their reading falls far below the level of the piece they can learn given a long enough time. Then that lack of reading ability becomes a big factor in what they can learn. But this problem doesn't have to occur. My guess is that people who are not good readers tend to read less than they should because, for them, reading is unpleasant or a chore. This just compounds their problem.

To return to the OP: I've just had a moment of epiphany (always wanted to use this word - I don't have many such moments, and it has a religious ring to it, though I'm not religious)> One can be a beginner for as long as one wants to be.

Case in point: I've owned a cheap tin whistle for as long as I can remember (and I have a long memory ), yet I'm still a beginner on it. I can just about play Auld Lang Syne (not for nothing I'm named after a Scottish hill) and Yankee Doodle and Turkey in the Straw on it. Maybe even Silent Night (at least, at this time of the year). But not much else, and I play entirely by ear. Same for the ocarina: I have a lovely ceramic one that I bought while on holiday in an exotic country a long, long time ago.

So, I've been a beginner for more decades than I can remember (and I have a long memory ).

Conversely, one can only be advanced (on piano as well as tin whistle) - and remain advanced - by advancing through beginner-intermediate-advanced stages, and then continuing to practice. Otherwise, one cannot remain advanced: one's standard will soon drop.

So, that is the difference between a beginner and advanced. One can be a beginner instantly (on anything) and remain a beginner forever, but one cannot be advanced until one has advanced, and one can't remain advanced forever without work.
Howzat?

I would like to offer my teacher's answer to the OP's original question. He is a fine old gentleman-concertist, and as a teacher (he only teaches adults) a no-nonsense disciplinarian with a strong sense of logic and rationality.

His view is that Clementi's Sonatina Opus 36 has been recognised by time-honoured approval as a fundamental work of piano pedagogy. Reading these forums or perusing the Internet seems to confirm his opinion.

So the answer is clear : You stop being a beginner and become "intermediate" the day you master Clementi 36-1, the indispensable rite of passage in classical piano learning.

I like Vikendios' teacher's answer but Bruce Liu, the winner of this year's Chopin Competition, says he looks for new thing all the time. Take your pick.

I like that. What's their answer on when you are no longer an "intermediate" pianist, and are now an "advanced" pianist . How much swirl can we generate with that question ;0

Picking mastery of a specific piece as the definition of no longer being a beginner does not make sense to me. For starters, plenty of pianists never play the Clementi. If one thinks the Clementi Sonatina is the correct cutoff between beginner and intermediate, one should just use all the pieces at that level in one of the standard exam difficulty lists as cutoff pieces. Or much better just say that when one reaches the grade level containing the Clementi one is no longer a beginner.

I think it should have been obvious from the very beginning of this thread that there is no "correct" answer to the OP's question since there is no commonly agreed upon definition of a beginner or intermediate. I frankly see little reason for asking the question unless one just wants to get numerous opinions from random posters. One might as well ask "What is the most beautiful color?" Just because a piece is considered by some people (certainly not everyone) to be a fundamental work in piano pedagogy or a rite or passage does not mean it's the piece that makes one no longer a beginner.

I understand and respect your point of view, but in life one cannot simply answer any question on any subject with "It depends..." Sometimes straight and admittedly arbitrary answers are needed to get things moving.

Here is an analogy : I own some land in Burgundy. This province is dotted with boundary stones set up from Roman times to the eighteenth century. A friend of mine asked what was the extant of a particular wood. I pointed to the remnant of an imperial Roman milestone. I was happy with this visible timeless beacon. Sometimes we need milestones and Red letter days.