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

Well, I find your assertion that sheet reading level and technical level will always increase at the same rate to be ridiculous. Of course, unless you force yourself to always play using the sheet music without memorizing at all in which case you're artificially limiting your playing level to that of the sheet music you're playing!

Of course they should increase at a similar rate.

How else would I learn Scarbo, let alone Ballade No.1?? (Learn by ear, with a team of assistants??)
I'm sure you know that I never memorized any piece until a decade ago, when I started performing from memory, and only because I don't have a page-turner.

I could read anything I played and play anything I read - like any normal classical pianist.

No, I don't 'force myself' to use sheet music. I use it because I can read and play while reading - like any normal classical pianist..........

Want evidence from a pianist who's a little better than I am?

It's possible some would say that learning the notes means being able to play a full speed. It's the part about with or without the music that's the obvious difference and showed your lack of understanding of basic musical terms.

First of all, these are not basic musical terms like andante or whatever. They are a convention which people use and it isn't quite clear what it means. Does it just mean playing the notes machine-gun style or playing them well? Does it mean playing at tempo? Playing at tempo without mistakes? Playing at tempo with good musicality? Then if you can sightread a piece and forget it immediately after, have you learned the notes immediately? By your definition, it could be.

Usually what people mean when they say you've learned the notes, as far as I understand, is that it's partly memorized to the point where you can look at the sheet, zone out and play it. Not fully memorized, but at the same time, if you are sight-reading Czerny it would be ridiculous to claim you have learned Czerny.

The fact that you consider this definition 'obvious' shows that you haven't thought much about it imo.

I don't quite understand this. If you know all the notes in the staff, you know how to read, isn't it? In that way, I read a Chopin nocturne when I had barely spent a few days of my life reading (because I was mostly an ear player). You can teach someone to read treble clef, bass clef, accidentals and ledger lines in 5 minutes. Now would you explain why someone can't technically play a Ballade after a day? Basically, define what you mean by 'read'. People use these terms like they are self-evident when they are incredibly nebulous and difficult to understand.

Remind me that I really should quit posting on this forum.

There is nothing to "think about". All your little variations and questions are irrelevant and are just different degrees of learning the notes. The essential point is with or without music. One can be good at learning the notes(using whatever variation one means) and not good at memorizing or vice versa. No experienced musician would ask the question about the difference between learning the notes and memorizing.

Okay, then is sight reading the same as learning the notes? I can sort of understand what you mean by learning the notes without memorizing them. But what do you mean by memorizing the notes without learning them? That makes no sense.

This is the way I see it Ranjit. There’s nothing wrong with memorizing a piece measure by measure so long as you understand what you are looking at on the printed page and you can remember all the things that the composer is instructing you to do to play “his or her” composition. That includes dynamics, phrase marks, tempo changes, and those little instructions in Italian they like to throw in there. Accomplished concert pianists are experienced and practiced at this amateurs such as ourselves are not. It’s not just about remembering the “notes” and figuring out the rest by ear or however you want to play the music- at least for classical music. There are a lot of instructions on the written page. Are you sure when you are memorizing you are incorporating all the markings in your playing. For me it’s just too much to remember in my busy life so I let the composer guide me along the way. This does not mean I am not indirectly memorizing patterns or melody lines- I probably am even though I am not consciously attempting to memorize a piece. On the contrary I probably am memorizing quite a chunk of the music I am learning but I am trying to stay faithful to the composers big picture intentions along the way. I’m pretty sure when I read through the score at playing tempo for some of the more challenging pieces I play I am relying a lot on implicit unconscious memory to get the notes right but I am (or trying to) paying special attention to phrase markings, dynamic markings as guide posts along the way. It’s not like I am actively reading each and every note as though I am learning the piece all over again on each try. Through practice and repetition I already know the notes.

I’ll tell you a little story I remember from about 20 years ago. I was a taking lessons with a teacher named Justin Williams at the Brooklyn Queens Conservatory of Music for about 1 year and I was learning the first movement of Beethoven’s Pathetique. I had by that point read over that piece for over a year with another teacher at a conservatory in Boston and playing it at a proper tempo but I was at the point where I wanted to really polish the piece. I remember one lesson he was watching me play and he asked if I could play the first movement without looking at the sheet music. I told him no, I had always played this piece while reading the score and I never tried to memorize any of it. He said “Im sure you know it”. I said no I don’t know it I’ve always relied on the sheet music. He insisted that I knew it and proceeded to take away the score from the piano desk and held it in his hand and instructed for me to “play it”. Amazingly I did and I remembered all the notes, the phrasings, markings even though I had never attempted to memorize a single note. It was all just there. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised.

The point being is that simply by reading through the music and repetition you will learn the notes without relying on muscle memory as a crutch, but at the same time you will be working on remaining faithful to the work as intended by the classical composers. Ie. you will really know the music and not just on some superficial level.

Anybody who can play a piece (besides the ones from a beginner’s book) by reading or from memory is not a beginner. I learned violin in school and can read notes in the treble clef so didn’t start as an absolute beginner. I have a good memory and leaned intermediate pieces in small chunks by memorizing.

I didn’t play baby pieces like “Lightly Row” or “Mary Had a Little Lamb”. The very basic ones involve playing 1 note at a time alternating between 2 hands (no overlap). My 2 starter pieces were “When the Saints Go Marching In” & Beethoven “Ode to Joy” from books arranged for easy piano. Nowadays there are more adult learners like myself and arrangements of interesting pieces at any level.

Don’t think anybody should be playing baby pieces for more than 6 months. Otherwise the lack of progress is a good reason to quit. Even in the first 3 months I downloaded music from a movie soundtrack that I wasn’t ready for. I’d mix pieces at my level & slightly above to keep up the motivation.

Whether someone reads his pieces or play from memory doesn’t concern me. I want to hear music. A few year ago I was at a family gathering. At least 5 people had taken lessons way back. Some supposedly passed conservatory levels. When asked to play a tune nobody volunteered. Not going to make a judgment unless I hear a tune.

An “average” player who sumitted a piece for the PW Recital #64 is definitely not a beginner.

Being a beginner should only relate to time spent on something new. Innate abilities vary a lot. But in the end, it's all just semantics.

I did this method book as a child and then went to grade 1 pieces after maybe 1 year. I think therefore don't agree with the comment you should not be playing simple music for only 6 months.



It took me 4 years to get to 'intermediate' music (this was grade 4)



I did spend about 3 years between grade 5 and grade 6 as I changed teacher and had to complete several music theory grades for a different exam board.

I do see adults progress much faster than I did. I didn't have any problem with reading scores etc that many have had and never memorised. It was discussed that some adults skip basic stuff.

As an adult returner I found that sometimes you have to work on your weaknesses so playing easier pieces in styles not familiar is more useful and therefore I wouldn't be afraid to mix difficulties and styles.

Good luck

Again, I don't agree. I have first hand experience in trying to learn pieces much more difficult than what I can easily read and it's definitelyy not 1 day vs. 3 days. I remember trying to learn fairly advanced pieces as an early intermediate student and they would take me months because I had to slowly decypher them bar by bar. The same level of pieces that took me months then would take me days to learn now as I would be mostly reading while playing.

Yes, and like I wrote in my very first post, there is a limit on how fast you can do that. My point is that it's possible to progress much faster in the level of the repertoire one can play vs. the level of the repertoire one can read and that many adult beginners are in this situation.

Of course it is but since you don't have that experience you aren't able to comprehend it. There is no sense in continuing this discussion since all you do is deny the existence of viewpoints other than your own.

You can get now electronic scores on an ipad with a pedal you press to turn the pages for you. So I don't think it's needed to memorise for this reason now.

Has anyone got this technology set up? I am finding page turning is more of an issue if you have a longer pieces so was thinking it'll be useful. I've seen several other pianist do this successfully when playing for others.

I never said anything remotely like "memorizing the notes without learning them." One can learn the notes without memorizing them which is what is happening every time you hear a musician perform who is using the score. If a piece is very easy then it's possible that one could learn the notes when one sight reads it. That doesn't mean every time one sight reads a piece one learns the notes.

But it’s not as easy as what you’re saying. Think of it this way. A child learning to read takes years. First they have to learn the alphabet, then they need to learn what sound the letters make. Then they need to understand how letters are put together. Then they need to understand how to make sounds out of all the letters that are put together. Eventually a child will learn how to read. It is a process.

Sight reading is being able to play what is in front of you, from a score, at a reasonable tempo. It is not hunting and pecking at the keys, it’s being able to fluidly play at a tempo that makes it sound like music. That’s what sight reading is.

In the same way that you cannot teach a child how to read in one day, you cannot teach person how to sight read in one day. It’s a process, exactly in the same way that a child learns how to read. When a child is reading out loud, they are looking at words and creating fluid speech. In the same way, when a pianist is sight reading, he’s looking at notes on the score and creating a fluid sound.

Memorizing is completely different than sight reading.

I don't care about anyone else's level or rate of progress, nor do I understand why anyone would care about mine.

It's certainly not worth arguing about.

I believe an inherent problem in the recurring threads on this topic is that many expect consensus on the meaning of words, whereas such consensus is unlikely to ever emerge. What is "beginner", what is "reading", what is "learning the notes", what is "memorizing"? These are all good questions that each can be debated, but at the heart of the matter lies the meaning we attach to the words we use, and that pretty much precludes consensus.

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

This sums up my day, every work day, including today. People wanting hundreds of hours to do what should take 5 minutes.