I frequent the Piano World forum, but this is my first actual post. I know, you get a lot of these posts probably. Real brief about me; I'm 31 and this year (January) I decided to learn piano. Bought a Yamaha P-45. Never touched an instrument before, they weren't a thing in my life growing up. I'm older now, and I'd like to believe wiser. I practice about 1 hour/day. Sometimes longer on weekends. FT job, gym and toddler take up most of the rest of my time. I realize this is a journey and I don't expect to be really good until I'm 40 or something. And that's alright by me. I just enjoy playing and anything that's not mashing the keys impresses my wife so that's cool. I started without a teacher and bought Faber's Adult Piano Adventures (Book 1). Took me about 2 months to finish the book comfortably. At that point I decided to get a teacher...
My current, on this day, "skill level"; - Play Minuet in G Major comfortably - Play Minuet in G Minor comfortably - 2 Octave C Major at 180 bpm - 2 Octave G Major at 90bpm - 2 Octave G Minor (both harmonic and melodic) at 90 bpm - 1 Octave D Major at 120 bpm
I take 1 lesson per week which is anywhere from 30 minutes to 1 hour long. Due to the teacher's apparent lack of any real curriculum, the duration of the lesson varies and since I only pay for 30 minutes, that's alright by me. At the start of the lesson, she has me play scales specific to the piece we are working on. Then I'll do whatever Hanon exercise I'm working on. The rest of the lesson is spent practicing the piece and the teacher addressing any issues she identifies. The first real piece she had me learn was Minuet in G Major by Christian Petzold because it was in my Faber book. It took me about 3-4 weeks to play and memorize this piece comfortably. Then we moved on to Minuet in G Minor by Christian Petzold. Took me another 3 weeks to play and memorize this piece comfortably. I still review these frequently because I like playing them. I pretty much tell her I'll study whatever classical piece she believes is a good fit for my skill level and will help me get better. Then at yesterday's lesson, she was looking for a new piece for me to learn and she picks "Für Elise". Now, I may not know that much about sheet music yet, but this looks a whole lot more complicated than what I've worked on so far. She continues to show me the fingering for the piece and has me repeat it... We don't even really look at the sheet music, which I can only imagine is sitting there wondering what the heck I'm doing. After the lesson I felt somewhat demoralized, because I suddenly felt like she's not necessarily teaching me how to play piano, but rather she's teaching me how to play musical pieces. YouTube can do this too. For free. Does that make sense? We don't use a specific book, even though I've asked about that. No time is spent on chords. I realize the lesson is short, it's all I can afford, but she also doesn't recommend any music theory/curriculum to work on at home. It's kind of like: "Okay practice that piece, do some scales and Hanon and I'll see you next week". I'm not sure if this is what I was expecting from a teacher. I'm asking because I'm eager to, in time, become really good at playing piano. I'm a very methodical and disciplined person and I don't like wasting time. I'm a dad, so any time spent at the piano needs to be productive. My toddler doesn't allow for a lot of free time.
Should I look for another teacher? Or is that what I can expect from most piano teachers?
Some questions to help us get to know things a little better:How many lessons have you had with this teacher? Have you discussed any of your concerns with the teacher? Do you know much about the teacher's teaching experience? Do you know if the Fur Elise the teacher suggested was the original version or a simplified version or only the first part which is the easier than the rest?
I've taken about 8 lessons with this teacher, give or take. I haven't discussed my concerns directly, as I didn't feel it necessary until yesterday, but I've asked many times whether she recommends a specific book for me to purchase and how she believes I should structure my practice sessions to get better. She's rather vague. A little scatter-brained. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon", "Practice pieces" is what she has told me. I've also mentioned many times that I feel I don't read sheet music well enough, but she hasn't suggested anything to improve that. So I go out on my own and research how to improve those skills.
I know she teaches at the local elementary school, she mentions often that she doesn't "get to work on advanced stuff" except for when she's teaching me.
She didn't specify what version it was, I've added a screenshot of the exact first page.
I can fully empathise with your concerns. She doesn't seem to lay the grounds for you to become really good at piano. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon" without telling how to do them and what you should focus on is simply not good. My advice to you is to find another teacher. As you don't seem to be able to afford much, maybe you would like to consider an online video teacher with feedback? Mine is great, with a very thorough beginners' course that teaches you step for step. High quality lesson. Let me know if you are interested, I can tell you more.
I had a teacher like this once. I stopped after about 2 months. I would have stopped sooner if I’d known that it was a waste of my time, but I figured it out eventually. There are good, solid teachers out there who have studied piano pedagogy and I’m confident you’ll be able to find one. You’ll see such a big difference when you do!
Teachers are supposed to inspire you and help you advance, not make you play follow the leader. Anyone can mimic a YouTube video. That’s not what learning piano is all about. The teacher’s job is to help turn you into a competent piano player by teaching you the necessary skills. Your job is to practice the skills they share with you and to keep asking questions. 😊
Two months is enough to give you a good idea of how lessons will continue. You should be getting more specific instruction on how to practice the pieces and exercises that have been assigned. A red flag is the teacher's comment that she doesn't get to work on advanced stuff except with you. You should not be her outlet for getting out of the rut she feels working with at the elementary school.
Time to look for a better teacher. Your local or state (don't know your location) teacher's association may have a list of teachers. Local community college or universities might also be able to guide your search.
P.S. You mention memorizing your pieces. Don't let memorization deflect you from becoming proficient at reading from the score.
I think the other posters above are right. It doesn't look like she is really teaching. The first page you posted looks like the actual first page of Für Elise, not a simplified version, which is way too hard for someone with your level of experience. Another red flag is telling you to work on scales and Hanon without supervision. Another red flag is saying that she only works on "advanced" stuff with you. Although, this piece is too advanced for you it's not really advanced per se. If she calls this advanced then she might not be able to teach much beyond beginner level.
However, I'd like to point out that learning piano is done mainly by working on pieces. But you shouldn't just memorize pieces and play them like a monkey. The point is to learn technique and musicality through playing a variety of music and almost all teachers in the world use pieces to teach that. I would also say you should get a new teacher but don't get discouraged when you will be working mostly on pieces.
I don't think that this teacher is doing the OP any good pedagogical service! There seems to be little instruction, guidance or direction to these lessons, and this can be discouraging whereas lesson sessions should be encouraging and motivating.
Based on what I have read from the OP, I think a search for a better (more competent?) teacher is the right move at this time.
I've asked many times whether she recommends a specific book for me to purchase and how she believes I should structure my practice sessions to get better. She's rather vague. A little scatter-brained. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon", "Practice pieces" is what she has told me. I've also mentioned many times that I feel I don't read sheet music well enough, but she hasn't suggested anything to improve that. So I go out on my own and research how to improve those skills.
I know she teaches at the local elementary school, she mentions often that she doesn't "get to work on advanced stuff" except for when she's teaching me.
Für Elise is way beyond you - a few years, in fact.
If you can't change teacher, and you want to try to persevere with your current teacher, I suggest you download the RCM curriculum (if you're in North America) or ABRSM (any other country) and show it to her, and tell her you want to follow it to the letter, level by level, not skipping anything, so that you acquire all the necessary classical skills to enable you to be a proficient pianist. Both have lists of suitable pieces for each level, so that will stop her picking something five years beyond where you are now to learn:
Similar for me. I’ve had 2 teachers who I enjoyed working with and learned from, but neither were greatly motivated to teach me reading. (One was all about improv and one about chord theory for jazz) This time around I set the goal of learning to read and found a teacher who focuses on that with me. Once you find a teacher who aligns with your goals and skill levels and adapts to you, you feel it in each lesson.
I would say that it sounds like that teacher is just winging the lessons like you said some lessons are short and some are longer no actual lesson plan. There are plenty teachers out there. I suggest trying a new one and finding that you're excited work with. I will also add that it sounds like you've made some great progress already.
I'm new on my piano journey too. I had no idea how to read music two years ago. I can tell you, it is a process. Gradually I've improved and I need to improve exponentially still. Sight reading is one way to do this. I will admit I don't take time to sight read. It is very frustrating for me.
I recently ordered the RCM 2015 Etude for level 1 and ABRSM Level 1 and 2 exam pieces for 2019-2020. Lots of good tutorials online for these pieces. I'm enjoying working on them and I find them challenging, especially when adding in dynamics, articulations, etc. The tutorials online can be a good example of what I would expect from an in person lesson. Good luck. Quit wasting your time and money. You will be wanting to upgrade your keyboard soon!
That's the most nightmarish piano teacher story I've ever heard. Nothing but red flags. Fur Elise after just 8 lessons is ridiculously difficult. That's at least a 4th or 5th level piece. She isn't teaching you effectively at all. I'd say she is just stealing your money. Drop her first thing tomorrow and seek out a good teacher.
At the start of the lesson, she has me play scales specific to the piece we are working on. Then I'll do whatever Hanon exercise I'm working on. The rest of the lesson is spent practicing the piece and the teacher addressing any issues she identifies.
Actually sounds like a normal lesson. What sort of issues is the teacher identifying? Are you being taught note values and how to count? Are you being taught basic dynamics?
My only real concern was the selection of Fur Elise. Although it is not unusual for beginners to learn the A section until they and their family are sick to death of it, the subsequent sections are far too difficult (although I did give it a nudge by the end of my first year 😎). So the question is were you being expected to learn the whole piece or just the A section?
If you read some of the horror stories of teachers in previous threads, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut of being bad. I personally spent my first two years with less than perfect teachers but I don't think I wasn't learning, was irreparably damaged, or was held back from fulfilling my destiny of being great . You already wrote the important words "methodical and disciplined", so if you want to continue with this teacher, either for a personal connection or for financial reasons, I found those two qualities very important. There is a way forward but it does depend on the questions raised and the main one "are your being taught anything?''
PS
Originally Posted by Rokushji
I'm not sure if this is what I was expecting from a teacher.
My first lesson with a good teacher was spent discussing my expectations/preconceptions. Turned out I was wrong😁
.....If you read some of the horror stories of teachers in previous threads, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut of being bad. I personally spent my first two years with less than perfect teachers but I don't think I wasn't learning, was irreparably damaged, or was held back from fulfilling my destiny of being great . You already wrote the important words "methodical and disciplined", so if you want to continue with this teacher, either for a personal connection or for financial reasons, I found those two qualities very important. There is a way forward but it does depend on the questions raised and the main one "are your being taught anything?....
Well, the OP states he's a methodical and disciplined person, but I'm not so sure about the teacher. The leap to Fur Elise from Minuet in G doesn't sound very methodical or disciplined on the part of the teacher. Neither is ignoring the score and teaching the OP by rote during the lesson. I do agree it's not the worst teacher story we've heard here.
Personally I would give this teacher a little more time and see how things turn out. Kind of unfair to judge her from our perspective when she’s giving you quite a bit extra of her own time to go over things with you. It might seem somewhat disorganized but she saw you already started yourself with Faber and some Hanson books on your own and she might be picking up clues on how she thinks you like to learn from that so she might just be trying to get a handle on your learning style. She might also see something in you that tells her Fur Elise would be appropriate for you. I would see what happens over a little more time. Give her a chance. That said, if you are already committed to trying someone new it’s your prerogative.
Also look at this beginner’s post and his YouTube channel. He took on Fur Elise as a newbie and although not absolutely perfect the piece is doable even by a total beginner. Your miles may vary but I would first see how you do. I don’t like it when teacher’s stifle a students progress by their own preconceived notions of what they should or shouldn’t be able to do at a certain point in time. You don’t want a “cookbook” teacher. For adults, I like teachers and students who push the envelope a little and think outside the “box”. We’re handcuffed enough as adult learners and we all come from different backgrounds. You want a teacher who’s flexible in my opinion, but yes at some point she should have a clear strategy that you both agree upon.
Btw if good teaching only required for someone to regurgitate what some standardized syllabus has to say there would no reason to have Masters and Doctorates in Piano Pedagogy studies. Those students are not spending years in school learning how to teach from a cookbook. You need a strategy that yes might involve a system of teaching to keep things organized but there are many systems and ways of teaching them. On top of that teaching adults is very different from teaching children.
Wow--- not a single vote for the teacher. And I agree. More red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow. I hope this lady was cheap.
Still, it's a good time to do some writing about what you want to learn, and the kind of teacher you're looking for. Temperament, experience, etc. You might want to do a little writing about the kind of teacher you don't want, as well.
Have you looked at the Teachers' Forum on this site? Could be of some interest to see how this situation looks from the other side. And, they answer questions, if you have them.
The best thing I'm seeing, from the situation as you describe it, is that you're not giving up. This allows momentum to build up on your piano (and music) education, and momentum is one of the great secrets of achievement. Without it, things fall apart. The surfer can't catch the wave. The performer runs aground, without a clue about how to get going again.
On the other hand, with the ever-building momentum of daily practice, of attending performances, of listening to recordings while you read along in the score, of meeting with a teacher who both challenges and supports you... I see great things ahead for you.
Meghdad - I remember you had similar experiences with more than one teacher. If a teacher isn't hands-on attentive or inspiring, I would look elsewhere as you did. Rokushji's teacher has given him 8 lessons already and she seems so unfocused and isn't giving him much guidance on what he is doing. Very lacking in specifics. She's more like a minor consultant than a teacher. He's expressed several concerns about this and feels he could do just as well seeking guidance from YouTube. Not a good sign.
If he gives her more time, he'll have to speak up about getting more specifics from her. Her only function can't be to just tell him to keep working on Hanon, scales specific to each new piece, and offer him a new piece every so often. That's easily something anyone can do on their own. I like that she is watching him play and offering commentary on each new piece, but that seems so minimalist. He needs more than that.
A student should know if they want to keep a teacher after 4 or 5 lessons. The student should feel secure about having that teacher. They should feel inspired and excited. I don't see that here and he's already had 8 lessons.
If you read some of the horror stories of teachers in previous threads, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut of being bad.
“Not being a horror story” isn’t exactly a great recommendation! 😂😂😂 That doesn’t make this teacher good for the OP, or mean that the student doesn’t deserve the good instruction they’re searching for. 👍
Originally Posted by Jethro
Personally I would give this teacher a little more time and see how things turn out.
If you are asking this Q, I think you already know the answer. Everyone is motivated and learn differently. I couldn’t judge your full situation and what you ultimately want to walk away with playing the piano.
If you read some of the horror stories of teachers in previous threads, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut of being bad.
“Not being a horror story” isn’t exactly a great recommendation! 😂😂😂 That doesn’t make this teacher good for the OP, or mean that the student doesn’t deserve the good instruction they’re searching for. 👍
Originally Posted by Jethro
Personally I would give this teacher a little more time and see how things turn out.
It's difficult to tell from the OP's post, but personally, I think there's a good chance he can still work profitably with his teacher. She's probably been chomping at the bit to teach more "advanced" stuff to someone who she thinks can take it and want it, and she won't be the first teacher who teaches adults in that way, as we know from numerous posts over the years in ABF. And let's be honest - that is what many adult students want too.
As I've mentioned about my friend's experience ad nauseam in various threads here, it is similar to what he initially experienced with his teacher. But pretty soon, when he realized what he was missing out, he told his teacher what he really wanted - to learn everything from the basics up, not skipping 'easy' stuff for the sake of getting quickly into 'interesting adult' material, and that he wanted to be taught along the same lines as his teacher's child students would be taught: step-by-step and missing out nothing, and following the ABRSM syllabus. After that, he and his teacher were on the same page, and he still has the same teacher now, several years on, and playing advanced Beethoven, Chopin etc.
The fact that the OP's teacher was doing this:
Quote
Due to the teacher's apparent lack of any real curriculum, the duration of the lesson varies and since I only pay for 30 minutes, that's alright by me. At the start of the lesson, she has me play scales specific to the piece we are working on. Then I'll do whatever Hanon exercise I'm working on. The rest of the lesson is spent practicing the piece and the teacher addressing any issues she identifies.
.....shows that the teacher likely does know how to teach, but assumes (wrongly) that her adult student wants to go straight into 'interesting adult pieces' whereas he wants to follow a curriculum which covers all essentials.
Another thing is that the OP had already self-taught for a few months, and this was the first stuff his teacher got him to learn:
Quote
The first real piece she had me learn was Minuet in G Major by Christian Petzold because it was in my Faber book. It took me about 3-4 weeks to play and memorize this piece comfortably. Then we moved on to Minuet in G Minor by Christian Petzold.
......which is pretty reasonable (though I'd suggest the OP ditch memorizing in favor of reading).
So, it could just be a matter of miscommunication and wrong assumptions on the teacher's part.
It's difficult to tell from the OP's post, but personally, I think there's a good chance he can still work profitably with his teacher. She's probably been chomping at the bit to teach more "advanced" stuff to someone who she thinks can take it and want it, and she won't be the first teacher who teaches adults in that way, as we know from numerous posts over the years in ABF. And let's be honest - that is what many adult students want too.......
Teaching advanced stuff to the OP may be fun for her, but it is still a disservice to the student. Is the teacher bringing anything to the student that he wasn't already doing while self-teaching? Hard to say, from what has been posted, but I'd guess not a whole lot. Perhaps the OP's memorization of pieces has made the teacher think he can read music better than he actually can, but a good teacher would see through the memorization-in-place-of-reading in a flash.
We get a fair number of "horror stories" here, and more often than not--in my opinion--it's the student who has unrealistic expectations or an attitude that makes them question every single thing that comes their way in a lesson. I'm not seeing that here. Yes, the OP should have a talk with his teacher and voice his concerns about how he wants to be taught the fundamentals and not skip to the advanced stuff for 'fun.' My fear is that the teacher would struggle with that, either through boredom with teaching elementary level students or simply an inability to change.
Teaching advanced stuff to the OP may be fun for her, but it is still a disservice to the student.
That's exactly my point.
The teacher may think that's what the student is hoping for, when he tells her he'll learn any piece she recommends. And there's actually one person who posted here who thinks that's a great idea that he's been given something too difficult for him........
Quote
Is the teacher bringing anything to the student that he wasn't already doing while self-teaching? Hard to say, from what has been posted, but I'd guess not a whole lot. Perhaps the OP's memorization of pieces has made the teacher think he can read music better than he actually can, but a good teacher would see through the memorization-in-place-of-reading in a flash.
Actually, we have no idea whether his reading skills are on a par with his current level or whether it's his own perception that it isn't. There have been lots of posts in ABF where students believe they should be able to read music that they are able to play like they can read a book.....
Didn't you mention "unrealistic expectations"?
Quote
We get a fair number of "horror stories" here, and more often than not--in my opinion--it's the student who has unrealistic expectations or an attitude that makes them question every single thing that comes their way in a lesson. I'm not seeing that here. Yes, the OP should have a talk with his teacher and voice his concerns about how he wants to be taught the fundamentals and not skip to the advanced stuff for 'fun.' My fear is that the teacher would struggle with that, either through boredom with teaching elementary level students or simply an inability to change.
The student has yet to have a proper talk with his teacher of all that I've mentioned: his wish for a curriculum (which most adult students don't want, BTW) and structure (again, which not every adult student wants).
All he's done so far is this:
Originally Posted by Rokushji
I haven't discussed my concerns directly, as I didn't feel it necessary until yesterday, but I've asked many times whether she recommends a specific book for me to purchase and how she believes I should structure my practice sessions to get better. She's rather vague. A little scatter-brained. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon", "Practice pieces" is what she has told me. I've also mentioned many times that I feel I don't read sheet music well enough, but she hasn't suggested anything to improve that. So I go out on my own and research how to improve those skills.
Let's give the teacher a chance to redeem herself in (some, but obviously not all of) our eyes......
There’s two people involved in this story. We’re only hearing one side so as they say- there’s always two sides so I’m one not to be too quick to judge.
I’m also amazed how some are able to read someone’s post and twist its meaning to an extreme. Let’s all learn to be nice folks.
I guess we shouldn't be quick to judge; however, here we have a motivated adult with a teacher with whom he is not satisfied with, and for good reason I might add.
I know some really good teachers who are recitalists, and the way they teach is very different from what you have here. They are incredibly particular about getting really good technique early on, and expect a lot from their students. The lessons are highly tailored to the student.
However, given that the OP does not have a lot of time to spend, it might not be worth the investment. Or it could, depending on what he wants to get out of it. The way he's learning right now is certainly not optimal, but it is a question you need to ask yourself -- what are you willing to sacrifice and how much can you devote yourself, and how much sustained effort and attention can you put in? Certainly, if the OP employed a university professor or someone similar, they could progress quite fast, but that would only be the case if they were able to keep up with that pace and dedication. Otherwise, they would burn out after just a few lessons.
I guess we shouldn't be quick to judge; however, here we have a motivated adult with a teacher with whom he is not satisfied with, and for good reason I might add.
I know some really good teachers who are recitalists, and the way they teach is very different from what you have here. They are incredibly particular about getting really good technique early on, and expect a lot from their students. The lessons are highly tailored to the student.
However, given that the OP does not have a lot of time to spend, it might not be worth the investment. Or it could, depending on what he wants to get out of it. The way he's learning right now is certainly not optimal, but it is a question you need to ask yourself -- what are you willing to sacrifice and how much can you devote yourself, and how much sustained effort and attention can you put in? Certainly, if the OP employed a university professor or someone similar, they could progress quite fast, but that would only be the case if they were able to keep up with that pace and dedication. Otherwise, they would burn out after just a few lessons.
True. Although it has only been 8 sessions what is she teaching when she has him play those pieces he’s learning. If there is a lot of technique involved it might not be time wasted. We are only hearing one side here. She may have plans to teach more conceptually as time moves on but for now maybe she is just setting the foundation for motor control which as the article explains adults tend to have more problems with.
Here’s an interesting article and one that might be pertinent towards your situation.
That’s a good resource for adult learners btw. Music fossils.
I think that another thing which people neglect is the importance of listening. You need to listen a lot before you get an intuitive sense of phrasing and voicing on the piano. You could have a certain sensibility which transfers from another instrument including the voice; in that case, you would still need to try to actively translate that onto the piano. Additionally, I think of having balance on the piano in a way akin to sound mixing. You need to make decisions regarding which voice(s) to bring out at each point in time, and regarding texture. All of these things require a lot of listening imo. And that eventually translates into sightreading ability.
Here’s an interesting article and one that might be pertinent towards your situation.
That’s a good resource for adult learners btw. Music fossils.
I think that another thing which people neglect is the importance of listening. You need to listen a lot before you get an intuitive sense of phrasing and voicing on the piano. You could have a certain sensibility which transfers from another instrument including the voice; in that case, you would still need to try to actively translate that onto the piano. Additionally, I think of having balance on the piano in a way akin to sound mixing. You need to make decisions regarding which voice(s) to bring out at each point in time, and regarding texture. All of these things require a lot of listening imo. And that eventually translates into sightreading ability.
Absolutely! Developing a good ear is very important to translate the written page musically.
Rokushji, these are my impressions from your posts. 1. You seem to have actually made very good progress for playing less than 6 months and with limited time. Scales and Hanon (if played/practiced correctly) is just fine, and in my opinion it is better to get some good foundation in one or 2 technical things rather than doing too much at once (I don’t think it would be appropriate for you to be doing scales, arpeggios, chord progressions, multiple technical exercises at this stage). However, there are many ways to play scales and Hanon poorly! Unless you have deep intuition about the piano, there are probably things that you are doing that your teacher should be correcting. IF you are getting corrections on your scales and Hanon, I think that is great. If you are NOT getting corrections, then I’d be more worried. I’d particularly be concerned about the possibility that you could start developing bad habits that could be hard down the road to correct.
I will also say this: I think the most valuable thing about teachers is that they point out problems that you are NOT AWARE you have. I am absolutely sure you are doing things that you don’t realize need correcting! (Otherwise you would fix them yourself). If your teacher is pointing these kinds of things out, and instructing you on how to fix them, I’d be relatively reassured. If your teacher is just listening to you play a scale and the minuet in G and telling you, ‘good job, let’s move onto xxx,’ then I think you are not really getting much by way of piano instruction.
It is of course impossible for me to judge the quality of your lessons, but the jump from Minuet in G to Fur Elise definitely made my eyebrows go way up. This does seem like a huge red flag. Looking at the sheet music, you would need to be talk8mg about things like how to count the 3/8 time signature and what are 16th notes (and accompanying rests), as part of an initial discussion of this piece. If your teacher started you on this piece without discussing those two things, I’d be really quite concerned (unless she knew that you had prior experience reading music, which you have not mentioned).
Regarding sight reading, I don’t know that I’d be overly concerned about this in isolation. It takes a great deal of time to develop fluidity in it, to me, more so than with some other instruments (my experience is with flute, and I always found it much easier to sight read flute music than piano music). At your stage, if you are being exposed to new pieces on a fairly regular basis, this is in effect working on sight reading.
All this said, it is very reasonable for you to want your teacher to provide structure for your lessons and provide a structured framework for practicing. If your teacher is unable or unwilling to provide this, and if you have identified this as one of the things you want out of lessons, I think it is time to find someone who will give you that structure. Just be very clear up front that this is an expectation on your part.
Here's my impression (sorry if this is too harsh): The OP has some talent by the way of natural coordination. This leads to the teacher giving him more material as soon as the older material is learned. This will have implications down the road as the student will at some point be unable to rely on their natural sense of technique to progress. What then? I think the OP has made it quite clear, unless he completely misunderstands the situation, that his teacher is simply giving him new material that she deems suitable. Having been in similar situations myself, I was able to learn pretty fast but it felt like I was just teaching myself.
“At the start of the lesson, she has me play scales specific to the piece we are working on. Then I'll do whatever Hanon exercise I'm working on. The rest of the lesson is spent practicing the piece and the teacher addressing any issues she identifies.”- op
She starts him on Minuet in G major. Goes over G major scale. Does some Hanon exercises for improvement in strength and dexterity. They work on the piece together and she addresses “any issues she identifies” which includes probably technique, fingering, phrasing- possibly a whole slew of things and gives the op as much of her time as necessary to explain these things on her own time. There is structure to her work going over scales pertinent to the piece he’s working on. Then she introduces a piece in g minor doing the same thing. Makes logical sense.
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Unless only the first page of FE is learned, this piece is way beyond a "challenge piece". As many have said it is appropriate for several years down the road.
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Unless only the first page of FE is learned, this piece is way beyond a "challenge piece". As many have said it is appropriate for several years down the road.
In most cases I would agree. The teacher might just want to see where this adult learner stands in regards to his abilities/talent. They’ll find out soon enough if it’s beyond him. Countless talented students are introduced to pieces that most would think are beyond their expected stage of learning. That’s why they are considered talented. She might think he is talented and just wants to see what happens.
Not all students are forced to go through all the standard repertoire “just because”. Some are able to quickly advance to more complex pieces. Leave it to his teacher to figure it out.
Yeah his story kind of rhythms with me even though admittedly I've been kind of merciless to the previous teachers but it's ultimately a personal judgement and I believe the OP needs to trust his judgement as well.
P.S My third session with the new teacher is on Wed and he's been great so far, very passionate and pedagogic. He also teaches some music theory as well since I've upped the time to one hour. That said, there's still room for the final verdict. :-p
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Unless only the first page of FE is learned, this piece is way beyond a "challenge piece". As many have said it is appropriate for several years down the road.
In most cases I would agree. The teacher might just want to see where this adult learner stands in regards to his abilities/talent. They’ll find out soon enough if it’s beyond him. Countless talented students are introduced to pieces that most would think are beyond their expected stage of learning. That’s why they are considered talented. She might think he is talented and just wants to see what happens.
Not all students are forced to go through all the standard repertoire “just because”. Some are able to quickly advance to more complex pieces. Leave it to his teacher to figure it out.
The chances that the OP is ready for FE are infinitesimal. I doubt even Trfionov jumped from Minuet in G to FE. The OP and many posters on this thread have serious doubts about this teacher so just leaving it for her to figure out is highly problematic. In fact, if that approach was true then no poster on PW should ask anything about what their teacher is doing. FE is light years beyond a challenge piece or beyond their "expected stage of learning".
You say in most cases you would agree with my post. I don't think there's anything here that would lead one to think the OP is some incredibly talented individual where the most cases scenario wouldn't apply.
I can fully empathise with your concerns. She doesn't seem to lay the grounds for you to become really good at piano. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon" without telling how to do them and what you should focus on is simply not good. My advice to you is to find another teacher. As you don't seem to be able to afford much, maybe you would like to consider an online video teacher with feedback? Mine is great, with a very thorough beginners' course that teaches you step for step. High quality lesson. Let me know if you are interested, I can tell you more.
Thank you for taking the time to reply Unfortunately, most days I practice after my son goes to bed, so I practice with my headphones on. I appreciate the offer, though.
Two months is enough to give you a good idea of how lessons will continue. You should be getting more specific instruction on how to practice the pieces and exercises that have been assigned. A red flag is the teacher's comment that she doesn't get to work on advanced stuff except with you. You should not be her outlet for getting out of the rut she feels working with at the elementary school.
Time to look for a better teacher. Your local or state (don't know your location) teacher's association may have a list of teachers. Local community college or universities might also be able to guide your search.
P.S. You mention memorizing your pieces. Don't let memorization deflect you from becoming proficient at reading from the score.
Thank you for your reply. The memorizing really comes through the repetition, more so than actual effort to memorize the piece. I learn the piece through listening to it and reading the sheet music. Then after 2-3 weeks of practicing I organically memorize it, only going back to the sheet music if I can't remember a section.
Here is a self taught adult and fellow PW poster who has been playing a little over a year. As far as I can tell he began teaching himself Fur Elise from day 1. Maybe he's just a more talented pianist than Trfionov.
Granted it's not perfect but not impossible either. Given proper teaching he would have this piece down amongst the other so called advanced pieces he is playing in short order.
Two months is enough to give you a good idea of how lessons will continue. You should be getting more specific instruction on how to practice the pieces and exercises that have been assigned. A red flag is the teacher's comment that she doesn't get to work on advanced stuff except with you. You should not be her outlet for getting out of the rut she feels working with at the elementary school.
Time to look for a better teacher. Your local or state (don't know your location) teacher's association may have a list of teachers. Local community college or universities might also be able to guide your search.
P.S. You mention memorizing your pieces. Don't let memorization deflect you from becoming proficient at reading from the score.
Thank you for your reply. The memorizing really comes through the repetition, more so than actual effort to memorize the piece. I learn the piece through listening to it and reading the sheet music. Then after 2-3 weeks of practicing I organically memorize it, only going back to the sheet music if I can't remember a section.
Exactly, so you are learning to read notes right? Because something wasn't adding up.
I've asked many times whether she recommends a specific book for me to purchase and how she believes I should structure my practice sessions to get better. She's rather vague. A little scatter-brained. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon", "Practice pieces" is what she has told me. I've also mentioned many times that I feel I don't read sheet music well enough, but she hasn't suggested anything to improve that. So I go out on my own and research how to improve those skills.
I know she teaches at the local elementary school, she mentions often that she doesn't "get to work on advanced stuff" except for when she's teaching me.
Für Elise is way beyond you - a few years, in fact.
If you can't change teacher, and you want to try to persevere with your current teacher, I suggest you download the RCM curriculum (if you're in North America) or ABRSM (any other country) and show it to her, and tell her you want to follow it to the letter, level by level, not skipping anything, so that you acquire all the necessary classical skills to enable you to be a proficient pianist. Both have lists of suitable pieces for each level, so that will stop her picking something five years beyond where you are now to learn:
Given that I'm 31 and only practice about 1 hour/day, do you believe the RCM curriculum/certificate program to be the way to go for me? I've read a lot about it and a lot of people mentioned I'd have a hard time finding a teacher who'd be able to successfully progress me through the curriculum.
Here is a self taught adult and fellow PW poster who has been playing a little over a year. As far as I can tell he began teaching himself Fur Elise from day 1. Maybe he's just a more talented pianist than Trfionov.
Granted it's not perfect but not impossible either. Given proper teaching he would have this piece down amongst the other so called advanced pieces he is playing in short order.
He may have practicing the piece for 13 months if he started it from day 1. If so, it just shows that FE was doable with an inordinate amount of practice. This doesn't mean it's appropriate. I assure you Trifonov's teachers didn't have him proceed from a Minuet in G level to a FE level. In addition, there were many other red flags about the teacher. So all the posters who suggested the possibility of getting a different teacher weren't basing that only on her recommendation of FE.
I think the pianist in the video is way above average in terms of his skill for the amount of time he has been learning piano.
At the start of the lesson, she has me play scales specific to the piece we are working on. Then I'll do whatever Hanon exercise I'm working on. The rest of the lesson is spent practicing the piece and the teacher addressing any issues she identifies.
Actually sounds like a normal lesson. What sort of issues is the teacher identifying? Are you being taught note values and how to count? Are you being taught basic dynamics?
She'll watch me practice scales and Hanon exercises and she does identify if my fingering is off or my turnaround isn't fluent. Note values are discussed briefly, but I wouldn't say any time is spent on it. She teaches me how to count, I generally play with a metronome myself. I think my Faber book taught me the majority of "basic dynamics", but I'm unsure what falls under the umbrella of basic dynamics.
I can fully empathise with your concerns. She doesn't seem to lay the grounds for you to become really good at piano. "Do some scales", "Do some Hanon" without telling how to do them and what you should focus on is simply not good. My advice to you is to find another teacher. As you don't seem to be able to afford much, maybe you would like to consider an online video teacher with feedback? Mine is great, with a very thorough beginners' course that teaches you step for step. High quality lesson. Let me know if you are interested, I can tell you more.
Thank you for taking the time to reply Unfortunately, most days I practice after my son goes to bed, so I practice with my headphones on. I appreciate the offer, though.
Hi Rokushi! I didn't express myself clearly. An online video teacher has video lessons, that you can watch however and whenever you would like, for instance with headphones on after you son has gone to bed. Once a week you can make a recording that you submit for feedback. So it is only the recording that is a bit hard to do with headphones on.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Unless only the first page of FE is learned, this piece is way beyond a "challenge piece". As many have said it is appropriate for several years down the road.
In most cases I would agree. The teacher might just want to see where this adult learner stands in regards to his abilities/talent. They’ll find out soon enough if it’s beyond him. Countless talented students are introduced to pieces that most would think are beyond their expected stage of learning. That’s why they are considered talented. She might think he is talented and just wants to see what happens.
Not all students are forced to go through all the standard repertoire “just because”. Some are able to quickly advance to more complex pieces. Leave it to his teacher to figure it out.
I appreciate your comments, going against the grain. Even though others don't seem to agree with you, it does offer perspective. The teacher has mentioned she believes I have a talent for piano based on how quickly I learned Minuet in G Major and G Minor.
I never meant to insinuate I believe the teacher is horrible, but because I have no experience working with any music teacher, I was looking for input from more experienced pianists.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
This is very similar to my situation. I don't know phrasing. Counting and playing at the same time gives me a headache; I was able to play Minuet in G Major and G Minor in an acceptable manner because I have a natural sense of rhythm and know what it should sound like. And I can only read notes for the purpose of learning the song. Once I've learned the song, I may be looking at the score, but am unable to identify the notes I'm actually playing. Make sense?
Fur Elise might just be a test piece for the teacher to assess the talent level of the student she has in front of him as she may be pleased with how easy he grasped the first two pieces that apparently he enjoys playing over and over again. She gives him a challenge piece to push him a little out of his comfort zone. She can always determine that the piece is too hard for this student and return to an easier piece. This scenario is a possibility. We don’t know what’s going through the teacher’s mind because she’s not here.
Unless only the first page of FE is learned, this piece is way beyond a "challenge piece". As many have said it is appropriate for several years down the road.
In most cases I would agree. The teacher might just want to see where this adult learner stands in regards to his abilities/talent. They’ll find out soon enough if it’s beyond him. Countless talented students are introduced to pieces that most would think are beyond their expected stage of learning. That’s why they are considered talented. She might think he is talented and just wants to see what happens.
Not all students are forced to go through all the standard repertoire “just because”. Some are able to quickly advance to more complex pieces. Leave it to his teacher to figure it out.
I appreciate your comments, going against the grain. Even though others don't seem to agree with you, it does offer perspective. The teacher has mentioned she believes I have a talent for piano based on how quickly I learned Minuet in G Major and G Minor.
I never meant to insinuate I believe the teacher is horrible, but because I have no experience working with any music teacher, I was looking for input from more experienced pianists.
Based upon what you wrote, I have a feeling that's what your teacher thought and I have feeling also that you have a natural knack for the piano. You also seem to be the kind of person who likes things done in an orderly fashion. You want to know what to expect and what is expected of you.
RCM and ABRSM are are standardized syllabi that are good for people who need an organized approach to learning things and they may be good for you. It's also good for children who need a reward system built into their education and good for educators to see where their students stand amongst their peers using a standardized testing approach. But you have to realize the RCM/ABRSM syllabi are only as good as the person teaching them. Like I said before, the top notch teachers are not getting their Masters and Doctorate Degrees in Pedagogy to learn how to read a syllabus. They are learning how to teach.
The academy I attend uses the RCM syllabus and the children get tested on it but the school does not strictly follow the curriculum. The school takes an eclectic approach largely modeled after the teachings of Frances Clark and Louise Goss Frances Clark Center and in an academy similar to The New School for Music Study. school. Young teachers from prestigious music schools from around the world flock to The New School for Music and the academy I attend (the founder did post-doctoral work at the New School for Music) to learn from the director of the program on how to teach. For example, my young teacher collaborates with the likes of Rebecca Pennys the former dean at the Eastman School of Music and she still gets coached from her mentor Ian Hobson a notable pedagogue and concert pianist who judges the Leeds Competition. This is a top notch academy and unsurprisingly the young students score some of the highest test grades in the RCM curriculum and they all pass with flying colors even though they are only loosely following the curriculum. As far as I can tell, none of the adults in our academy follow the RCM syllabus including myself.
You don't need a cookbook approach for teaching. You need a good teacher. She might be a really good teacher. Maybe just approach her with the RCM syllabus and see if she can take a similar "loose" approach but something that will satisfy your need for more organization.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
This is very similar to my situation. I don't know phrasing. Counting and playing at the same time gives me a headache; I was able to play Minuet in G Major and G Minor in an acceptable manner because I have a natural sense of rhythm and know what it should sound like. And I can only read notes for the purpose of learning the song. Once I've learned the song, I may be looking at the score, but am unable to identify the notes I'm actually playing. Make sense?
I think you just need more practice and experience. Once you have memorized the piece after reading the notes you simply tend to play more by ear. Like many of us, once you have learned a piece the notes become more like placeholders that tell us where we are in a piece so we don't get lost, it's not like we are reading every note for note. If you understood the notation when you were learning the piece I think you are doing fine. Also, having a natural sense of rhythm is a very good thing. That's part of having talent. Just don't rely too much on it you still have to count. This a problem I tend to have as well even with very advanced music.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
This is very similar to my situation. I don't know phrasing. Counting and playing at the same time gives me a headache; I was able to play Minuet in G Major and G Minor in an acceptable manner because I have a natural sense of rhythm and know what it should sound like. And I can only read notes for the purpose of learning the song. Once I've learned the song, I may be looking at the score, but am unable to identify the notes I'm actually playing. Make sense?
I think you just need more practice and experience. Once you have memorized the piece after reading the notes you simply tend to play more by ear. Like many of us, once you have learned a piece the notes become more like placeholders that tell us where we are in a piece so we don't get lost, it's not like we are reading every note for note. If you understood the notation when you were learning the piece I think you are doing fine. Also, having a natural sense of rhythm is a very good thing. That's part of having talent. Just don't rely too much on it you still have to count. This a problem I tend to have as well even with very advanced music.
I appreciate your input and you did address the above mentioned concerns I was having.
I did approach my teacher too and asked again about how I should structure my practice sessions (current lack of music theory, ear training or sight reading practice). I brought up the RCM syllabus which she seemed very excited about. Although I'm not sure if advancing through the RCM syllabus and taking the exams is the way to go when starting at 31, so I'd like to discuss that further with her. I guess I'm looking for the most efficient way to learn piano at my age and not just memorize songs. I like the time I spend behind the piano to be worthwhile.
I see tons of videos on YouTube of people who've only been playing for a year or so and they'll play for example Nuvole Bianche - Ludovico Einaudi and I'm thinking to myself "should I be practicing that?", even though that doesn't seem like a piece I should be touching at 1 year.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
If I were the teacher I would say have patience young padewan. Rome wasn't built in a day. We've only had 8 lessons.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn.
I agree, if a piece takes that long to learn, students can easily get discouraged and give up. Pieces should be reasonable for a student’s skill level. Especially at beginner level or a little higher, the more pieces that a student plays, the better, because it exposes them to a great variety of music and problems that need solving.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
This is very similar to my situation. I don't know phrasing. Counting and playing at the same time gives me a headache; I was able to play Minuet in G Major and G Minor in an acceptable manner because I have a natural sense of rhythm and know what it should sound like. And I can only read notes for the purpose of learning the song. Once I've learned the song, I may be looking at the score, but am unable to identify the notes I'm actually playing. Make sense?
I think you just need more practice and experience. Once you have memorized the piece after reading the notes you simply tend to play more by ear. Like many of us, once you have learned a piece the notes become more like placeholders that tell us where we are in a piece so we don't get lost, it's not like we are reading every note for note. If you understood the notation when you were learning the piece I think you are doing fine. Also, having a natural sense of rhythm is a very good thing. That's part of having talent. Just don't rely too much on it you still have to count. This a problem I tend to have as well even with very advanced music.
I appreciate your input and you did address the above mentioned concerns I was having.
I did approach my teacher too and asked again about how I should structure my practice sessions (current lack of music theory, ear training or sight reading practice). I brought up the RCM syllabus which she seemed very excited about. Although I'm not sure if advancing through the RCM syllabus and taking the exams is the way to go when starting at 31, so I'd like to discuss that further with her. I guess I'm looking for the most efficient way to learn piano at my age and not just memorize songs. I like the time I spend behind the piano to be worthwhile.
I see tons of videos on YouTube of people who've only been playing for a year or so and they'll play for example Nuvole Bianche - Ludovico Einaudi and I'm thinking to myself "should I be practicing that?", even though that doesn't seem like a piece I should be touching at 1 year.
GOOD! She excited about it. Fine. You don't have to take the exams and I agree it would probably be a waste of your time unless you need that kind of motivator. You don't need them unless you want to take them. My personal thoughts are: You have a very enthusiastic teacher who seems very enthusiastic about you and she's spending extra time with you which she doesn't have to do and which most teacher I know would not do. Stick with her for a while and see how you do together.
As for which pieces to learn, there is a lot of great music out there to explore. Just be patient and together you'll figure out what pieces are a good fit for you.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Thanks for your replies, Stormbringer, I did read all of them although I didn't directly respond.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic.
I also purchased Alfred's Complete Book of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios & Cadences.
I was practicing Arpeggios before I started working with this teacher, but she said I shouldn't at this point until I'm playing more advanced pieces.
A lot of information to process, but I'll definitely talk to my teacher about this.
There's so much about piano that it's hard for my mind to comprehend how to fit it all in a daily practice session But as long as I enjoy playing I'm in it for the long ride.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Thanks for your replies, Stormbringer, I did read all of them although I didn't directly respond.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic.
I also purchased Alfred's Complete Book of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios & Cadences.
I was practicing Arpeggios before I started working with this teacher, but she said I shouldn't at this point until I'm playing more advanced pieces.
A lot of information to process, but I'll definitely talk to my teacher about this.
There's so much about piano that it's hard for my mind to comprehend how to fit it all in a daily practice session But as long as I enjoy playing I'm in it for the long ride.
I never meant to insinuate I believe the teacher is horrible, but because I have no experience working with any music teacher, I was looking for input from more experienced pianists.
Even some of us who are "experienced" can still have difficulty knowing if we've found the right teacher.
I started piano lessons about 3 years ago. I've got over 30 years of experience playing another instrument, but haven't had formal lessons since I was 18...so no lesson experience as an adult really. I've worked with several teachers now, and I still can't say I have found that perfect fit. In my opinion, immediate dealbreakers would be things like bad communication - teacher doesn't respond to questions or feedback; continued lack or organization/planning; cancelling or rescheduling lessons frequently. Otherwise, if you enjoy working with the teacher, the schedule/location are convenient, and you feel like you are making progress...maybe you just stick it out for awhile and learn what you can. It is likely that you will change teachers eventually if you continue. I have found that my goals/desires have changed as I have progressed, and sometimes you will need a new teacher to take you in a different direction.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Thanks for your replies, Stormbringer, I did read all of them although I didn't directly respond.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic.
I also purchased Alfred's Complete Book of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios & Cadences.
I was practicing Arpeggios before I started working with this teacher, but she said I shouldn't at this point until I'm playing more advanced pieces.
A lot of information to process, but I'll definitely talk to my teacher about this.
There's so much about piano that it's hard for my mind to comprehend how to fit it all in a daily practice session But as long as I enjoy playing I'm in it for the long ride.
Yes patience is key. Enjoy the ride!
After bringing up that Fur Elise me be a little beyond my skill level, my teacher's words were; "I don’t think Fur Elise is beyond your level, it just looks harder than it is. The way I’m going to teach you is to memorize the patterns section by section. However, if you want to pick a different piece then you don’t have to learn Fur Elise right now."
I have a can do attitude and when my teacher says she doesn't think it's beyond my level, I have a tendency to believe the expert and practice the piece.
I see tons of videos on YouTube of people who've only been playing for a year or so and they'll play for example Nuvole Bianche - Ludovico Einaudi and I'm thinking to myself "should I be practicing that?", even though that doesn't seem like a piece I should be touching at 1 year.
I think Fur Elise is quite a bit more difficult than Nuvole Bianche.
Thanks for your replies, Stormbringer, I did read all of them although I didn't directly respond.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic.
Rokushji - Yes, that would make book 2 look much less appealing.
Originally Posted by Rokushji
I also purchased Alfred's Complete Book of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios & Cadences.
I have that one as well. But like you, I haven't touched it yet, but I probably will when I am ready to.
Originally Posted by Rokushji
A lot of information to process, but I'll definitely talk to my teacher about this.
What ever questions and ideas you have, you should strongly consider discussing it with your teacher. You might also ask her about her plans for you. Asking her to create a syllabus once you have your talk is something you might consider even if it's just a small outline.
Originally Posted by Rokushji
There's so much about piano that it's hard for my mind to comprehend how to fit it all in a daily practice session But as long as I enjoy playing I'm in it for the long ride.
Yes, it's a long, enjoyable ride and enjoying it is the main thing.
Originally Posted by Rokushji
After bringing up that Fur Elise me be a little beyond my skill level, my teacher's words were; "I don’t think Fur Elise is beyond your level, it just looks harder than it is. The way I’m going to teach you is to memorize the patterns section by section. However, if you want to pick a different piece then you don’t have to learn Fur Elise right now."
I have a can do attitude and when my teacher says she doesn't think it's beyond my level, I have a tendency to believe the expert and practice the piece.
In light of that new bit of info and some other things you posted since your original thread post, it sounds like maybe she might have some decent things in mind for you. It also sounds more like the feedback from others on this thread has helped shed some light on the matter. A much needed talk with her will clear things up for you. Let me know how that goes.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Thanks for your replies, Stormbringer, I did read all of them although I didn't directly respond.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic.
I also purchased Alfred's Complete Book of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios & Cadences.
I was practicing Arpeggios before I started working with this teacher, but she said I shouldn't at this point until I'm playing more advanced pieces.
A lot of information to process, but I'll definitely talk to my teacher about this.
There's so much about piano that it's hard for my mind to comprehend how to fit it all in a daily practice session But as long as I enjoy playing I'm in it for the long ride.
Yes patience is key. Enjoy the ride!
After bringing up that Fur Elise me be a little beyond my skill level, my teacher's words were; "I don’t think Fur Elise is beyond your level, it just looks harder than it is. The way I’m going to teach you is to memorize the patterns section by section. However, if you want to pick a different piece then you don’t have to learn Fur Elise right now."
I have a can do attitude and when my teacher says she doesn't think it's beyond my level, I have a tendency to believe the expert and practice the piece.
You'll be fine. I love your teacher's positive attitude.
In light of that new bit of info and some other things you posted since your original thread post, it sounds like maybe she might have some decent things in mind for you. It also sounds more like the feedback from others on this thread has helped shed some light on the matter. A much needed talk with her will clear things up for you. Let me know how that goes.
Stormbringer
Originally Posted by Jethro
You'll be fine. I love your teacher's positive attitude.
So this was the response my teacher gave me (email) when we were talking about how to accomplish my goals to become a competent pianist and me mentioning my lack of Music Theory/Ear Training; "I don’t think you need to know all of the theory/ear training stuff to be a good pianist. Some people thing that you need to know all of that to be a well-rounded musician in general. If you want to work on theory and ear training we can incorporate that into our lesson, but I think you’ve accomplished a lot using whatever method you have so far, so I think you should keep doing your scales and Hanon exercises and chose pieces that are appealing to you that you want to learn because that will help you be motivated."
When she says "whatever method" I have been using so far, I want to be clear that my method before her was finishing Faber Book 1. Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
...RCM and ABRSM are are standardized syllabi that are good for people who need an organized approach to learning things and they may be good for you...
You described me perfectly! I could never have said it any better... As an adult, we need structure to find understanding of why things are done this way and that. Structure also helps in memory organization so that recalling pieces becomes fluid, second nature. This is critical for an adult so busy with a lot of stuff, that life throws at you.
Since I had finished Faber's Book 1, I did buy Book 2. The downfall of having learned more advanced pieces is that most of the pieces in this book now seems a little basic .
My recommendation is to work through Faber 2. Your ‘repertoire’ pieces should be harder than your other practice. I am guessing there is a fair amount for you to learn from Faber 2. It will 1. Serve as additional sight reading; 2. Take you through piano musical instruction in a graded and comprehensive way.
Playing pieces is very important, but pieces have some specific technical and musical challenges, and you will benefit from going through something like Faber, which was developed to teach you many different techniques and important piano concepts. If it’s easy, you will work through it quickly and can move onto the next book.
In light of that new bit of info and some other things you posted since your original thread post, it sounds like maybe she might have some decent things in mind for you. It also sounds more like the feedback from others on this thread has helped shed some light on the matter. A much needed talk with her will clear things up for you. Let me know how that goes.
Stormbringer
Originally Posted by Jethro
You'll be fine. I love your teacher's positive attitude.
So this was the response my teacher gave me (email) when we were talking about how to accomplish my goals to become a competent pianist and me mentioning my lack of Music Theory/Ear Training; "I don’t think you need to know all of the theory/ear training stuff to be a good pianist. Some people thing that you need to know all of that to be a well-rounded musician in general. If you want to work on theory and ear training we can incorporate that into our lesson, but I think you’ve accomplished a lot using whatever method you have so far, so I think you should keep doing your scales and Hanon exercises and chose pieces that are appealing to you that you want to learn because that will help you be motivated."
When she says "whatever method" I have been using so far, I want to be clear that my method before her was finishing Faber Book 1. Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your music education. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory and theory can help you play, memorize and understand pieces better, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level. You can study theory all on your own without a teacher so long as you are not lazy. The best use of your time with your teacher is to go over pieces and technique. You will speak time to time about theory while learning your pieces but don't get so bogged down if you don't know it all at the get go. Motivation is a huge factor in your success. We had a former poster here who scored high on the RCM theory and scales exams all the way to level 5 only to make his New Year's Resolution to never touch the piano because he never felt that any of the pieces he was playing were performed at an acceptable level. You don't want to be that guy.
In light of that new bit of info and some other things you posted since your original thread post, it sounds like maybe she might have some decent things in mind for you. It also sounds more like the feedback from others on this thread has helped shed some light on the matter. A much needed talk with her will clear things up for you. Let me know how that goes.
Stormbringer
Originally Posted by Jethro
You'll be fine. I love your teacher's positive attitude.
So this was the response my teacher gave me (email) when we were talking about how to accomplish my goals to become a competent pianist and me mentioning my lack of Music Theory/Ear Training; "I don’t think you need to know all of the theory/ear training stuff to be a good pianist. Some people thing that you need to know all of that to be a well-rounded musician in general. If you want to work on theory and ear training we can incorporate that into our lesson, but I think you’ve accomplished a lot using whatever method you have so far, so I think you should keep doing your scales and Hanon exercises and chose pieces that are appealing to you that you want to learn because that will help you be motivated."
When she says "whatever method" I have been using so far, I want to be clear that my method before her was finishing Faber Book 1. Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your musical career. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level. You can study theory all on your own without a teacher so long as you are not lazy. The best use of your time with your teacher is to go over pieces and technique. You will speak time to time about theory while learning your pieces but don't get so bogged down if you don't know it all at the get go. Motivation is a huge factor in your success. We had a former poster here who scored high on the RCM theory and scales exams all the way to level 5 only to make his New Year's Resolution to never touch the piano because he never felt that any of the pieces he was playing were performed at an acceptable level. You don't want to be that guy.
You've been insightful and very helpful. Thanks.
Off-topic maybe, but any book recommendations for Music Theory/Sight Reading for a beginner?
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Whew! I had a hard time looking for this post so I had to bump this one... This post rather gave me a perspective on how to inteview a teacher, what to do during that 1 hour paid session to find out if the teacher is fit for me.
In light of that new bit of info and some other things you posted since your original thread post, it sounds like maybe she might have some decent things in mind for you. It also sounds more like the feedback from others on this thread has helped shed some light on the matter. A much needed talk with her will clear things up for you. Let me know how that goes.
Stormbringer
Originally Posted by Jethro
You'll be fine. I love your teacher's positive attitude.
So this was the response my teacher gave me (email) when we were talking about how to accomplish my goals to become a competent pianist and me mentioning my lack of Music Theory/Ear Training; "I don’t think you need to know all of the theory/ear training stuff to be a good pianist. Some people thing that you need to know all of that to be a well-rounded musician in general. If you want to work on theory and ear training we can incorporate that into our lesson, but I think you’ve accomplished a lot using whatever method you have so far, so I think you should keep doing your scales and Hanon exercises and chose pieces that are appealing to you that you want to learn because that will help you be motivated."
When she says "whatever method" I have been using so far, I want to be clear that my method before her was finishing Faber Book 1. Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your musical career. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level. You can study theory all on your own without a teacher so long as you are not lazy. The best use of your time with your teacher is to go over pieces and technique. You will speak time to time about theory while learning your pieces but don't get so bogged down if you don't know it all at the get go. Motivation is a huge factor in your success. We had a former poster here who scored high on the RCM theory and scales exams all the way to level 5 only to make his New Year's Resolution to never touch the piano because he never felt that any of the pieces he was playing were performed at an acceptable level. You don't want to be that guy.
You've been insightful and very helpful. Thanks.
Off-topic maybe, but any book recommendations for Music Theory/Sight Reading for a beginner?
There's a series of theory books that I have the last book of this series and I think it is very good. When I get home I'll see if I can dig it up for you.
...Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your music education. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory and theory can help you play, memorize and understand pieces better, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level. You can study theory all on your own without a teacher so long as you are not lazy. The best use of your time with your teacher is to go over pieces and technique. You will speak time to time about theory while learning your pieces but don't get so bogged down if you don't know it all at the get go. Motivation is a huge factor in your success. We had a former poster here who scored high on the RCM theory and scales exams all the way to level 5 only to make his New Year's Resolution to never touch the piano because he never felt that any of the pieces he was playing were performed at an acceptable level. You don't want to be that guy.
Honestly, I would not mind being a pianist at this hobbyist level:
There's no other incentive than challenging yourself to share a story, an adventure through music...
...Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your music education. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory and theory can help you play, memorize and understand pieces better, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level. You can study theory all on your own without a teacher so long as you are not lazy. The best use of your time with your teacher is to go over pieces and technique. You will speak time to time about theory while learning your pieces but don't get so bogged down if you don't know it all at the get go. Motivation is a huge factor in your success. We had a former poster here who scored high on the RCM theory and scales exams all the way to level 5 only to make his New Year's Resolution to never touch the piano because he never felt that any of the pieces he was playing were performed at an acceptable level. You don't want to be that guy.
Honestly, I would not mind being a pianist at this hobbyist level:
There's no other incentive than challenging yourself to share a story, an adventure through music...
I’ve been following that little lady’s career thus far and she is a special kid.
Rokushji - Talk to her or another teacher about all the things you brought up and want to learn. You seem to favor an inclusive, analytical, and methodical approach. Maybe you'd like to learn from method books for a while in addition to repertoire and scales.
These are some of the things you might also want to talk to that teacher about or any teacher:
Arm Roll + Wrist Roll Playing Relaxed And Eliminating Tension Dynamics Articulation Ornaments Phrasing Rhythms Fingerings Posture Playing Evenly Etudes In Addition To Your Scales Specific Repertoire That You Like Arpeggios Composition Reading Notes On The Grand Staff (and eventually ledger lines)
If you talk about some of these things with your teacher and don't like your teacher's reply, consider a different teacher. A teacher should take seriously anything you have in mind. The teacher should make you feel inspired, secure, and excited. They should create a custom plan according largely to your wants and needs. They should be attentive, provide good guidance, offer good feedback, and ensure a productive and reasonable rate of progress. They should instill confidence.
If you talk to the teacher, I'd like to hear what your teacher says.
Good luck,
Stormbringer
Whew! I had a hard time looking for this post so I had to bump this one... This post rather gave me a perspective on how to inteview a teacher, what to do during that 1 hour paid session to find out if the teacher is fit for me.
Thanks
Josh_Sounds - You're welcome. Glad you found it helpful.
Rokushji - Your most recent comments have further enlightened me of your situation. Collectively, I know significantly more about your teacher. Her response via email is very promising. She seems to have a lot of confidence in your musical aptitude. I think she may even feel that she finally has a talented student to work with. She seems excited about you. That's excellent. She'll really value teaching you.
Since she seems resistant about teaching you theory from the start, though she is willing to if you really want it, seems to indicate a slightly unusual albeit valid teaching style. There are several methods of teaching. One main method is via method books. The other is without method books. Some compromise and only teach the first method book of a series and then dive right into teaching repertoire.
I'm thinking that she is using some of the Suzuki style and mixing it with a bit of her own Montessori style. The Suzuki style doesn't force theory. It's entirely up to each teacher. In fact, most teachers of this style never teach theory at all. It focuses on listening to music and playing pieces. Montessori style means she's properly supporting your own style - the one you've already got going - and taking input from you to anything else you might want to incorporate in the future. It seems she's combining the two styles for the perfect custom style.
Since you seem to have a good aptitude for musicianship, this style should suit you quite well. In fact, I'm thinking it may be ideal.
The main reason people learn piano is to play repertoire. So, her chosen style will help you avoid stuff that would slow that pursuit down. Hey, perfect.
I agree that though theory is helpful, it isn't required. I like it for me because it's helpful and it's mind candy. I'm always very thorough in all my research and pursuits in life, not just music. Theory is very helpful for composers. I like to compose. It helps to understand things as well such as some of the things on my list a ways above.
But repertoire is what it's mostly about. She'll probably give you theory tidbits here and there as needed while you progress. Unless you have good reason to include theory, I'd leave it up to her if you're comfortable with that.
Mind if I give you a friendly tip about posting? Be sure to use a persons screen name when quoting more than one person in a post so that people know who you are addressing. Not a scold. Just a suggestion : )
In light of your newest comments, I'm getting very interested in your progress and how your teacher will be teaching you over time should you choose to stay with her.
Please let me know if she says anything else about your path.
Rokushji the theory book series of books I was thinking of are the “Fundamentals of Piano Theory” by Keith Snell & Martha Ashleigh. Very organized and straightforward. I think excellent series for adult learners.
I appreciate your input and it has further helped me put things into perspective. I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my concerns and post in general. After the previous lesson and the daunting appearance of Fur Elise, I had some concerns which have mostly been put to rest. This has been productive.
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
Mind if I give you a friendly tip about posting? Be sure to use a persons screen name when quoting more than one person in a post so that people know who you are addressing. Not a scold. Just a suggestion : )
Ah, valid point, it's been ages since I've used a forum, so I'll have to work on my etiquette. Definitely since I'll be hanging around with such a helpful community.
I may post some stuff on YouTube in the future, I've thought about documenting my journey, alas that means even more work
The chances that the OP is ready for FE are infinitesimal. I doubt even Trfionov jumped from Minuet in G to FE. The OP and many posters on this thread have serious doubts about this teacher so just leaving it for her to figure out is highly problematic. In fact, if that approach was true then no poster on PW should ask anything about what their teacher is doing. FE is light years beyond a challenge piece or beyond their "expected stage of learning".
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.
The chances that the OP is ready for FE are infinitesimal. I doubt even Trfionov jumped from Minuet in G to FE. The OP and many posters on this thread have serious doubts about this teacher so just leaving it for her to figure out is highly problematic. In fact, if that approach was true then no poster on PW should ask anything about what their teacher is doing. FE is light years beyond a challenge piece or beyond their "expected stage of learning".
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.
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.
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.
...Since I'm with her, my method is 5 minutes of scales, 10 minutes of Hanon and 30 to 45 minutes working on a musical piece.
That's 15 minutes more per lesson than I spend on Hanon or scales- sounds good to me
She is a smart teacher in my book and is just speaking the truth. Theory is didactic learning and you can learn it at any point in your music education. Yes very well rounded musicians are whizzes at music theory and can write complex arrangements and scores based on their knowledge of theory and theory can help you play, memorize and understand pieces better, but you don't necessarily need to be completely knowledgeable about theory to be a fine pianist at the hobbyist level...
Honestly, I would not mind being a pianist at this hobbyist level:
There's no other incentive than challenging yourself to share a story, an adventure through music...
I’ve been following that little lady’s career thus far and she is a special kid.
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.
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.
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.
After bringing up that Fur Elise me be a little beyond my skill level, my teacher's words were; "I don’t think Fur Elise is beyond your level, it just looks harder than it is. The way I’m going to teach you is to memorize the patterns section by section. However, if you want to pick a different piece then you don’t have to learn Fur Elise right now."
I have a can do attitude and when my teacher says she doesn't think it's beyond my level, I have a tendency to believe the expert and practice the piece.
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by ranjit
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ranjit
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ranjit
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
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.
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.
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.
As always, it depends on how each of us defines ‘play’.
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by ranjit
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
...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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by ranjit
I wasn't saying this in the context of OP.
Aren't we all here to say something in the context of the OP's question?
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
Originally Posted by ranjit
I wasn't saying this in the context of OP.
Aren't we all here to say something in the context of the OP's question?
I think that we fundamentally disagree on what the point of such threads is. Sure, there is some advice for OP, but the fun part of forums is to have a discussion with people, and go off on tangents. I think that the OP's question has been answered well enough, in four pages of responses, which you clearly haven't taken the time to read through.
I tried learning Fur Elise shortly after starting lessons 5 years ago. In hindsight, it was a mistake. I didn't have the appropriate dexterity in my fingers/hands to play comfortably. I didn't know anything about phrasing. I couldn't count and play at the same time. I couldn't read and play at the same time. I couldn't do anything really.
Nothing wrong with having stretch pieces, but pieces shouldn't take a year to learn. I'd wait and come back, you'll learn it a lot faster. Play easier pieces, learn relaxation, phrasing and elimination of tension from the beginning.
This is very similar to my situation. I don't know phrasing. Counting and playing at the same time gives me a headache; I was able to play Minuet in G Major and G Minor in an acceptable manner because I have a natural sense of rhythm and know what it should sound like. And I can only read notes for the purpose of learning the song. Once I've learned the song, I may be looking at the score, but am unable to identify the notes I'm actually playing. Make sense?
It does. I have a video from Dec 2015, 1 month into lessons, where I play section A. So I think anyone can learn the notes, but looking back on the experience it was a brute force, bare knuckles, hope my fingers land in the right spot approach, lol. I wouldn't recommend that for anyone, nor would I would approach any piece like I did back then.
I'd take a look at some Sonatina's by Clementi. They are easy to read (well, after 5 years they are) and there are many things that can be worked on with these types of pieces. Phrasing, counting, evenness of scales, etc. My teacher back then knew Fur Elise was too much, so after hacking my way through it she introduced me to Clementi to take a step back. Although this particular teacher didn't really talk much about relaxation, hand movement, etc. It wasn't until my 3rd teacher that it came up. So today, I'm trying to incorporate that training by going back and playing easier pieces.
Alas, tomorrow is my last lesson with a great teacher. I'm temporarily stopping them due to other projects that have come up in my life. I can't devote enough time to warrant paying the expense towards lessons. I'm not giving up piano by any means. But I'd like to go back to easier pieces and refine some technique with what I've learned this past year. Some say those pieces sound good, but the difference today is that I think much differently while playing by focusing on what sound I would like to create, along with thinking about hand movement and keeping my body loose and relaxed. I also had a serious issue with finger 4 in the right hand, where playing it caused number 5 to get an erection. The Doyhani exercises helped with that, but also thinking about being tense free helps too.
I really appreciate the following which I found in an old piano book my mother had:
A music education for a piano student consists of two things:
1. A mind trained to understand the fundamentals and construction of music, and the principles which underlie piano playing. 2. Hands trained to execute the will of the educated mind.
I want my fingers to do what I tell them to do, but it takes a lot of time to educate the mind!
I read @ranjit comments where it get the impression you can only learn and be good if you have talent everything is talent you have it or you don't but then a twist comes where with the right teacher anything is possible!
Then I read change teachers, no keep this one, learn Fue Elise, dont learn it
And I don't even know what a padewan is
I'm just messing around but I'm lost in this thread and I think the OP is probably more confused now...
You'll have to excuse me if I went off topic. I had my second dose yesterday and I am lying in bed hoping I don't die. I may be delirious 😂 Did I use lying correctly?
If I were the teacher I would say have patience young padewan. Rome wasn't built in a day. We've only had 8 lessons.
Jethro - You can call me padewan if it makes you feel important. It doesn't bother me.
Stormbringer
No harm meant Stormbringer. A Padawan is simply an apprentice in Star Wars lore. I was just trying to be a little humorous. No bad intentions bud.
I guess I could have said young grasshopper but then I would be clearly revealing what generation I’m from 😝
I say we all play nice and just respect that other people have different opinions than we do. There is simply no reason to be critical against another poster for his/her opinion. It makes these boards not a nice place to visit.
If I were the teacher I would say have patience young padewan. Rome wasn't built in a day. We've only had 8 lessons.
Jethro - You can call me padewan if it makes you feel important. It doesn't bother me.
Stormbringer
No harm meant Stormbringer. A Padawan is simply an apprentice in Star Wars lore. I was just trying to be a little humorous. No bad intentions bud.
I guess I could have said young grasshopper but then I would be clearly revealing what generation I’m from 😝
I say we all play nice and just respect that other people have different opinions than we do. There is simply no reason to be critical against another poster for his/her opinion. It makes these boards not a nice place to visit.
Jethro - No prob. We'll just pretend it never happened...PALPATINE! Just kidding
Hey, if you're ever at home alone playing your piano and some of the keys start playing themselves, just know that I am simply practicing my "Padawan" abilities from afar : )
I read @ranjit comments where it get the impression you can only learn and be good if you have talent everything is talent you have it or you don't but then a twist comes where with the right teacher anything is possible!
Then I read change teachers, no keep this one, learn Fue Elise, dont learn it
I think that you can learn to be pretty good regardless of whether you have talent (maybe get to a grade 5/grade 8 level). Talent sort of allows you to learn differently and skip steps which many people would otherwise take.
It's not true that anything is possible. The chances of me being able to play Liszt concert etudes in public is slim to none.
It's usually in between -- a lot is possible, but there are limitations. A good teacher can provide a good foundation and set you on the right track, but again, we do see students of good teachers who do not manage to get there. It depends on the individual.
And I think that's what I'm saying at the end of the day. It's hard to give a definitive answer without really knowing the person. It's possible in certain situations, and not possible in others. By not possible, I mean within say the next month -- not a few years down the line, when it would most certainly be achievable.
I read @ranjit comments where it get the impression you can only learn and be good if you have talent everything is talent you have it or you don't but then a twist comes where with the right teacher anything is possible!
Then I read change teachers, no keep this one, learn Fue Elise, dont learn it
I think that you can learn to be pretty good regardless of whether you have talent (maybe get to a grade 5/grade 8 level). Talent sort of allows you to learn differently and skip steps which many people would otherwise take.
It's not true that anything is possible. The chances of me being able to play Liszt concert etudes in public is slim to none.
It's usually in between -- a lot is possible, but there are limitations. A good teacher can provide a good foundation and set you on the right track, but again, we do see students of good teachers who do not manage to get there. It depends on the individual.
And I think that's what I'm saying at the end of the day. It's hard to give a definitive answer without really knowing the person. It's possible in certain situations, and not possible in others. By not possible, I mean within say the next month -- not a few years down the line, when it would most certainly be achievable.
I see what you mean now. I was probably just lost in all the posts here. Thanks for summing it up
![[Linked Image]](https://www.jwpepper.com/scores-png/7/7395148.png)
. You already wrote the important words "methodical and disciplined", so if you want to continue with this teacher, either for a personal connection or for financial reasons, I found those two qualities very important. There is a way forward but it does depend on the questions raised and the main one "are your being taught anything?''
