Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum "Real" v.s. Easy Pieces?

Beginner or no beginner, if you are taking piano lessons and you want the teacher to help you on a certain piece, the piece needs to be approved by the teacher. If you want to work on it on your own, that's fine but don't mention it to your teacher.

If you are self taught like me, play what you like and you don't have to play what you don't like.

For people that are leaning toward classical music, if you spend the time to learn the simplified (50% or more notes are left out) version of a piece, then you hear someone else plays the original piece which sound nothing like what you play, would you still be happy with the simplified version?

Melissa, you are absolutely correct in your thinking.

While many members have frowned upon playing an arrangement that is compatible for ones curent abilities...(makes NO sense!),, what makes even LESS sense to me is trying to play an original score when it is not within your abilities thereby getting frustrated and ultimitely giving up altogether.

Any good teacher will tell you that positive reinforcement is crucial to the success and longevity of any activity.

Using myself as an example, several months ago I posted up a simplified version of Claire de Lune. I thought it sounded very nice and was perfectly compatible with my playing abilities at that time.

Since then, I have dabbled in an intermediate (as opposed to beginer) version of this piece and that will be my next goal to achieve.

I will continue to learn arrangements of this piece that are within my abilities until the point at which I am able to perform the original.

1st grade..second grade....third and so on. NOT 1st grade, 8th, then grad school!!!....Get my point.

It really bugs the crap out of me when people say that playing a simplified (compatible) version of say Chopin is being disrespectful like he was a deity or something!.

What the real shame would be is if trying to play all these original scores ends up just making students frustrated and ultimitely quitting playing piano altogether.

Little leaguers start off playing T-ball in which the batter hits the ball from a T. This is NOT considered being disrespectful to Babe Ruth and other baseball legends as the Babe himself would not want his young child getting beaned in the mellon because someone wanted a real pitcher like in the pros.

Once the kids mature and their skills improve, they will slowly start adding in more complex tasks like a real live pitcher.

Over the years, the real pitching speeds get faster and the batters adjust and get better.

In time, the little leagers turn into Babe Ruth leagues which turns into high school leagues, college and possibly even pros some day.

Asking an 8 year old little leaguer with snot dripping down his nose chewing on a wad of bubble gum to take a 95 mph fastball (like the pros...or an original composition!) is absurd.

Why can't people just play what they are capable of and enjoy which also gives them positive reinforcement and further inscentive to continue forward?.

Nobody said that they will not continue to strive for one day playing the original score as written, it's just that everything takes time and students really need to learn how to play the basics correctly before tackling something above their abilities.

I would even venture to say that Chopin himself would much rather see a student performing a simplified version of one of his works and observing the students steady progress over the years as opposed to watching the student become frustrated and quit. Heck, he may even feel honored that these new students love his music so much that they have chosen his scores to learn from.

If I were Chopin, I would much rather have my music be part of the tools used to becoming a profficient pianist, knowing that I had contributed to this outcome rather than having my music contribute to the ultimate demise of the student.

Rome was'nt built in a day, neither are pianists!. Rome still WAS built however, just one step at a time.

Amen to that! Geeeeez, it's about enjoyment. Nobody is getting hurt, or dying. Play what you enjoy. If the teacher doesn't like it, play it on the side, she doesn't have to hear it. I don't listen to classical music, so when I hear the dumbed down version, it's pretty to me.

I recently purchased a book of Bach minuets. In the notes it said that Bach simplified his own works when teaching his children. Even Bach recognized the instructional value of simplified versions of difficult music! I'm sure other composers must have done the same thing. If it's good enough for Bach, its good enough for me.

One of the reasons for T-ball is that the young children involved literally don't yet possess the hand-eye coordination to hit a thrown ball---even one thrown slowly. As you wisely note, this limitation doesn't mean they can't enjoy ball in an easier form, and gradually work up to the 'real thing'.

Just my opinion, but I think it'd be more disrespectful of a composer to butcher one of his pieces, rather than doing a good job of playing a simplified version of it.


Mary

I'm with you on that one Mr S-H. I've never understood the rationale of that approach.

The folks doing the simple arrangements of Chopin et al sure ain't Bach, and it sure isn't their own music they are arranging. The only published simplified arrangement of classical music by its own composer that I can think of is Brahms' alternate version of his Waltzes. And he thought that music was just fluff anyhow; he didn't do simplified arrangements of his serious stuff.

And if you want to use Bach as an example, besides the fact that it was his own writing he was tinkering with, you need to keep in mind that in the Bach's day, the whole concept of notated music was a lot more fluid than it was by the time Chopin was writing, and the composer's attitude toward their work was somewhat different.

If you believe other composers did the same with their music for teaching, you need to provide examples, because if they did, I'm sure we'd see them published, and I haven't seen anything like that. What I have seen is easy original music by the likes of Schumann, Prokofiev, and Bartok. I think if composers had made easy versions of their more difficult pieces and were proud of them, they would have published them.

Liszt wrote easier version of his transcendental etudes and easier version of the transcription of Paganini etudes.

You're right - but they weren't "simplified for beginners" in any sense. Actually, the TEs started relatively simple, and then got immensely difficult, and then got just a tiny bit simpler (and I'm not sure "simpler" would even be the right word for that last version - "leaner" might be better).

Funny, I was thinking that it's not really very realistic to think that all composers would have the same attitude about this issue, and Liszt came to mind as one who'd probably be more relaxed than others, in most cases. I have the feeling that Dvorak would maybe have been pretty easy-going about it, too, just because he was Dvorak. And of course, Baroque composers in general would have a somewhat different attitude, since they didn't really even have the expectation that their music would be set in concrete for all time, like later composers did. Back then, most composed music people heard was new and the older stuff was just discarded, believe it or not.

I agree with Mr_Kitty , HOWEVER, that's just our opinion, which as you all know are just different. I'm not going to put someone down or bust their chops because all their sheet music has "Easy Piano" on the cover. At the same time I'm not going to tell someone they ought to stick to playing music that's realistic for their level. Play and let play.

It's working for me that's all. I'm almost done memorizing the 2nd page of Moonlight and my reading has got to be improving because I'm cuttin through the piece at a pretty good clip.

Dave

Of course it would seem that way, because if you're playing an easy arrangement, you weren't the one who did the butchering, it was the arranger, and you aren't actually playing the work of the real composer of the piece, but of the butcher.

That's not the reason. The reason is that he, and many other composers, created works of musical art in which every single note was carefully considered, and if you change any of it enough to "simplify" it, you no longer have the work of art that they made. So, it's not about the composer, even if it gets stated that way (it's one convenient way to point to a whole group of works of art at once, by using the composer's name).

And the idea that people learn advanced music by starting with easier versions of a piece and progressing to more difficult ones until finally reaching the original composition is contradicted by only a few hundred years of classical music activity. If it really worked that way, there's no doubt there would be that kind of step-ladder-style versions of all the masterworks, and teachers and students would be all using them - but that is not remotely the learning process for most people. It seems to me the main reason it doesn't work that way lies in what the hands have to actually do - a simplified version of something doesn't train the hands in the actual movements required by the real thing, and in the end, that's what it takes, the hands have to be trained in the actual movements the real music requires, and that's at a level of what is going on in small fractions of a second.

If it really worked that way, there's no doubt there would be that kind of step-ladder-style versions of all the masterworks, and teachers and students would be all using them - but that is not remotely the learning process for most people. It seems to me the main reason it doesn't work that way lies in what the hands have to actually do - a simplified version of something doesn't train the hands in the actual movements required by the real thing, and in the end, that's what it takes, the hands have to be trained in the actual movements the real music requires, and that's at a level of what is going on in small fractions of a second.[end quote]

That's certainly true. Students of piano have to acquire a multitude of different skills progressively and gradually over many years. A 'simplified' version of a masterwork won't teach a student to play the original version, but if really well done it *might* teach some of the technique eventually needed to play the original. Would it be the best way to learn these techniques? Perhaps only if extremely well done, and even then it would necessarily be limited. But I remember reading that a pianist who became very advanced became entranced as a young student by a certain Beethoven sonata. He wanted more than anything to play it. His teacher found him an 'easy' version, which he loved learning. He said that had his teacher told him the truth---'It will be years before you'll be able to play that'---he would have been very disappointed and lost motivation. Learning the 'easy' version gave him enjoyment, and didn't hurt him as he went on to become a professional musician.

I have three versions of "Canon in D" by Pachelbel, neither of them "easy" to me. The latest one is marked "Intermediate" and arranged by Willard.A.Palmer, should I dump this in the bin and look for a real uncut version.....where does one look for the original version, maybe the original one wasn't written for piano, so it doesn't exist?

Hi Crusader,

I think the Canon in D is a different case because it wasn't written for the piano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel\'s_Canon

I heard Stephen McNeff's arrangement of Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu for vibraphone this morning on BBC radio 3 - it was great!

Has anybody asked any piano composers who are alive what they feel about simplified piano arrangements of their music?

One thing that crossed my mind is that if such an arrangement was heard by a lot of people for some reason - and they didn't realise it was an arrangement - and it didn't go down too well - the composer may well be a bit unhappy about it - but it's quite a convoluted scenario...

You make a good point. I guess for the purists you would have to learn to play the instrument the music was originally written for also. Vivaldi must be rolling over in his grave to hear Elliot Fisk play The Four Seasons on guitar.

Like I said above, Bach simplified his music for his children because he valued the educational value of simplified pieces. It's pointless to ask me to provide evidence that other composers did the same thing for their children (whether it be their works or works by others). If they did it is unlikely that they published them. Like someone else said above, if you like it, play it. If Chopin or some other composer is smiling or frowning it is really irrelevant.

Well, of course, doing a single simple arrangement of a big advanced work as a kid isn't going to prevent a person from becoming a professional - I doubt anyone who doesn't like those arrangements would suggest such a thing. And, who knows, this pianist may be one of the many I think aren't such hot musicians, even if they are good pianists.

Did Bach value the educational value of simplified pieces because they were simplified pieces, or because it was convenient for him to recycle stuff he'd already written (and recycling music was something he and most other composers of his era frequently did anyway)?

And, it is hardly pointless to ask you to provide evidence when you make a totally baseless assertion about composers turning out material for their kids, apparently extrapolating from the Bach anecdote, as if Bach were some sort of norm. The problem there is that most composers whose music is being pillaged in these arrangements are not at all like Bach, and don't have a household the size of a small factory, mainly devoted to churning out disposable music to meet demand.

And exactly why would simplified pieces composers made for their kids not be published, if there actually was some? Most composers were constantly looking for a way to make money via publishing, and that kind of material would be relatively easy to prepare for publication. And, further, since various composers have published easy original music intended for beginners anyway, why would they hesitate to publish such arrangements, and especially if it was of their own works, if they thought they were an good?

Anyway, many composers didn't have progeny, or if they did, they weren't necessarily musical kids taking lessons, and further, if they were, you can't assume the composer parent was their teacher. Considering the scholarly interest in everything having to do with the major composers, with every last scrap and fragment being unearthed and written about, it's actually far less likely that any such kiddie material has not been published, if it ever existed, than that it is unknown.

But I agree with one thing you say - if you like something, play it. At least, don't let some bizarre Twilight Zone fantasy of a dead composer disapproving be the thing that stops you. If you going to stopped, it should be by something a little more worthwhile, such as the sense that you are working on a hand-me-down most likely arranged by a mercenary hack, instead of working on first-rate original material from the best composers out there. The people who have qualms about easy arrangements aren't going to be doing them, anyway, and the teachers who don't want to use them as teaching material, won't.

Well, if we're still on topic here, as you may know from another thread I'm working on a watered down version of Georgia on My Mind. For myself I know that this is a watered down version but at my level this is all I can play. With that said this is a huge challenge for me and I'm learning things left and right. One of these days the chords, fingerings etc... that I'm learning with this watered down versions are only going to help me jump to the next level. I mean look at it like this, once I get this under my belt there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to approach a more difficult version. I would consider it a no-no if you were to play the watered down version and just stick to that, but if you're using it as a stepping stone to something bigger then go for it.
MULLY