Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Concerns about piano teacher

I'm going to look into these, appreciate you letting me know!

I think that many people here don't realize how a truly talented individual learns. Tons of people have learned the Fur Elise after 1 year. There are a reasonable number of prodigies who were able to teach themselves Fantaisie Impromptu after a year. Someone as talented as Trifonov might actually be able to teach themselves a Chopin ballade and a Hungarian Rhapsody in a year.

However -- they will not be able to teach themselves those pieces with a professional level of artistry. Which is why their teachers teach them "slowly",

I hesitate to call myself "talented" -- still, here's my experience with the piano: I started out being able to play melodies with shoddy technique with one hand. After 18 months, I was able to teach myself Chopin nocturne op 9 no 2 (it took me about 1 month to learn). Just short of two years, I was able to learn the starting of Schubert Impromptu op 90 no 2 as well as no 4.

Fast forward a couple years. I started taking lessons with a teacher, and I told her that I would like to eventually play Chopin etudes. Since I was an adult, and supposedly playing as a "hobbyist", she started me off with a couple of Chopin etudes -- I was able to learn one in about a month. She was right -- I had the facility to play it, and she was trying to progressively refine my approach.

Now, I think that pianists who are truly talented could have done the same thing, but better, in a shorter timeframe -- and would definitely be able to play pieces such as Chopin etudes after a couple of years. Now, why don't their teachers assign them those pieces? Why don't they blast ahead at breakneck pace?

And the reason, I've found, is that they are laying the foundation for future success. Their teachers aren't your everyday teacher -- these are concert pianists who specialize in teaching professional technique. If the talented student was allowed to simply progress at their own pace, they would get to playing advanced pieces very quickly, but would miss out on certain fundamentals. Here, the goal isn't about playing the piece -- essentially, playing the piece is easy! The goal is to be able to play it at a professional standard of interpretation with which the student could then win prestigious competitions.

Now, the question arises -- does a hobbyist need such perfect technique and control? And imo, the answer is no! If they can play difficult pieces and get joy out of it in the initial stages, one should let them! Progress is non-linear, and it's exponentially harder to play even a simple piece with a high degree of refinement. And I given countless people this piece of advice -- learn "hard" pieces and don't let your perception of difficulty be dictated by what other people think. Don't spend too much time on it -- however, if you can learn it in a reasonable time frame, who's stopping you? I think that the way most teachers teach the piano is like how most schoolteachers teach their subject -- and it is largely based on tradition, and isn't what the top teachers are doing.

I have heard many professional pianists speak about their early experiences on Youtube. Our own Josh Wright talked about his childhood teacher as well -- and one point that struck out was that she never really prevented him from attempting pieces. Apparently, she let him play very difficult pieces (something like the Ondine iirc) at 11 years of age. I have heard similar stories from most other concert pianists I have interacted with online. It's a very different world.

I think much of the above is just speculation. Comparing the OP to Josh Wright or Daniil Trifonov in terms of talent is just silly. If Wright was learning Ondine at age 11 it was probably after quite a few years of study and that's where the learning curve for a piano prodigy would show up. The one example on this thread of a pianist who learned FE after one year again shows what I would call an extremely talented pianist but the pianist apparently spent the entire year working on FE. You say you learned the Chopin Nocturne after 1.5 years. If you could play it well then you would qualify as exceptionally talented but we have no idea how well you played it. Here is a YT performance of Trifonov at a very young age. He plays incredibly well but the piece he plays is not exactly a fingerbuster:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imGD8UsZxu8

All we know about the OP is what he said in his OP and that his teacher has suggested learning FE.

Best of luck to the OP whatever is decided. 😊👍

Getting a new teacher is the least of my concern. My part of the world is still in partial lockdown so most likely will connect through Zoom until September.

I’m in adult group class with a conservatory but now no in person classes. I get similar instructions without a lot of personal feedback. It’s cheaper than private lessons.

I’ve been learning on my own for a few years before getting a teacher so I’ve played some of the assigned pieces. Repertoire books we ‘re using include: Czerny-Germer & Hanon for exercises, Palette of Touches for techniques, Faber BigTime Piano Classics & BigTime Jazz & Blues (for easy piano).

The Classical pieces like Chopin Ballad in the Fabre book are not originals but stripped down version with just the melody and simple bass lines. The difficulty of pieces is relative. The first time playing Minuet in G & Gm would be challenging. After learning them, other Minuets from the Notebook for Anna M Bach become easy to learn. After learning Beethoven FE, similar pieces become easier. The first time you have to get your feet wet.

What make pieces easy /difficult? Very few lines witth /without repeats vs a lot of lines with no repeat, your hand position stays put vs big jumps, few overlapping notes vs many chords, slow vs fast tempo. If you’re comfortable with Minuet in G, stick to similar pieces for a while longer before going into FE.

+1

I'm glad you appreciate her, It makes you think, what have we been doing as kids back then, right?
Anyway, whatever stage we are in life when we decided to take on the piano , it is important to know what your goals are, even before starting out and taking lessons.

Wow, I didn't know the Montessori method works for piano as well!! Spent 3 years of grade school at a Montessori...

I wouldn't quite say it's speculation. I have a really good teacher now, and I have spoken to other pianists, and for many people, the hard part isn't just playing the pieces, but rather playing them really well, with the intended artistry, etc. Most adult beginners will not be playing any piece with the level of control that Trifonov has in that recording. Does it mean that we should not let them move on if they can only play at 90% of that level? Certainly not. Also, I think one can still say that they have learned the piece.

I've spoken to a few high-level pianists online, and virtually all of them had a similar story to tell. One learned Fantaisie Impromptu well after two years, another taught himself difficult pieces as a kid, yet another taught himself the starting of the Emperor Concerto just to challenge himself. And these people were not considered prodigies, but just talented students with a great teacher. Those who are considered prodigies are at another level in terms of raw talent.

So, this kind of thing is normal when it comes to the studios of the best teachers around -- such as Julliard pre-college students, etc. And the teaching then focuses on developing a really solid technique to form a base for virtuoso playing down the road. I'm quite sure of this because in my situation, I've self-taught for a few years and have realized that while I had taught myself difficult pieces to a level where your average teacher might be satisfied or impressed, there is a wide gulf between being able to play a piece, and playing it "perfectly", and between having acceptable technique and professional-level technique. I see a number of students who only realize this after getting accepted to university. These things are also not taught in the ABRSM exam syllabus or something. So, I am quite certain based on my interactions with them, that most of these people could learn something like the Fantaisie Impromptu at the age Trifonov is at in the video, but couldn't learn it "well enough" which more-or-less means a professional standard. At that point, the difficulty of the pieces is just measured differently -- it's about how difficult it is to play "perfectly".

I wasn't comparing the OP to concert pianists, I was just sharing my experience of how high-level teaching actually works. Most people don't see this, because most of the teachers who can teach like this are nearly at the level of being college professors, and it also requires a dedicated student. Almost no one uses graded syllabi, it's a different world altogether where they try to train really solid technique and artistry from the get go. Any piece from the grade levels is easy for such students if you just want to play it at a level which is good enough to pass the grade exams.

Many of these people say that they were rather normal students with a truly amazing and insightful teacher. Maybe they are just being humble, but based on what I've seen, there is some truth to this. I've grown by a great amount in just two months with a really good teacher. After all, playing the piano is largely about acquiring certain ways of moving, and an kind of artistic sensibility -- these teachers keep at it and can observe and direct very keenly. What most people do, drilling things over and over for hours, etc. is just a waste of time, and by getting rid of those kind of sources of inefficiency, I would reckon most people could learn at a pretty fast rate, not just the "talented" ones. After all, great teachers do demonstrably increase the rate at which students learn.

Make sure you learn pieces you want to learn there's so many options out there and it's more enjoyable when it's something you truly want to learn. When I started lessons I spent weeks on pieces I did not enjoy and then I dreaded practice and lessons. I thought you had to play what the teacher assigned but teachers can give you options to pick from. I will also add that this was also probably because I was with a classical teacher when I wanted to learn pop, sounds silly but I had no idea it's a whole different teacher and study approach.

I think you are talking about several issues.
1. It's probably true that very serious students of high level teachers(meaning those who specialize in teaching the most motivated and talented) are often required to bring pieces to a much higher level than students/teachers that don't fall in that category. It may(or may not) be true that at whatever age Trifonov was when he played in the video I posted he was capable of playing far more challenging pieces but at not as high a level as his playing in that video.

2. Whether the approach of playing somewhat easier pieces at a very high level and working a great deal on technique is better than the approach of playing more technically difficult pieces but at a lower level and less emphasis on technical training is a debatable point although I can only speak of my own experience which I think is the more usual one. I wish my teachers had emphasized the first approach more because without a very strong technical background one becomes limited in one's ability to play advanced pieces at a high level.

But I agree with you that this very professional oriented approach is not the best one for many students. The student has to be highly talented and motivated enough to do more technical training and perfecting of pieces than many students would feel comfortable doing. I don't think it's possible to know if very professional oriented teachers can through a regimen of playing pieces extremely well and lot of technical work always produce students who can play at a high level because those teachers may not accept students who are not much more highly motivated than most students. Students that are accepted but end up not being motivated enough to highly perfect pieces and do lots of technical work may eventually drop the teacher because the teacher is too demanding.

3. You mentioned a very good pianist saying he learned FI after two years. Although that pianist may not be professional, I'd guess he is at least in the top 1% or those who study piano. There is also, for very talented students, a huge difference between what they can play at year one vs. year two or year three. Similarly, those accepted in the Juilliard Pre College division that you mentioned are incredibly talented and light years beyond the typical piano student. My guess is they are at a much higher level than the top 1%. Although the OP may be more talented than average(we have absolutely no idea at this point), the chance that he is in a similar category are incredibly small.

The pianist I mentioned was a concert pianist who had won national competitions.

I wasn't saying this in the context of OP. I was referring to the poster who claimed that Trifonov couldn't play Fur Elise after a year. It's mostly melody+accompaniment throughout and not that difficult. I know many people who could, and I probably could as well, so it's ludicrous to claim that Trifonov couldn't.

Even someone who "just" participates in international competitions, as I said, could play FI at a professional standard good enough to win regional competitions, in two years. So I'm just saying that the high end of the rate of progress at which certain people can progress is indeed very steep.

As always, it depends on how each of us defines ‘play’.

[quote=dogperson

As always, it depends on how each of us defines ‘play’.[/quote]
You could say that about anything. A concert pianist could look at both of us and say "neither of you can play twinkle twinkle little star". In fact, I have had people tell me similar things. To say something meaningful, you need to explain what counts as being able to 'play' a piece. Here, I'm thinking of playing it at a level acceptable to pass ABRSM exams, nothing fancy.

I think part of the problem is many of your posts are so rambling and with so many different threads it's extremely difficult to follow them. For example, in your post I quoted above you say "So, I am quite certain based on my interactions with them, that most of these people could learn something like the Fantaisie Impromptu at the age Trifonov is at in the video" but in your latest post you say "I was referring to the poster who claimed that Trifonov couldn't play Fur Elise after a year". These are different statements.

What I wrote was in response to what that poster said -- and my point was that that several talented people (granted, we're talking somewhere deep in the 1% but that's still a lot of people) could learn the FI to a somewhat reasonable standard at the age Trifonov was in the video, and if they didn't, it was too develop other skills and to produce a more well-rounded musician, not for lack of ability.

It's just that people who know nothing about how talented students learn should think twice before making general statements

Did you take it to mean OP could do the same? That's not what I meant, it would depend on him and the quality of instruction. But Fur Elise after a year is a level many people reach, and the OP might be able to as well.

I think there are some dubious claims made in some of the posts in this thread, but as I am not someone who claims to have a deep knowledge of piano pedagogy, it’s not really for me to try to debate them.
I do not think that under any ‘traditional’ framework of classical piano instruction, no matter the ‘raw talent’ of the student, it would be standard for a teacher to assign a student Fur Elise right after they have worked through Minuet in G.
That does not mean that I feel it is an unthinkable thing to do. But to me, the reason to do this would be if the adult student had some deep desire/motivation to learn Fur Elise, which does not seem to be the case. Alternatively, this could be part of a different pedagogical approach (as has been suggested). If this is the case, it is not really an approach that I understand. I think the OP would do well to have a discussion with the teacher about her teaching methodology and how it differs from other approaches. What does the teacher feel are the advantages? What might the student be missing by this methodology, relative to more traditional approaches? Depending on the student’s goals, the methodology may be wonderful or terrible.
We all have different goals and different learning styles. It is up to the OP to determine if the teacher is helping him/her achieve his/her goals in a way that matches his/her learning style.

Also, as someone said in an earlier post, you do not need to feel wedded to the teacher forever. She may (or may not) be working well for you now, but you may find you want something different down the road. You do have to have some trust/faith in your teacher for the relationship to work. But you should also listen to yourself when something seems to have stopped working.

I'm pretty sure it isn't. I was just saying that it's definitely feasible with the right kind of student and depending on their goals.

I think it's reasonable for at most the top 5% of piano students and probably a much smaller percentage. It's perfectly reasonable that this choice was considered a red flag by many on this thread.

I ran across many of ranjit's post on other threads. His post are always grandstanding, like this Post#3116075, in this same thread. But from his own words never addresses the OP's issues, as seen below from Post#3116420
Aren't we all here to say something in the context of the OP's question?