I'm not very confident playing in front of other people, especially people who haven't heard me play before.
My teacher holds student recitals at his home every few months and I have already turned down several invitations to participate...

Yesterday I came to the lesson and he was just finishing a lesson with a very talented student. I gave the student a compliment about his playing, and then my teacher said to the student something along these lines: "You know, Ido also plays very well, he will now play some Bach for us..." <face palm>

Bottom line, I did what I could, it was not a total failure. I'm trying to figure out whether it made any difference in the way I feel about playing in front of other people, and I'm not sure. I guess the more I do it the less I will care about who is listening... BTW he later said it was done intentionally

What do you think of such a bold move on the teacher's side?

It's good for you. No pain, no gain, as we used to say. All my teachers have done this to me, so it's nothing new or original.

Sam

I would be quite upset by this, and would most likely refuse to play in front of the other student. My performance anxiety is pretty bad. I would not work with a teacher who requires recital participation; it's stressful enough just for me to play in front of a teacher week after week. I do not pay for lessons so I can get better at performing in front of other people; my goal is just to play better. I also don't take too kindly to being tricked.

Now...if you had expressed previously that you really wanted to improve at performing, maybe this 'bold move' would make more sense.

I remember the first time when I played in front of other people my hands were shaking and I was nervous as heck but I managed to go through without messing up too much. Then, when I got my grand I had to get used to always have someone hear my playing and gradually I got more comfortable with it. The more experience playing live for other people the easier it is to cope with the nerves.

Performance anxiety is one of those "the only way out is through" things. You just can't get over performance anxiety without performing with/through/in spite of anxiety.

Having said that, JB_PW's comments are important, for a lot of people, being tricked would be traumatic. Also, the relationship between a teacher and student should be based on trust, and this kind of trick might have a negative impact on that trust.

So ultimately, I think there are better ways to work on getting over performance anxiety, and I would prefer to encourage methods that don't involve tricking or deceit.

I will be the outlier here: whether you decide to ever play in a recital or not, you will have a occasions where you will need to play for others. What would you do now if a friend asked you to play? Probably decline.

Your teacher recognizes that the only way to get over performance anxiety is to play for others— and wanted you to experience the first time so you would realize that you will survive. She just knew you would refuse if asked and wanted you to have a taste

Recognize the intent and good will.

Same for me.

I didn't start piano lesson in order to perform, and though I could have stopped lessons after a year (and indeed was encouraged to stop by my parents, who had no love for music), I kept plugging away at it purely because I loved classical music and playing piano. But thoughts of performing for anyone didn't enter my mind, nor my teachers' minds, whether in my home country or in the UK where I moved to a new school and a new teacher. Indeed, if any of my four teachers had insisted on me performing (in student recitals or whatever), I'd have stopped lessons there and then, if I couldn't switch to another, more understanding teacher.

In the OP's situation, I'd just have said politely but very firmly: "No, I'm not ready to play."

Of course if the OP had given vibes that he wanted to try performing for others if given the right conditions, then what his teacher did is probably fine.

Actually, I did get to perform before, in front of well over 100 people, on a stage, in multiple occasions. But that was many years ago, and with a guitar, and I was a lot more confident. Fingers were shaking, hands were frozen, but I was advanced enough to push through.
Piano is a different thing though. I don't feel merely as confident.
And other students seem like the worst audience to me, although that's probably entirely in my head.

No amateur should be forced to play for someone else in any setting. I think this especially applies to adults.Obviously a professional performing musician must try to overcome performance anxiety if they want to remain a professional performer. This does not mean that I don't think that students should be encouraged to play for others. I also think a good teacher should discuss performance anxiety with students for who this is an issue. And by this I mean more than just telling them that one should practice performing for others.

Although fear of memory lapses is certainly not the only reason for performance anxiety, I think it is often one of the main reasons, So students, other than those who want to be professionals, should be allowed to play from the score.

After watching your YT performance of a Bach Invention, I was surprised you feel this way although maybe there was no audience there and that's the difference. I think you play extremely well both technically and musically considering your years of study and you appear very at ease int he video.

Thank you very much Pianoloverus! I really appreciate it.
Indeed there was no audience there, other than some staff checking out who was playing the grand in the empty concert hall...

To dogperson - thanks, yes, I do recognize the teacher's good will. I was also grateful for his invitations to play, which I viewed as a compliment.

Thanks for all the comments so far, I can relate to all of them.

The first time I played in front of people was at a church gathering. I wasn't well prepared for the 3 min piece and missed a few spots. Got to the end and had a few complements. Once I was at a Christmas gathering. Some of the guests play an instrument or sing in a church choir. I worked on a few pieces out of the Charlie Brown Christmas album including "Christmas Time is Here" & "Chestnut Song". People sang carols and then it was my turn to play. A man with 2 daughters really like the Chestnut Song.

The way I practice my pieces is breaking them into sections and work on each really well. I'd make recordings along the way and listen a few times so that I know what I was doing and have consistency each time I play the same pieces. Once you get your pieces up to the performance level, you wouldn't be anxious playing in front of people. I occasionally go into a piano store and try a few pieces I learned recently on a new keyboard / piano. People who walk by don't bother me. Occasionally I'd get comments from the salesman. You can also get other people in the family to listen to you play regularly so you get comfortable playing in front of people.

When I'm playing in front of people, I don't think about playing pieces by Bach, Handel, Mozart or Vince Guaraldi. They are my own pieces that I want to share with others in my own way.

There's a difference between a need to play for others and it would nice to be able to play for others.

I used to think this as well, but actually I've come to realize that other musicians are the best audience. They (we) can generally "hear between the lines" -- IOW, tell that the person is battling nerves, not incompetence.

Over the years as I've done more recitals and playing at piano parties, I've come to feel that fellow musicians are the most sympathetic, and encouraging, audience.

Which is a big deal for me because I really struggled with shaky hands for a long time. I've written about it here before so I won't go on about it. But I will say that I still sometimes get derailed by the shaky hands -- well, probably even more now since I haven't done any piano parties since the pandemic started. But I love to play for (and with) others, so I've figured out a way to enjoy it, shaky hands or not.

Ido - whether the teacher did the ‘right’ thing is not something I can know about your case. I am glad that you took the invitation as a compliment - I suspect it was meant as such. I also think that having it be with one other student was in fact supposed to be something of an ice breaker. The other person is also a student.. you are going through a similar process and have some shared set of experiences. The other person also knows how difficult it is to play piano. And it is just one person, as opposed to being many. And it was a spontaneous moment— so you were not spending weeks agonizing about the few minutes of performing in front of others.
Sometimes we need people to push us out of our comfort zone. To me, playing piano is about frequently exploring things outside my comfort zone. If your teacher was sensing that performing for people was one of these areas, and sensed that you could handle it and might want the door to be open to exploring this aspect of piano playing, I think this might actually be a positive experience. On the other hand, if you are going to be traumatized by this and truly have 0 interest in playing in front of anyone, ever, then maybe not.

A story told by many students in pilot training (where early lessons are with the teacher in the cockpit, for obvious reasons):

At some point during training, the instructor asks the student to land the plane for practice, which the student does.

Then, the instructor gets out of the plane, stands on the ground, and says without any warning:

. . . "You're ready -- take it up and do a loop around the airport."

So what your teacher did, is a trick -- but it's used by others, and it's well-intentioned.

I agree with the comments here:

. . . You're going to get less nervous, by playing for other people, over time.

. . . Your teacher chose a "low-risk" situation -- one other student, who knew that you hadn't prepared for the "demonstration".

It's quite possible that the other student had the same trick pulled on him -- and he knew exactly what you were going through.<G>

I've been through a bunch of "public performance" events, and I was lucky that the early ones were low-risk, group efforts, with small audiences. Now, I'm happy to stand up with my choir and sing for a few hundred people, or to stand up myself and sing for 50:

. . . I didn't start that way.

Had a similar trick pulled on me, but as a tuning student.

Teacher (an 80's PTG Examiner) pulled me aside and said I was ready to tune a temperament on the (main) college's sole concert grand. I'd been doing pretty good whole tunings for a while, but only on the tuning school dept's pianos (one beat up 9'). This piano (nice/OK SD10) was maintained by the main colleg's music dept's tuner. NO ONE in the tuning student class was allowed to touch it.

He said not to mention it to the other students (I was teacher's pet lol), and meet him in the concert hall in ten minutes.

Got there, he said I had half an hour to tune the best temperament of my life, which I did, and he liked it.

Started to pack, but he said to stop.

OK, why?

"Because the school's tuner is out sick tonight, so you're doing the tuning for tonight's concert. Have fun!!!"

And walked out.

Teachers who hold student recitals or enter students for festivals etc need to be understanding of their students, especially if they are children (as they have little say in what they want to do).

I despair when I read in the Piano Teachers Forum about teachers who have an inflexible attitude toward their students along the lines of "Play in my student recitals - or else...." (and then wonder why their students make all sorts of limp excuses why they cannot make the recitals on the day.....), and count my lucky stars that where I am, there isn't a "performing culture" for piano students unless they are good enough to enter conservatories or music schools like the Yehudi Menuhin School.

So, we were allowed to develop without worrying about making fools of ourselves in front of our peers (by breaking down with sudden stage fright or worse, or memory lapses - or just playing badly), but those with performing aspirations also had plenty of opportunities to perform in my high school, where there were regular lunchtime recitals for anyone - of any standard - who wished to perform, and they were always guaranteed a sympathetic audience of students and teachers.

However, during the years I was at the school, it was notable that the only music students who ever performed (apart from in the school orchestra or choir) were the ones who had aspirations to make music their careers (i.e. go on to conservatoires), most notably our aspiring concert pianist, who went on to win the Tchaikovsky Competition a few years later. Considering that in the school choir, there were over twenty piano students, none of whom ever performed as pianists (though of course we all 'performed' as choristers in school concerts), it was obvious that the vast majority of us music students had no desire to show off our instrumental skills in public.

I would not call this a trick or nefarious in any way. Every music teacher I had did this from time to time. It is helpful for everyone to share music.

The OP didn't experience the performance as low risk. It was a disturbing and unpleasant experience for them.

It’s always good to be able to play a tune during Christmas or at a birthday party. Part of the motivation for learning piano or any instrument is to be able to play for other people on special occasions.

I took violin years ago. Besides the weekly lessons there was nothing to look forward to besides the next conservatory level. The first year we need to learn basic techniques. After that playing in front of others gets easier.

Last Christmas at a gathering were 2 teens who passed their ABRSM 5 piano & violin. Besides the weekly lessons they also play with a music group. They were eager to play a few pieces for their parents & grandma. In the beginning the parents made the decision to enrol them in a music program. Their interest lasted for this long and will continue in the foreseeable future.

Some music programs like Yamaha & Suzuki require each student to perform in a year-end recital. It’s supposed to boost self-confidence. Not every student feel ready to perform after year 1. Personally I prefer a teacher who organizes regular recitals. At least I would push myself to work harder than practice week after week like an academic exercise.

I don’t think your teacher understands you very well. Your teacher probably did this with good intentions as you are a very good pianist. However, springing this on you without advance notice and asking you to play for an advanced pianist sounds borderline mean-spirited. My guess from what you said is that your teacher is aware of your sensitivities about performing in public and meant to push you a bit. I think you should be honest with your teacher about how this experience affected you.

I think your teacher made a good and necessary thing for you. Now the best thing would be to follow up your success, go to some public piano and play Bach there. And repeat this several days in a row.

I would have refused. But by the time I was good enough to give a recital, I knew I didn't even want to become a pianist. Soon after I left to go study music composition. I guess if you want to share your skills on the piano, you should get some experience in giving recitals. However, you might be not a pianist at all

The playing wasn't a "success". It was an unpleasant experience for the OP.

Get over it people - its playing the piano in front of another student. Hardly an occasion for so much angst and hand-wringing. I'm sure you have done much more stressful and important things in your lives. And if you are so injured and insulted by being asked to play for another student, then don't do it. You are paying the teacher, after all. You are the employer in this situation.

I get that it might damage your ego or self-image if you make a mistake or are judged by someone else, but that happens every day, in all aspects of life.

There is nothing unique or unusual about this. It's a common practice for teachers and coaches in all areas. There are definite benefits to group lessons and coaching. My teacher likes to assign duet partners based on her schedule. The two people with lessons back to back play a piano 4 hand piece together. Want to damage your self-image? Try playing a duet with someone 50 years younger than you. But it can also be fun and rewarding.

Sam

For some people, that's not part of the motivation at all.

Don't take it too seriously. If you're in a recital and played wrong notes, you'd be more concerned since you spent weeks working on your pieces.

In this case I don't think the teacher expected you to play a piece of Bach or any other composer perfectly. It's not a conservatory exam, recital or competition. If you stumble on a few spots, just say you're still working on it. The first piece you're asked to play is probably no more than 5 min. The brief moment of playing is not going to ruin your life.

Once I was at a dinner gathering. 1 person in the group is a professional viola player who can improvise on a piano. All I could play at the time was an old pop song for 3 1/2 min. Even with a few stutters, I was playing for fun and people enjoyed listening to the piece.

Some things involved are trust and respect. If the OP came in wanting to become a performer, then playing in front of others is a critical skill - otherwise it may not even be needed at all. I don't like trickery and manipulation. It is also a negative experience even if "successful" in the sense that our fellow member didn't totally bomb in front of the other student. It is too embarrassing to say no in front of the other student (or to appear disrespectful to the teacher), and possibly embarrassing if you bomb (or feel you've bombed) in front of the other student. What is at stake for me is the relationship between teacher and student. I'd not want to be manipulated or tricked in this way - even if it's "for my own good". (I'd not ever have done this even with my own children even when they were small.)

My teacher does this rather routinely. Sometimes I play. Sometimes I decline.
I agree that no one should be forced to perform ever and that some people may never want to perform.

Only you can decide how much this move bothers you, based on your relationship with your teacher and prior discussions with the teacher. If you think it crossed a line, then by all means discuss it with the teacher. I know, intellectually, that I need much more experience performing for others -- but offer me an actual opportunity to play for someone, and my knees start to knock! My first teacher pulled the same maneuver on me a few times, and I confess that I resented it then.

Many of us on this forum have at least occasional episodes of piano performance anxiety, and the pandemic lockdowns made the situation worse for many, because our performance opportunities diminished or disappeared.

Most (but not all) of us would like to diminish performance anxiety concerns, which mainly only results from the experience of playing for others. Practicing and performing are two different things. To perform comfortably requires performance practice.

I've taken performance classes and been in musicale groups for years, though those have only re-started in the past few months after a year and a half of nothing but Zoom lessons and recitals (better than nothing, but not the same as in-person). When I do those classes and groups regularly -- especially in person -- it helps. It also helps to practice when my wife has people at the house, or even when someone is in to clean or do odd jobs.

In the end, though, no one is required to perform for others, nor to want to do so. For at least some of us, this will never be anything but a solitary pastime, and that's fine.

I sincerely hope you are not serious.

If you are, I can only assume that you have lived all your life knowing only people who bark orders and expect them to be carried out without question, and everyone else to put up or shut up, and no sympathy given. Like in the armed forces (of which I have a little experience), though, in the UK at least, things are not quite like that anymore.


I teach music in schools as well as give private piano lessons to children, and I also run an adult choir. The loud extrovert ones are not often the ones with the best musical skills, but they tend to drown out the shrinking violets, and the last thing I want when getting people to play instruments or sing is to make them uncomfortable and to give them a bad experience of music-making, especially the kids.

Music is for everyone to love and enjoy making in their own way, and it is most certainly not "perform or else".

Ido asked a simple question, which we are all qualified to answer: “what do you think of this situation?”

The question he did NOT ask: “how do you think everyone should feel in this situation?” No one is qualified to answer that question.

Some of the responses here sound pretty dismissive and insensitive. It suggests that those posters maybe haven’t experienced severe performance anxiety, or long ago learned tools for managing it and can no longer remember how it used to feel.

I’m not a psychology professional, but I’m fairly certain telling someone to “just get over it” is going to have a very low success rate for curing any form of anxiety.

The fact of playing was a success by itself.

No, that's only how you view it. The OP made it clear he didn't feel that way about it and it's his feelings that matter.

Well, it was my comment, certainly it represents how I view it.
And when you say, "The playing wasn't a "success"", it's how you view it, isn't it?
I don't get the point of your replies to my comment.

Why are opinions being censored here?

No, when I say it wasn't a success it was based on the OP's first post.

IMHO they're being discussed, or argued -- not censored. It's fair game.

I think the original post was somewhat ambiguous about this. The direct quote from the OP is: “it was not a total failure.” You are probably much more literal in your use of language. When I say something was “not a total failure,” this usually means it was not a resounding success, but it was more than adequate; it was actually just fine.

I am also going to read between a few lines here. The OP has a YouTube channel where he has posted multiple videos of himself playing. To me, this is an indication that the OP actually has some interest in sharing his playing with a broader public. Many of us here are very private about our playing, have no interest in playing in public, etc. We also don’t post audio or video recordings to public platforms. If the OP’s teacher is sensing an interest in playing for a broader audience than just oneself, this is very important for how I interpret the piano teacher’s decision.

Playing music is a personal thing. It's something you do to give yourself a sense of peace during a stressful day and a sense of accomplishment every time you learned a new piece. I've been to gatherings where people are in a music group or sang in a choir and people who supposedly passed a few RCM levels but wouldn't play in public.

In my school days I played violin in a strings class and had to do a year-end recital for the parents. I also joined the school band as an extracurricular activity. Students in Suzuki or Yamaha are required to do the same to boost their self-esteem. Anyone who is uncomfortable performing wouldn't be in such a music program. I know a young man who quit after a year in Yamaha. His parents thought his last recital was nothing more than an embarrassment.

Music lessons is supposed to be a stepping stone to being comfortable playing in front of others. In many tribal cultures, music is for sharing with everybody including the audience joining in whether they do hand clapping, dancing or singing. Once I invited a friend over before Christmas and showed him a version of "O Holy Night" I downloaded recently. We tried it as a piano-violin duet. He borrowed the score to play at his church. He is very outgoing and participated in talent shows in his church.

In my younger days when my parents paid for the music lessons, they wouldn't want to see me practice week after week and not get anywhere. Now that I'm paying for myself, I'm even more conscious where I need to be & tracking my progress every week. At the last Christmas party 2 teens played a few pieces for the family. They passed several ABRSM exams and had something to show for it. We let them pick the pieces they were comfortable playing and they did their best. In any case, we all have our comfort zone. If I'm not comfortable playing a Bach piece, I can pick another piece by Mozart, Beethoven or a Pop tune that I'm more comfortable with.

When it comes to teachers, I suppose you can pick one who would go through the exercises & repertoire pieces & never ask you to play in front of others. Kind of defeat the purpose of learning to play an instrument.

No, it's based on how you view his first post.

But anyway, whether Ido thought of it initially as of a success or not, the point of my comment was to suggest to him the perspective that it was really a success - a success of overcoming his stage freight. Wasn't it clear? I wanted Ido to look at the situation from this point of view first of all. And then your strange reply follows which denies this point of view because (in your opinion) it's not the original point of view of the thread's author. ?? The purpose of a discussion is obviously an exchange of view points whether they do match or not. It's ridiculous to deny someone's point of view because it doesn't match another point of view.

That. Sgisela - you read the situation properly.
Indeed I would like to share music and play for people, I just don't feel ready. I have the same problem every beginner has when playing pieces - muscle memory is very fragile and any change in the settings can throw it off. And in my case there were many changes - mainly an instrument which takes time to get used to, poor lighting, keys are sized slightly different than current standard, etc. And the piece was far from polished, so it was more prone to falling apart. Not a total failure = I played it from start to end without halting, but made many strange errors I never make when playing alone - that's the usual story, isn't it? My knowledge of the piece was not solid enough.


Replies such as Iaroslav's and Sam's I actually find encouraging. I took the situation too seriously. What was in stake here? nothing except my ego, which is a thing I'm trying to get rid of anyway.
I wasn't traumatized, because I expected errors to happen. I once played for someone a piece that I composed. Needless to say, I was familiar with the piece more than anyone else can be, right? So, no excuses. It still fell apart big time! So I'm no longer surprised by such things, I just acknowledge them, and that's why I chose not to participate in the recitals.

There's also a difference between live performance, and recording. One could want to share music, but not do it with a live audience.

Glen Gould is a famous example of someone who chose the "recording" path. I don't know if the driver was "stage fright", or perfectionism. I heard that he became expert in splicing tape, so the final product had no mistakes.

And Rachmaninoff was an example of the opposite. There was no possibility for tape splicing in his time, and because of his perfectionism he was afraid that imperfections of his playing would remain forever on the recordings.
It's really hard to be a perfectionist. 🤔

There is no perfection on earth. Every musical performance has mistakes. Even if Gould was note perfect, he still sounded awful.

I dated a classical radio announcer who was an expert at splicing tape but, you know, there is no longer any demand for that skill.

Rach played for piano rolls, which, as an owner of a Disklavier, I find endearing. He was a forward thinker. The story is that he was so shocked that the result sounded like himself that he walked out of the studio and did not return for a few days.

With the amount of fakery and trickery in recordings, it’s a wonder we put any faith in them at all. Recordings are certainly nothing to emulate but that’s what people try to do.

This generalization is simply false. There are people taking lessons who have no desire to play for others.

I play for my own enjoyment and edification and don't regard my lessons as stepping stones to playing for others. Call me a chicken, but the thought of playing in front of others is scary. I admire those who do play in front of others, with or without performance anxiety issues.

However, it does seem that most people will be playing within someone else's hearing zone, so in that sense they are playing "for others." Exceptions would be playing on a DP with headphones or living alone in a soundproof apartment or home. For myself, I know very well that my spouse hears me practice and play my pieces. At my lesson, I know that anyone in the corridor outside my teacher's studio can hear me play (I know because I can hear the student ahead of my playing when I arrive for my lesson). Occasionally, someone will step into the office while I'm playing. It used to bother me, having all these people around who could hear me play, but now I've pretty much gotten over it. I had to, or quit lessons. I still have no plans to play in a recital and I'm comfortable with that decision.

There are 2 types of people: introvert & extrovert. In my younger days I wasn’t very outgoing. A friend in the neighborhood asked me to play hymns in Sunday church services and I turned him down. 2 decades later I joined a music group and started to appreciate performing for an audience. 2 years ago I was traveling overseas and played movements from a Handel suite on a public piano. Another man was practicing a Chopin Nocturne. Even with a few wrong notes, we enjoyed each other’s playing. Over the years I learned not to take life too seriously and live for the moment.

In my school days the year-end concert was part of the music program. I was aware of it talking to former students. There are parents who get kids into a music program and they’re happy to attend their year-end recitals & see kids playing with other musicians in a music group / youth orchestra.

I come from a non-musical family. People around think that playing music is a waste of time. Being in a music group is my justification for continuing to play. The next pre-Christmas gathering I’m expected to play some carols. I look forward to it… going to be fun…

I haven't seen any reaction to my post regarding trust and honesty, the relationship between teacher and student, and possibly the idea of respect. If your student comes in wanting eventually to become a performer, then performance opportunities would be among the shared goals between you. "Tricking" someone - manipulation (which this was) - has consequences beyond that moment. Can I trust that teacher in the future. And so on.

Any thoughts on that part?

Group lessons, students playing for each other, student recitals, and so forth, are a standard part of piano pedagogy. The teacher probably thought she was doing the best thing for her students and what was expected of her. She was being a good teacher, challenging the students and giving them the opportunity to learn from each other - about playing and listening. If the student wants to decline, fine. Frankly, if I found out the other students were being given these opportunities, and I wasn't simply because I was an adult, I would be asking why not.

Sam

‘Tricking’ is a loaded term. Based on the OP’s last post, I don’t think this was how I would describe the event. I think the teacher was responding to a complicated dynamic with the student — the student both wants to play for others but also has a lot of insecurities and performance anxiety. The teacher felt the student was capable and took the opportunity to push the student a bit out of his comfort zone. It was (expectedly) uncomfortable for the student, but it was also a first step toward a goal of his. I don’t think this was overly manipulative or a reason to lose trust in the teacher. I think this was the teacher responding to something the student wants to do — but whose insecurities and anxiety are inhibiting the student from being proactive in working toward this particular goal.

Personally, from different mentorship experiences I’ve had, the most valuable thing a mentor or teacher can do is to help you work through your weaknesses and insecurities. This undoubtedly involves pushing you beyond your comfort zone. But it is through these experiences that we grow and are better able to reach our goals and potential.

We could consider the possibility that the OP "tricked" the teacher into thinking that OP would want to perform informally, since as this thread has shown, can often be an expected part of piano study.

Going forward, it seems like OP and teacher need to communicate about expectations and practices.

Tricking may be a loaded term but it was chosen by the OP. I haven't seen anything the OP's posts to indicate he wants to play live for others.

Didn’t he say he wanted to play for others in this post? He already has a YouTube channel, so there doesn’t seem to be an issue with sharing recordings

https://forum.pianoworld.com//ubbthr...er-pulled-a-trick-on-me.html#Post3176420

The activities you mention are common for students but are not universal. I suspect that there are quite a lot of adult students who don't play for others or at least dread doing so. As far as I can glean from the OP's posts, it was clear to the teacher that playing for others was a not something the OP enjoyed or wanted to do. Since the OP is an adult and had made his feeling know to the teacher, I don't see why one would think she was doing what "was expected of her".

As the OP wrote yesterday (10 December):

"Indeed I would like to share music and play for people..." so those saying he definitively didn't want to do so must have missed this comment. That he wasn't ready at the particular moment is another issue, I think.

Whether it was a "trick" employed by the teacher or a pedagogical moment might also be debated.

There are times when one says that one is not "ready" for a certain challenge and when a gentle push might help.

Regards,

The OP said he'd like to play for others but doesn't feel ready(the crucial part you left out). Doing so clearly makes him uncomfortable. He also stated that, for him, posting YT recordings(they are incredibly good) is very different(not anxiety provoking) from performing live in front of someone.

If the teacher was trying to nudge the OP into playing for others, I think the least he could have done was make it easier for him to decline. Even when the student is an adult, the teacher-student relationship is often not one of equals.

Rereading the OP's posts I see he did indicate he'd like to play for others but also said he didn't feel ready. If the OP never plays live for others, it will not cause him any harm. He is not a wannabe professional. So why not wait until he feels more comfortable(if that ever happens)?

I know a father who took his young child for swimming lessons. The child was terrified and the father did I think the right thing. He just discontinued the lessons.

One only has to read the many PW posts where adults talk about the dread of playing in teacher recitals or the contortions they go through trying to memorize their piece to see this is not a good idea for everyone.

I believe it was a somewhat risky step on the teacher's part, because some other student on Ido's place could be overwhelmed by the situation, develop anxiety of visiting further lessons, fearing a repetition of this situation, and eventually break up with the teacher. A teacher needs to be quite sure in a good outcome to play such a trick. But if a teacher does take risk for the benefit of his students, it's a good thing in my mind.

This situation reminded me of Wodehouse's novels.

Thank you for answering Sam. I usually agree with what you say, and your first post here, was one time I didn't feel that way. I said nothing at the time.
I would say they are a part of some piano pedagogy, among some or many teachers. I also know some who disagree with this part, including strongly.
The student had declined, and the teacher knew this. He was put in a situation where it would be embarrassing to say no in front of another student. I do agree with your last statement. When I was taking in-person lessons, I played at recitals, which means that as an adult I played the same piece as a six year old in my first recital. I never liked the idea - for myself - of recitals in a soft, informal, setting for adults because we'd want that (kind of thing).

Whether "overly" - it was manipulative in the sense that it was a setup, and the OP could not get out of it - and it was not the casual "by chance" thing it was made to appear to be. And in the opening post I am also picking up on mixed feelings, due to the event.

Well stated, and better than I have managed to do.

Unless the teacher had a difficult time finding students, he wasn't taking any risk. It was the OP that had an unpleasant situation to deal with. You also assume that what the teacher did was beneficial for the student which quite a few posters, including me, don't agree with. It wasn't clear that the outcome was good either.

Ido told his teacher that he didn't want to play at the teacher's in-home recital. That's a different scenario than :
He could say no. Why not? I think the teacher took advantage of the opening and asked Ido to play. This was just him, the other student, and the teacher.

I think we're putting a lot of meaning into 'tricked,' when perhaps using that word in the thread title was a bit of hyperbole. I'm with Ido 100% on not wanting to play in a recital, but this incident? It's a big deal only if he want it to be.

I think it was a pretty big deal to Ido or he wouldn't have started this thread. As far as just saying "no", I think that ignores the teacher-student dynamic.

There will always those here that believe this was a ‘big deal’ and those here that believe it wasn’t. I don’t see anyone changing the way they perceive this. I agree with Stubbie, how the OP feels is what matters.

Losing student is not only a financial problem, for a good teacher it's always an emotionally unpleasant situation, too.

Unfortunately there is no way to begin playing for audience other than to begin playing for audience. The "not ready yet" thing is very deceptive, it may last lifelong. In my opinion the circumstances chosen by the teacher in this case were almost perfect and caused the minimum possible stress. In any case of predetermined date of playing for audience the worrying begins days before that date and I'm sure it would cause more stress overall.

About the benefit I think that the experience of playing music for another person, teacher excluded, is invaluable. As the music, in my opinion, is created primarily to communicate emotions, playing for others is the only live act of such communication. An attempt to get in contact with another real person emotionally by the means of music. It is a whole another dimension in your playing.

Most musicians don't play so musically for themselves as they do for others, and it's because of that desire to "touch" another person emotionally that is obviously non-existent in an empty room.

It doesn't matter if "not ready to play for others" lasts a lifetime because some people don't want to play for others but find great enjoyment playing for themselves. 'Why force those people into an unpleasant situation?
Some people are not interested in connecting emotionally with others through music but still pore their emotions into their playing when practicing of playing for themselves.

A high percentage of amateur pianists approach playing in their teacher's recitals with dread and find the experience extremely nerve wracking. This is obvious from reading numerous posts on PW. And because they fear memory lapses they waste and inordinate amount of time trying to memorize their piece. I doubt those people are approaching the recital with their main idea as expressing their emotions to others. More like the hope they can get through an unpleasant experience.

The way I see it is don't put all the blame on the teacher. You have no obligation to play a piece when asked since you're not in a recital or a music exam. The reason you felt obligated at that given moment is because you already turned the teacher down when asked to perform with other students before. You could have made the excuse you're still polishing up the Bach piece and it'd be ready in a few more weeks. And you can raise the issue of performance anxiety with your teacher in private. I've played sections of pieces I'm working on in front of friends. I'd tell them they're not ready yet so I'm just showing them a small sample instead of playing complete pieces.

You're paying for the teacher so you should be open to address some of your concerns with him/her including performing in public. If you turned the teacher down when asked to do the Bach piece in front of another student, he/she is not going to drop you as a student. You knew ahead of time the teacher arranges recitals at home. The choice to play in front of another student was yours and you decided to do it so you shouldn't regret the decision after.

Yesterday I was at a gathering with friends. In the living room is an old piano (at least 40 years old) that is still in good condition. The piece I worked on recently was recorded and submitted to the PW Recital #64. I have a DP at home that doesn't have a good sound so I wanted to hear how much better the sound can be on an acoustic upright. Nobody asked me to perform that piece. I made the decision on my own.

In my life there were a few surprises. In each case I accepted the outcome as "blessing in disguise".

These two things you mentioned - playing from memory and playing for audience, are considered to be necessary experiences in most if not all music education systems, despite the difficulties they bring, because both these things expand the boundaries of one's musicality, which is considered the task of the highest priority. I agree with that. I view the role of a teacher as not only an instructor of some sort, but a person who constantly tries to expand the musical horizons of the students.

BTW it concerns repertoire in my opinion, too. A teacher from time to time should insist on student playing music of style that he or she dislikes, but doesn't know how to play properly. I consider that approach like "l never play classical" or "I never play blues" very limiting, and besides people often don't know what they may like to play best until they learn how to play it decently.

Come to think of it, it also concerns pieces difficulty. Some people get stuck at a certain level of difficulty which seems comfortable to them, and stop progressing. In this case a push from a teacher is also needed, even if it is not a pleasant experience for a student, it's how teaching works.

I utterly disagree.

To you (and maybe to most Russians?), music is a performance art and nothing else, and if students have to start lessons on that basis ('if you don't want to perform - and from memory -, don't learn any musical instrument, or learn by yourself'), I feel very sorry for them. It means that there will be many, many people for whom learning to play classical music to a decent level will be a completely closed book, because they will never be able to have proper lessons.

I count my lucky stars that I was born in a culture in which learning to play a musical instrument is considered as a desirable addition to one's education, and for self-fulfilment, and something to be cherished for life; and therefore memorizing is not at all necessary, and performing for audiences most certainly totally unnecessary (unless you are talented and have aspirations as a concert performer), because if I was in your culture, I'd never have taken up music. I had zero talent, but classical music became my lifelong passion, nurtured by my teachers.

Perhaps in your culture, I'd have been summarily discarded as a talentless kid who is too scared to perform and therefore completely useless and not worth teaching?


Totally - and that means the teacher should encourage her students to expand their music involvement - playing with others, learning to sing and join choirs (and of course, join an orchestra, if playing an orchestral instrument), even composing and improvising. Performing in public too - but only if they want to do it.

I've already mentioned the large amount of musical activity in my old high school - where kids of any standard have plenty of opportunities to perform (and are always guaranteed an appreciative audience of students and teachers), but only a very few ever do so. (BTW, one of the regular performers who first honed his performing skills in our school lunchtime concerts eventually won the Tchaikovsky Competition in your home city.) But almost all of them are members of the school choir and/or orchestra, where they do perform - but not solo, and of course, never from memory. And a high proportion (like me) form chamber groups with others (with the help of their teachers), to play duets, trios etc.

It is an inclusive, fulfilling and enjoyable expansion of their musical horizons, not a stressful and exclusive one, which is the one you advocate.
Of course it is a teacher's job to 'push' or nudge their students in this way, to keep bettering themselves and reach levels they may not have thought possible. All my teachers did so with me, and I do so with my own students.

But what my teachers - and myself - never do is to make them memorize, let alone perform from memory, or for audiences. Because, music is for their self-enhancement and for their (hopefully) lifelong pleasure, not something to be endured or dreaded. I do push sight-reading and aural skills, because good sight-reading skills in any student will greatly enhance the pleasure they get from learning new music, playing with others, and just playing purely for fun - same for aural skills, without which they cannot play by ear or sing (including at sight).

This is, again, ignoring the teacher-student dynamic even when both are adults. Since the OP doesn't like playing for other people, if it had been easy to refuse, that's what he would have done.

I agree that the power differential between teacher and student is important and hasn't been addressed in this thread. Especially if the teacher's wording was indeed
There could be a parallel with hands on corrections. Teachers need to be sensitive to students who may not wish to be touched, and this needs to be established fairly early on in the teacher-student relationship.

Indeed that disturbed me, but I didn't want to bring it up because I am not very familiar with some Americanisms in their way of speaking, which to British people sounds overtly authoritarian or even militaristic (like saying "sir" to one's father - I was only ever addressed as "Sir" when I worked in the RAF).

To my mind, that quote is the form of wording only ever used by teachers (and parents) with children, and smacks to me of a parent-child relationship, rather than adult-adult.

It is almost never appropriate to speak of someone present in the room using the third person. It is fairly common to do this to children, but I find it more appropriate to find a way to allow the child to express his or her own thoughts.

(And just an aside to lighten up this thread, A few of my school aged students with autism called me "sir" which was odd, at least partly because I am female and one kid periodically called me "Oh Lord Jesus" which was just downright baffling.)

The "us" part - there was that other student who was in the room. So I think it wasn't a "royal we" but "for us - him and me" (if the other student was a guy).

Btw, this brings up another question. How would you folks feel being in the shoes of the other student. S/he plays well in the OP's eyes - you've just played, it's the end of your lesson, and your teacher tells the next student that s/he'll be playing in front of you and the teacher. If you see the other student may look hesitant, and you've become the incentive. Btw this actually happened to a friend of mine and she kept hoping that the student who was asked to play in front of her had felt ok about it. The feelng toward the fellow student was encouragement. (had forgotten all about that).

At age 5 I had a few piano lessons. After a failed attempt to play "Twinkle" in front of relatives, the lessons stopped and the upright piano was out of the house. Coming from a non-musical family means nobody at home offered any help.

A few decades later I got into playing again with a different attitude. Social media has become popular and students started posting their performances online. After taking lessons and not getting very far, I came to the conclusion that aiming for performing pieces for friends & family is the necessary next step.

Sometime ago, 2 family brought their 2 kids to our house with a portable keyboard & violin on separate occasions. Family A enrolled their kids in Suzuki and expected them to perform in the year-end recital for the parents. When asked to play something, the kids hesitated. The parents said just play the piece they worked on with their teachers and they played "Minuet in G" as a duet. The kids in family B was keen playing for us. The kids in both families played perfectly. One must make the distinction of being able to play and willing to play.

The topic that gets discussed a lot on social media is choosing your repertoire. The first few years we don't have much experience playing so it's understandable we'd stick to the teacher's assigned pieces. Yesterday I was invited to a house gathering and played a Bach piece in the living room that I downloaded and worked on myself. At the moment I'm working on an easy arrangement of Debussy "Clair de Lune" with the teacher that I have no plan to perform. A lot of people including myself don't like some of the assigned pieces. Last year the teacher got me into learning Massenet "Meditation from Thaïs". Don't like the music and never touched it since. Some don't like performing pieces by dead European composers from ages ago so we see many students play "River Flows in You" by Yiruma. Besides making the choice of performing in front of others, we also choose our pieces.

Life has many twists & turns. I started a new chapter in life after the first unsuccessful attempt at piano decades ago. Years later we're going to have different attitudes to what we would / wouldn't do today. The 3 min. piece you played in front of another student is just a brief moment in life. I wouldn't regret the things I should / shouldn't have done in the past.

There are some assumptions in your post which seem to me wrong.

First of all, music, being a performance art, doesn't preclude that it can also be, as you said, a desirable addition to one's education, a thing for self-fulfilment and something to be cherished for life. An assumption that for me and most Russians it's no more than a performance art with other things excluded seems quite odd. I'm puzzled what could make you think so.

Talking about piano education in Russia we need to differentiate between private lessons and education in state music schools, the latter I meant mentioning the music education system. In private lessons one can practically do what they want. No memorization, no performance, no theory, no ear training - practically anything whatsoever. In music schools there are exams and requirements. If a student can't meet the minimum requirements, he or she is expelled, it's pretty clear. Certainly nothing prevents a student to continue with private lessons in this case. What I was trying to communicate is that a good teacher in my opinion should push the student towards the highest standards even when working privately, even when a student has currently no ambition for a music career. A teacher who is strictly limited in his teaching by the desires (and complexes) of a student is not fully a teacher in my mind, and the results of such teaching will most probably be inferior.

Also I don't see a connection between talent and stage fright. Many incredibly talented people have severe stage fright, and many talentless people have none. An ability to play for others, just as well as memorization, is a skill to be learned. A skill of overcoming the fear. For a shy kid a good teacher must develop a plan that will help the kid to overcome his fright and start performing. And yes, push a kid gently towards this goal, allowing him to grow both musically and personally.

This is a very unhealthy perception in my opinion, that I've already addressed many times in the past. Memorization not only allows to better hear what one plays, gives technique-wise advantages and helps to develop aural imagination, but it also gives an unmatched freedom of self-expression, as Busoni said, and an unmatched pleasure of the deepest immersion into music. Everyone not challenging oneself with memorization is deprived of the greatest pleasure of the music world in my opinion. Every time I'm very sorry to hear that.

And the tasks of a teacher in this regard is to teach a reliable memorization strategies and self-regulation strategies, which will allow students to perform with maximum possible confidence and not be terrified.

Actually your reply and clarification just reinforces my 'assumptions', based not just on your post here but also your previous posts elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically what you say:

Every good teacher should insist on memorization and performing in public from memory, and if he/she doesn't, he/she isn't good (with all that implies).

In which case, none of my four teachers were any good, and in fact, there's hardly any teacher in the UK (and in my home country) who is any good - because, we all do ABRSM/Trinity music exams here (piano, strings, brass, woodwind) and there is absolutely no requirement to memorize pieces, and absolutely no requirement to perform in public.

I've stated numerous times that I never performed as a student, and never played any piece from memory, until my performance diploma, in my last year of lessons. (If I'd chosen to do a teaching diploma instead, I wouldn't have needed to play from memory.) And none of my first three teachers had ever played any piece from memory. My last teacher was a concert pianist.

So, you're basically saying that my first three teachers were not up to the job, because they never required me to memorize any piece I ever played, nor made me perform. And Fryderyk Chopin himself was a pretty poor teacher too, because he himself never performed from memory, and he never made any of his pupils do so. (Don't forget - performing from memory started with Clara Schumann and Liszt.)
Is my assumption correct?

Not only that, you've gone on to say this:
And I'm sorry to hear you say that.
Even though I've been performing in public from memory for a decade now, the greatest stress - not pleasure - is memorizing my pieces securely. The greatest pleasure is playing lots of music easily from the score, and using my sight-reading skills to be able to pick up an unfamiliar score and just play it immediately, purely for fun, and especially with friends in duets, chamber music, songs etc.

Which confirms exactly what I wrote earlier.

BTW, you misunderstood one important part of my post: I never linked talent with performance anxiety. I had no talent and I suffer from performance anxiety, but there are (and have been) many great concert pianists whose careers had been completely derailed by stage fright. (I won't mention pharmaceutical strategies for helping with it: there are many who avail themselves of them these days, and I know a few of them personally.)

These days, technology is coming to the rescue for those who find it difficult to memorize securely enough to perform (and for whom the fear of memory lapse contributes greatly to their performance anxiety), with the increasing use of iPads and their acceptance by audiences.

I have some questions. Are private lessons readily available in Russia? Were they readily available decades ago? Is it common to meet adults who only study an instrument for the love of it?

My piano teacher in New York was Russian. She attended the Gnesin School when she was a child and had always considered music to be a professional pursuit, until she came to the US and saw how people of all ages threw themselves into music lessons without the possibility of a career, or even the likelihood of playing for anybody publicly.

So, she changed her opinion and grew to love teaching adults. She did work some on memorization, pulling the music away in the middle of my playing and she did hold recitals.

I had little musical training growing up and so I didn’t study music in college. When I got out of college, I tried to study music, through private lessons. I spent ten years studying the violin, with a Russian teacher, and then I moved, fell away from the violin and spent ten years studying the classical guitar. I grew weary of the classical guitar, and so have started piano.

At this point, I’m going to try to play myself out of life on the piano and not switch to another instrument. It takes a lifetime to achieve a high level of skill on any instrument, and so, I know my progress on the piano will be limited, but there is beauty in the simplest of pieces. My Russian teacher was always encouraging and maintained that given that I had the use of all of my fingers, that I could play, and learn to play well.

Still, my teacher playing my pieces was a world away from my playing them, and I heard that, and was deeply moved by her playing, but one must continue doing the best that one can, with an open heart and joy in daily practice. I play for a few kind words from my wife, and for the challenge of it, and for experiencing the teacher student relationship.

Great post, bennevis. So much to think about.


I have a little story. After attending an Angela Hewitt concert of Bach, I was waiting in line to get my CD signed. I was on a Bach high, happy, smiling, in a good place.

I said something to the guy behind me in line about loving the concert and he immediately attacked Angela for playing with the help of an iPad and named some other concert pianist who had never played with music.

I was taken aback and wasn’t in the mood for arguing with the guy. Later, I thought about it some more, and came to the conclusion that I’d never play a single measure of what Angela played in a way that approached the artistry of how she played, no matter if the music was in front of me or not.

I have no trouble with artists playing from music. In the end, it’s how they sound, how they play, and it takes countless hours of practice to play at an advanced level.

Why don’t all those symphony musicians play from memory? Did they have bad teachers?

Very well said. There's nothing wrong in playing from sheet music, and in certain cases such as with Bach fugues it may be warranted imo, but in general playing from memory has its advantages. If you know a piece by heart and can play it in your imagination, that can do wonders for your musical development. You can imagine what you want to hear, away from the piano, and the distance makes you less biased by the actual sound coming from the piano. Also, you can use your mental recollection of pieces to quickly relate ideas, derive concepts and patterns, use as a template for improvisation or composition, and so on. The very fact that you are not reading from the page frees up mental resources. I also very often don't even look at my hands, which allows me to focus on the sound even more.

When concert pianists keep a score at hand, I'm pretty sure the piece is already memorized. It's mostly a failsafe. No one in a modern concert is going to sightread a piece. Though it might be better if some did, it would expose audiences to more music.

There seems to be confusion between reading and sightreading.
A concert pianist would not be playing the score for the first time (sightreading)
They would either be playing by reading the score or by having the score memorized and the score present for any emergency. Stephen Hough has stated he READS the score of his own compositions

I heard "us" as referring to the teacher and the earlier session student; this usage seems normal to me.

My reaction is to the teacher addressing the earlier student saying "he will" speaking of the OP. Especially in the context of telling the earlier student what the OP will now do.

If I were in a meeting with a 4-year-old and her parents and I knew the kid did not like the color red, rather than proclaim "She will not paint with red." I would prefer to ask the kid her color preference, or give her a choice "Do you want red or yellow?" If the mom had lobbied for a grand art piece with red as a theme, I might say "Here is red for Mummy, because it's her favorite. I like blue; what color do you like?"

In the actual context of this thread, the teacher might have told everyone ahead of time that he would be giving all students the opportunity to play for the students that precede and/or follow them. Then the teacher could have invited OP to play his piece. An invitation is easier to turn down than a proclamation. The advance notice could have given any student the opportunity to refuse in advance.

Well, you provoke me to make some harsh statements which I would like to avoid. I don't want to offend you, or your teachers, or Fryderyk Chopin. I'm sure you had very good teachers. Let me, please, not make this personal.

Nevertheless I really think that memorization is a cornerstone and an absolute must in today's piano world. I amar prestar aen. From the moment when it became culturally acceptable to play without score, total memorization quickly became a standard for solo piano, it remains the standard up till now, and I see no reason for this to change in the future, given all the advantages it brings. And after that change there was a subsequent logical change in piano pedagogy which absorbed the benefits of memorization, too, and adapted to the new performance requirements. Ignoring these changes, in my mind, is comparable to using abacus in the epoch of electronic calculators.

The fact that ABRSM system contains no requirements to memorize or perform anything in public, doesn't mean that it must not be done. ABRSM defines minimal requirements, but a teacher can do different things on top of it. As far as I can see on the forums many teachers require memorization and arrange recitals for their students. And I don't think they are fools or villains trying to withdraw pleasure from their students' musical life. There may be reasons for that, isn't it? Besides, generally I don't see the point in limiting oneself with requirements of some system. ABRSM obsession is ridiculous. The best teachers are those who try to get the best of all worlds for their students.

Very good. I'm not at all against sight-reading.

Consider the fact that many pianists suffering from excessive stage fright prefer giving less concerts or even pausing their entire career to playing on stage from the score. I think it's pretty revealing.

iPad hurrying to rescue a musician. Funny.

1. Memorization is only a "must" and "the standard" in today's professional piano world. Probably less than .1% of pianists are professionals. Use of the score is changing even among professionals and is being increasingly accepted as perfectly OK. Also, for contemporary music, playing with the score has been accepted and very common for a long time.

2. I think that playing without the score brings far more disadvantages for most amateur pianists than playing with the score. The inordinate amount of time it takes most pianists to try to memorize a score so they feel comfortable could be far better spent learning new repertoire and other musical activities. Most amateur pianist would have a far more pleasant time playing in teacher recitals if they could use the score. Just read the many PW posts about pianists going through all kinds of contortions in an attempt to memorize music(and this is often just one short piece). I believe even the Van Cliburn amateur competition(or if not the VC then some other amateur competitions), whose contestants are light years above most amateurs, does not require playing without the score. Some of the magazines for teaching professionals regularly have articles about the pros and cons of memorization. None of them ever say memorization is the only way.

3. I have performed quite regularly as an amateur for the last 50+ years and have never played from memory during that time. If I had chosen to play from memory I think I would have played at most 10% of the music I actually played.

Please read up on the history of performance practice over the course of the 19th century. There are plenty of books on the subject.

The reason why it became "acceptable" to perform from memory was because showmen (think Liszt and Paganini) - and women - came on the scene and became superstars (much bigger stars than today's pop 'stars'), with adoring audiences who swooned & fainted at the sight of their heroes, nothing to do with being 'culturally acceptable'. More like becoming culturally unacceptable for soloists not to perform from memory, because audiences now see their heroes side on (because pianists turned their pianos around to show their best side: the jury is out on whether it was Liszt or Dussek who started the rot) and can watch their lightning-fast fingers. Just like when we go to a piano recital or watch a piano concerto, we all want to sit in the audience on the right side (i.e. left side) in order to see the showman's hands.

To put it another way, it was showbiz that drove the 'cultural' change in the 19th century, and continued to this day.......but my prediction is that in another decade, most classical concert pianists will be using iPads (or their replacements, which will appear in 2025) and performing from the music.

All to the good, because we might then get much more adventurous programming, like, er, Dussek's sonatas rather than Beethoven and more Beethoven, Dukas's sonata rather than Rachmaninov's, Dutilleux's sonata rather than Scriabin's, and so on. Just like Richter greatly expanded his performing rep when he started performing from memory.

Yes. It is called showbiz. (See above).
I mentioned ABRSM because it is fully inclusive (unlike your Russian state system), and all students, talented or not, are catered for - and because I (and all musicians I know personally) - was brought up on it, very successfully, and because it is the music syllabus adopted by many countries around the world, most of which don't have English as their first language.

If I was brought up on the Gnessin School (which I wouldn't, because I'd have been thrown out for lack of talent), I'd have talked about my amazing time there, performing from memory to all the great & good. In fact, none of us in ABF (except ranjit, of course) would have got a toehold in that prestigious school. It is purely for the elite.

We aren't talking about the elite here........are we??

Once again, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'm getting the impression that you have very limited experience of the real world of 'normal' students and their 'normal' teachers.

Stage fright and playing from memory are two different things. The musicians I mentioned earlier who use propranolol to control their nerves are all orchestral and chamber musicians, who never perform from memory.

And there is one ex-concert pianist I know who eventually changed career because his performance anxiety became worse just as he was getting noticed, with more high-profile concerts. He never had a problem with memorization.

On the other hand, there are other musicians who don't normally suffer from stage fright, but the fear of catastrophic memory lapses curtail their solo careers, so they stopped performing as soloists.

What's so funny about it?

I have to agree with Bennevis that the transition from playing along with the score came about as a result of showmanship primarily from Liszt. I don’t think by playing with the score that a musician isn’t able to express himself/herself to their fullest. On the contrary I think when a musician is released from the burden of memorizing pieces they are able to relax more and express themselves completely. Playing without the score makes for great theatrics like walking a tightrope without a net. Great and an attraction for the audience but potentially perilous for the performer. It’s also not generally acceptable for chamber musicians perform from memory where unlike with soloists the spotlight is on the group of musicians rather than on any individual. I don’t think us beginners should be memorizing pieces as a crutch for poor reading skills. If anything I think it is actually harder to play by the score than it is to memorize and look at your hands the whole time. It’s a skill that needs to be trained just like any other. I used to memorize all my music in childhood but looking back I realize that was due to poor reading skills. I just memorize now on the most difficult of passages and even that carries some risk of losing my place on the page. If you are a professional soloist it is expected that you memorize for the audience sake but for non professionals I don’t think it is at all necessary.

In a blinded test, would you be able to tell the difference between a professional or high-level amateur playing from the score or playing from memory? And what about all those musicians in a symphony orchestra playing from the score? Where do they stand?

I find this conversation rather grating. I'm surprised (but not really) that Bennevis doesn't have a single point supporting performing from memory, other than showmanship, in a pejorative sense at that. Surely there's more room for nuance...

I think memorization in a performance may make it a more memorable experience for audience members going to a professional performance, but I remember I once did an impromptu performance of Clair de Lune at a party with the score in front of me and it quieted the entire party down and everyone went into the room to unexpectedly watch me play and remember receiving a warm round of applause. I was taken by their response just as much as apparently they were taken by the music and the fact that there was a number of attractive women in the audience made it all the much better . I don't think memorizing pieces is necessary for amateurs. We spend enough time just learning the pieces that we don't have to make it that more difficult to memorize them. If you happen to have a good memory I guess this wouldn't be an issue but my memory is not as good as it once was when I was a teenager or young adult. I think it is important to develop reading skills before memorizing skills in my opinion. A few beginners memorize because they are actually playing by ear as I did in my youth rather than trying to understand the printed music in front of them. I think it is important to be able to adjust on the fly based upon what you are reading rather than just going by what you remember a piece is supposed to sound like. Some pieces are really long I don't know how amateurs memorize all the nuances. The problem is I don't think they do.

This has gone way off topic.

So, supposing you have a 70 year old beginner, who wants to learn to play as well as possible, due to his love of music. He loves to play for himself, and maybe to share this and that with his wife of many years. Other than that, he has no reason to want to perform. And his teacher is remiss, and not teaching him to "high standards" if our 70 year old is not made to play in public? The POINT is to learn to play music well. That means mastery and understanding of the instrument, technique, the nature of music, and combining this together.

Teaching goes toward goals, including what is needed in order to master a skill. Performance in public is not necessarily a goal for playing. And it is not amateurish for any student to not want to go toward this. When I read "what was done in Russia" - I doubt that a population of varying ages and background was kept in mind. (I realize in writing that the OP is youngish - but the students in this forum are not all young.)

I'm not at all surprised that you chose to direct your ire directly - and only - at me, despite the fact that I'm the only one here who actually performs regularly from memory; and several others have also questioned the need: not the need for speed (à la Tom Cruise) but the need for playing from memory, if you are not a concert pianist playing solo. (Pianists playing chamber music or accompanying never perform from memory, of course.)

But if you read my post properly, I was informing our Russian friend of how performing from memory originated in the murky history of post-Chopin "performer trounces composer" concerts, rather than giving a list of pros and cons.

But if you insist (and I'm the obliging sort ), here are the advantages:

1) You don't need a page-turner (or an iPad) - and that's the only reason why I perform from memory.

2) You can play anytime, anywhere, without having a score to hand. (But for this, you don't need to memorize every piece you learn, but just your favorite ones that you enjoy playing for others, right?)

3) If you have poor reading skills and is unable to play while reading from the score without memorization, which I believe applies to you. N.B. I am not talking about sight-reading here.

4) Er.....that's about it (as Victor Borge would say).

I agree with Iaroslav's post. From my personal experience as well, memorization definitely helps with audiation and ear training. One of the thing I tried to do was memorize the sound of certain pieces, so that I could replay them in my head (not the whole way through, instead say about 30 seconds). It is quite difficult to do, but I think it was key in developing an understanding of idiom and musicality. I do not think I would have achieved the same results by only listening. Memorizing, whether consciously or unconsciously, helps to develop that.

Not looking at the score and only looking at your hands while playing makes you better able to see deficiencies in technique. Similarly, listening without looking at the score, in my experience, helps to hear more things and focus on them individually and as a whole. If all of this is learned well, it won't matter if you're reading from sheet music, but I think it's invaluable to non-advanced pianists. I suppose this part doesn't require you to memorize the whole piece though, only 5-10 measures at a time.

For the sake of the discussion, there are music teachers & programs that get students through different levels & pass conservatory exams without performing in public. And there are programs like Yamaha & Suzuki that would hold year-end recitals or get students to perform in music festivals. In my school days I had to perform in front of the parents partly because the teacher needed to let them know how their kids were progressing. The other part is fundraising so that the school can continue to provide music education that is becoming a funding issue for many public schools.

Over the years I met parents who want to see their kids perform in year-end recitals and others who are not keen at all. Some parents don't think kids should perform until they can play advanced pieces. And there are those including myself who uploaded videos for an online audience. Making recordings is a good way to keep track of your playing. Students receive online feedback how they can improve their playing including tempo, dynamics & phrasing. Even a good recording is still work in progress.

I'd work on a piece to a high level. The next step is a recording for future reference. After getting the piece to sound the way I want with no mistake, what would stop me from playing it in public? Performance anxiety / stage fright. 2 years ago I played movements out of a Handel Suite on a public piano. An older man was waiting for his turn. After working on the piece(s) well with no mistakes you are less nervous playing in public. The other thing is to focus on playing your pieces that you pretend other people are not in the room.

I’m not saying that I don’t feel nervous when I play for others, indeed my hands tend to shake a bit especially after mistakes but there is no anxiety attached, indeed I really enjoy doing it. Whether those listening to me feel the same is moot.

I can’t see that for non-professionals and even accompanists, the benefits of memorisation outweigh the burdens, already well discussed above. Reciting poetry sounds no better learnt off by heart as long as one is familiar with the text.

That must be the last word on the subject. Only kidding.

Listening to a lot of music--well-played musc--is what helps with audiation and ear training. If what you are doing is listening to pieces (recordings) to memorize the sound, then what you doing is playing by ear. Nobody (I think) is saying never memorize, or never play by ear. Most everyone ends up memorizing a favorite piece or sections of the music they are working on, simply through repetition. But setting out to memorize all the pieces you're working on, especially at an early stage in learning, is almost always a work-around for not being able to fluently read the score. Ditto for always looking at your hands. Students need to do that to find their way around the keyboard. A teacher is qualified to watch one's hands for deficiencies in technique (these may be unknown unknowns for the student).

None of this is to say never memorize or never look at your hands. Just don't make them a crutch for not being able to read well. Being able to read well is fundamental to learning new material, especially less popular or more esoteric material that might not have recordings available for listening.

I completely agree. In addition, what Ranjit calls "ear training" usually means something different from what he's discussing. Ear training usually means things like recognizing intervals, rhythms, chords, etc. and is not related to whether or not one plays from memory.

I started out at the age of seven and reached the equivalent of grade 8 by the time I was eleven. But back then memorisation was not an exam requirement so, as I was a very good sight reader I never memorised anything. Didn't play much after the age of 20 until at the age of 60, being embarrassed because I could never play anything from memory I resolved to rectify this, but it took quite a while to get my fingers working properly and I didn't really get to play much until just over 4 years ago when my digital needed replacing and, discovering that the problems I had playing smoothly was down to the action, not old age, I decided it was time to really take things seriously, particularly with memorising. Took a couple of years to really find out what works for me but it really has been worthwhile in terms of getting to know the pieces better and making me a much better pianist.

Yes - I agree with bennevis that ipads will become common usage and I think I will, eventually, use one, or something similar. But for now the process of memorisation is, for me, a very good discipline - and good for the brain - so I intend to carry on with it as long as possible and to see just how many pieces I can memorise.

I think there's a big difference between memorizing a few pieces to play for friends and memorizing all the pieces one learns. Another point that I don't think has been mentioned is that many scores contain a lot of marking besides the notes and rhythms. One could argue that some or many who memorize scores don't really know all these marking particularly well so that, in that sense, they know the pieces less well than those using the score. OTOH if you feel memorization works for you or is something you enjoy I think that's fine.

This has been mentioned, it's what Jethro has constantly been saying, and I agree to a point. It's just that I think that if you "understand" the piece, which is a sensation very hard to describe, pretty much all of the markings come out naturally and correct (and even those which don't can come down to artistic license, even great performers don't follow every single marking literally). There are a lot of patterns to these things, and sometimes when you understand the pattern, you don't have to memorize everything. You can conceptualize the dynamic markings in an entire movement of a sonata, for example, as, first you play forte, so obviously you then play piano the next time, and then aha, forte at the end followed by ff to finish it off. These are the phases, and the phrase markings are what you'd obviously expect. The accents follow the top line/main motif. And so on and so forth. I trust this makes sense.

You may have a general idea of the markings but probably not much of the detail. Just try to go through in your mind all the markings in a piece you've "memorized" and then look at the score for every dynamic, tempo, articulation, etc. marking, and I bet you will be shocked at the ones you weren't consciously aware of. Also, the pieces you are playing are quite simple but once you play more advanced pieces they may include a lot more markings by the composer.

I find the idea of memorising all the markings very strange as to me if you are doing that you aren't really understanding or interpreting the the music. It's rote learning of the kind which I don't think is appropriate for playing music of any kind.

Do you find memorizing the notes and rhythms strange or a rote exercise also? I think it's reasonable to say that all the other markings by great composers are also very important. Or should you just ignore the tremendous amount of markings other than the notes that Chopin, Debussy, etc. wrote in the score? I don't think interpreting a classical score is just doing what one feels like and ignoring or being unaware of many of the composer's markings.

At master classes, students always bring the score for the teacher even if the piece is probably well known by the teacher. Do you think the teacher is only looking at the notes and rhythms in the score?

Do you play at a high level yourself? While memorizing a piece of music, if you do it well, you are almost never directly memorizing the notes on the page imo. You are playing it, understanding and internalizing the phrases and structure, and your ear and intuition guide you as much as the score literally tells you what the notes and dynamics are. Once you have a coherent whole which makes "logical sense", everything else falls into order and comes out well. It's the musical expression behind all the notes and dynamic markings which you eventually need to understand and memorize. Then, it does not matter if you cannot recreate every tiny diminuendo or marcato from memory. Your playing will automatically contain it. There are a million ways to play every note right, every dynamic marking right and still make it sound bad. So that is not what defines a good performance of a piece.

Almost every one of your sentences contains misconceptions or incoherence. For example, when I talked about memorizing the notes that does not mean, as you imply, one should memorize then the way would memorize random names in the telephone book.

I can guarantee you that almost all professionals are aware of the markings in the score that go beyond the notes and rhythms. They may not follow all of them, although for the last 70+ years most of the great pianists generally do so, but they are not ignored when studying the piece. And I never said, as your last two sentences imply, that just following every marking in the score is all that's needed for a good performance.

pianoloverus
Your patience on this thread is admirable. You have the patience of a saint... or ...a teacher.

I think in uk new adults tend to rely on memorisation but whilst it works ok initially they seem to later get stuck when music gets harder. It gets exponentially harder and people struggle later. I think most people who learnt as children here tend to read music. I don't think all do exams either. I think my progress was slower but I can read very fluently. Also none of my teachers asked me to memorise so I don't know why so many pianists do this. It always seems odd to me. I have had 3 teachers and never was mentioned. I think the iPad with a page turning pedal is excellent. I think this argument is pointless 😝 but I will treat myself to this Christmas. I have also have far too much sheet music now it's everywhere so hopefully it will save the trees also. Lol

Excuse me for not answering all the points, they are numerous now. I'll address what I think is most important.

In my opinion there must be no essential difference between "amateur" piano teaching and "professional" piano teaching, especially for children. In fact Russian piano pedagogy school is known particularly for trying to eliminate this differentiation. According to this approach every kid from the very beginning should be taught "professionally", that is to the high standard of solo piano performance, which ensures that a kid learns all the necessary skills that in turn will help him/her to achieve full potential musically, technically, intellectually, emotionally and will keep options for professional music career open for him/her for many years. To say more, the opposite approach, when some "talentless" kids are deprived of some skills, I consider utterly unfair and unethical.

It's worth mentioning that when using the same learning program for talented and not so talented children, the load and the pace of learning will still be different, because talented kids are able to learn faster.

I tend to agree that this question is more arguable for adult beginners. However now I believe that the best way to learn for adult beginners is to use children learning program when possible, and to work on the foundation as carefully as it is done with children. This foundation includes memorization and learning to play for others, because these skills affect the development of other musical skills for the reasons I mentioned. I understand that both these skills become harder to master with years, that's why it's especially important to begin mastering them in childhood and as early as possible.

Unfortunately adult beginners piano pedagogy is still not mature theoretically in my country. Articles about it are still very rare and AFAIK there is not a single book that covers the concepts in entirety. I'll certainly report if I run against something.



About elitism, if I remember correctly the percentage of people playing piano in Russia is one of the highest in the world, so it is obviously not true that piano education is elitist in Russia. The thing is that the number of trained piano pedagogues in Russia is large and therefore the lessons are very affordable.



Talking about Liszt I think we confuse the cause and the consequence. It was not Liszt the superstar who made this manner of memorized performance popular, but first of all it was his manner of playing, his tremendous power of self-expression that made Liszt a superstar. Could he achieve that power of expression while playing from the score? I think not.



Someone has mentioned memorizing of all pieces one plays. This is not necessary. Obviously there must be pieces played specifically for sight-reading training, these should be played just 3-5 times each, and there must be pieces played just to get acquainted with some style and which pose no big technical and musical difficulty, their memorization is also not necessary.

The discussion has centered around the need to memorize and not whether other aspects of piano pedagogy should be the same for the highly talented/motivated and the rest of the students. I don't think that "keeping options open for a professional career" should be a major consideration because such a tiny percentage, probably less than .1%, will ever become professionals.

I am not against the strong approach to technical foundation that I believe is common in Russian pedagogy. In fact, I wish my teachers had discussed the specifics of technique in greater detail. But I think this approach probably works best with highly motivated students and has to be tempered with those who are less motivated. Would you use the same approach with a high school age student who only practiced 1/2 hour/day as one who practiced 2 hours/day?

Do you think Chopin or Mendelssohn or Beethoven or Bach lacked power of expression? I believe they used the score.

There is a video on here of Horowitz playing from the score while recording with an orchestra. Did that destroy how he played Mozart? Were his powers of expression compromised? I think not.

Iaroslav, I agree with a lot of what you say here but respectfully disagree in a couple of key points.

I attend a local high quality piano academy in Florida and that to me the level of education for children and non-professional adults rivals and/or exceeds that of some of the best conservatory programs I have attended in New York City and Boston. All the teachers are of very high caliber and graduated from some of the best music institutions in the world and all are experienced concert pianists. I don't know how the director of the academy attracted so much talent in one place but she's does a wonderful job of it and has made a name for herself in child piano pedagogy.

It just so happens that my current new teacher who I have had for a few months now is a Russian expatriate who trained at the Moscow Conservatory and graduated from Julliard recently. She has stated much of the same as you- that children in Russia are taught impeccable technique in Russia and she can't understand why children in other countries particularly in the US are not taught fundamentally good (read that Russian lol) technique from an early age. As an aside there is some disagreement in the school and I am sure any where else in the world of what constitutes good technique but to her she believes we need to follow Martha Argerich and other professional pianists to have strong finger technique. She believes in lifting the fingers off the keys between each note and having very strong powerful fingertips ie. not collapsing at any of the interphangeal joints. But back to the main topic...

I do agree that high quality education should be available and taught whether you are an adult, child, professional or non-professional, or potentially seeking a professional degree. And fact that is a central theme of the academy that I attend and it's stated as such on the academy's website: "High quality instruction should not be reserved for college level". Some of the children attending her academy may be talented and/or motivated enough to actually matriculate into a university music program and one of the pre-requisites for an audition may be that they have prepared music that is memorized. As such it is practical and a good practice to teach develop memorization skills in all children because they simply may not be able to anticipate their potential. Whether or not memorization is a necessity to become an accomplished musician regardless of whether or not you plan to be professional or not is the question. I think there is enough evidence to say it isn't. My Russian teacher who's I think in her early 30's gives concerts I believe while reading the score. The director of my program told me laughingly that my teacher hated the fact that she had (ie. being told to) to memorize her part in a 9 hands piece that the faculty working on at a recital. So if she doesn't think it was necessary as a professional I don't think any of us have to here as well.

Again, I do believe it is good idea to teach children- especially those who show promise how to memorize a piece because practically speaking they may have to be able to do that to get into a university program. But there is a difference between teaching to an adult and to a child just as much as there is a difference between teaching to a professional and non-professional. This being the adult beginner's forum I don't think we should generalize what is good to teach children to adults most of whom will never end up being adult concert pianists. The problem I have with adult's learning how to play (especially classical music) by memory is that they may be doing that in lieu of developing good reading skills. So their playing tends to be sloppy and careless and I say this from personal experience. No child attending a high quality music institution is taught to memorize their pieces in lieu of good reading ability. They are usually taught at the same time. Memorization is never taught as a crutch.

One other thing I don't agree with is the following statement: "I believe that the best way to learn for adult beginners is to use children learning program when possible, and to work on the foundation as carefully as it is done with children." While I certainly believe that adults should have the same access to quality music education as children I have often said that a quality foundational education for an adult does not imply teach them like a child. Adults learn better when you teach them like adults and all adults have fully developed brains. I would never suggest changing the way we teach children piano though many can argue that certain ways of teaching may be better or more effective. But taken as a whole the music world has a pretty good system(s) on how to teach children. Through trial and error, experience, and anecdotal evidence many of the systems present today are very effective so there really is no reason to fundamentally change them when they already work and have been proven to work for years. The same unfortunately cannot be said in regards to adult pedagogy. Many pedagogues might say it's just too late and while it is true all us would be better pianists if we started young (optimizing our brains natural plasticity) the studies do show that adults can learn as well as children though we can never be as good as if we had learned as a child. Children optimize their brains through repetition. If teachers lay down the correct neural pathways during the critical learning periods they will inevitably become a better musician that will last throughout adulthood. Adult learners cannot do this. Adult learner's learn best by learning "how to adapt". Theories of motor control and motor learning explain why and we have proven their techniques are effective with adults who have suffered traumatic brain injury and the reacquisition of skills. As you have noticed yourself, not only in Russia but on all other parts of the world there is not much written in regards to adult piano pedagogy. The theories are out there and I oftentimes witness how some adult learners who are willing to think outside the restrictive box can make tremendous gains in learning the piano even as an adult- but that's a topic for another day.

A very tiny percentage of piano students are going to enter a college piano major program. Far less than 1 out of 100.
Your teacher was probably upset about having to memorize the score for a 9 hands piano piece because of one or more of the following: that was probably a light hearted arrangement or a one time performance, it was in effect a piece of chamber music, and it's rare to memorize music even for a duo piano recital.

My teacher just doesn't like memorizing pieces. Either she told me that or the director of my school told me that, but this I'm pretty sure of. I've seen her play with the score in some videos.

I don't understand this Russian obsession with performing and memorising pieces, even for children who are just learning piano as a hobby.

Reading skills are very important, because without good skills, learning new music is very slow and difficult, and I consider that a priority when teaching. Aural skills too, because I want my students to be able to pick up nice tunes they have heard (including pop songs, even though I don't teach pop) and reproduce them - not just playing on the piano but also singing them. I consider the development of musical and aural skills to be inseparable from learning to play piano. Technical skills and the development of a solid technical foundation form the basics of all instrumental teaching, but that doesn't mean hothousing all kids.

What has playing in public and memorising got to do with the vast majority of piano students, who are not going to be professional musicians, let alone concert pianists? Teach them all the important skills, and if they show great promise, they will certainly go on to music schools (like Chethams or the Yehudi Menuhin School in England) or have lessons at the junior department of the several conservatoires with teachers who will encourage them to become performers. Such children are rare, but they stand out quickly with the exam system we have here - they might get to Grade 8 by the time they are ten, for example. They might want to take part in junior music competitions. And then, they will have outgrown teachers like me, but I know where to send them on to.

For the vast majority who aren't so talented, they will have developed all the skills that enable them to pursue music further, and playing the piano in whatever capacity they like. They have the skills to sing, conduct, participate in other music-making like chamber music or accompanying, for example. Some might go on to get a teaching diploma in order to teach.

I really enjoyed reading Iaroslav's and Jethro's posts. Both offer very interesting perspectives. Having learned some things from the Russian etc. schools of technique and asking around a lot over the past year, I've realized the value of such schools. Also, there are a fair number of commonalities between the schools and Taubman etc. I have heard the point about having unbroken interphalangeal joints in people explaining the French school, the Russian school and even the newer methods such as Taubman etc.

First of all, I'd like to get one thing out of the way. I'm not saying that memorizing should be used in lieu of sight reading ability. Far from it. And at a high level, both go hand in hand in a way. Even aural abilities relate significantly to sight reading in terms of being able to audiate information from the score.

That said, I think that memorization of music is a skill that can and should be trained. It takes years to develop the skills to memorize a piece of music well and fast. If a child has not been memorizing since they start out, and suddenly has to memorize for a competition at 16, they will have an incredibly difficult time. This is because memorization depends so much on how you see the music. What kinds of patterns do you observe, and how do you relate them? Almost like a puzzle. As memory gets developed, it becomes easier to memorize pieces by listening to them (since you have better structures in your mind to process and store it). I've experienced this increase in my ability to memorize firsthand. Securely memorizing something is a difficult skill, an art unto itself. Even if you are performing with sheet music, the music is often over 90% memorized through repetition and you use the sheet music for cues. The rate at which you can reach that point will depend on how fast your memory for music is.

Preferences can change over time. If you learn everything by sight reading right now, and then after 10 years, if you want to perform a concert from memory, you will be lacking 10 years of experience with memorization technique, and will simply be handicapped in that department. Someone who has been properly practicing memory strategies may be able to learn and memorize in a week what will then take you several months (since you have not developed the necessary skills). So there is an opportunity cost. If you know for sure, somehow, that you will never ever play in front of people, or if you are willing to accept that it will probably take you additional years at that point in order to develop the necessary skills to do so, that is fine, but it needs to be acknowledged.

Regarding Iaroslav's point about teaching adults according to how children are taught -- what I have found to be most effective, in my case (as a young adult) is to "teach the book". Don't teach adults hoping that they will instinctively grasp concepts and learn by mimicry, instead teach the concepts themselves which you try to develop in children. And tell the students what you are trying to develop. I'm not sure to what extent you can learn new things as an adult, but I think that one of the key differences is that you don't really learn things "without trying". You won't just pick up a language if the sounds pass by your ears. (But if you pay attention, you may be able to.) For young children, you often see that they change very quickly in response to their environment, but not always in a direction of their choosing. For example, I remember that at 9, I started mispronouncing some words just because others around me were, and I had almost forgotten the original pronunciations I had learned in the past. Later on, your knowledge sort of becomes more declarative, and you "know what you know", so it is less likely to be changed by accident.

Edit: In some places, I used sight reading instead of reading. Too lazy to go back and correct it now, but it should be obvious.

1. Sight reading and memorization are separate skills. One can be good at one and not at the other. A high level of ear training skills can help with both.
2. Very few pianists ever enter competitions. My guess is it's something around 1%. If someone is good enough to be competition contestant and has a decent teacher, it will be obvious to that teacher for a long time. Plenty of time to work on memorization skills if the particular competition requires playing from memory. For everyone else, they don't have to worry about whether or not their memorization ability has been developing for the last x years.

I agree with a lot of this Ranjit.

You keep on justifying everything you do, but I'm afraid you are wrong almost every time.

Reading skills take a long time to develop. (Do you remember how long it took you to read English? - I do, because English is my fourth language, and I didn't even know the Western alphabet until I was nine.) And because of the way you learnt your pieces - by watching and copying YT videos rather than everything directly from the score - you have severely handicapped yourself by lacking reading skills, but you twist everything on its head by saying that it is memorizing that needs to be practiced again and again. But how long would it be before your reading skills catch up with your playing skills, if ever?

Well, I can tell you that when I had to memorize pieces for my performance diploma, that was the first time I ever tried to memorize any piece of music (after ten years of piano lessons) but it didn't take me that long, because all the composers' music and their styles were so familiar (from having played so much of their music), and because I learnt the music so quickly (because I could almost sight-read them).

Fast forward several decades, and I was invited to start a monthly piano recital - and I decided to play everything from memory, because I had no choice: the pieces were all substantial, mostly fast and complicated with lots of notes in both hands, and all required page-turning when both hands were playing, and I had no page-turner. I memorized half an hour's music in a month. OK, I already knew all the pieces, but getting them into secure memory required a lot of self-testing and probing to make sure it really was secure.

There is nothing to acknowledge. Memorizing, unlike note-reading, is not something that takes years to develop.

I lacked a lifetime's experience of memorizing before I started my memorization spree for my recitals. (Prior to that, I'd given a few lecture-recitals - which was my first experience of performing in public - but I didn't play from memory then.)

Now, after a decade of performing from memory, the time it takes me to memorize pieces is no different to what it was ten years ago. Some short uncomplicated pieces take me less than fifteen minutes to memorize (mainly because I'm practically playing them by ear), others just take as long as they take. But if I could perform from the score, I could have five times the amount of music fully prepared for each recital, which tallies well with the experience of professional pianists who play chamber music (with the music) as well as solo (from memory).

I agree with some of the points Bennevis brings up as well. A lot of what we "memorize" is simply through repetition. If you read through a piece enough times you will be surprised how much you actually retain with the score no longer in front of you. I brought up the Beethoven Sonata that I did not try to memorize a note at all and when one of my teachers insisted that I no longer needed the score- although I protested he simply took the music off the music desk and told me to play and surprisingly to me- I knew the piece. A few of my teachers at the academy I now I attend have also in passing commented to me not to worry about memorizing. Memorizing will come as a result of mindful practice and simple repetition or so they told me.

1. When people talk about memorizing music, it is never assumed one means rote memoriztion like one would use to memorize the telephone book.
2. Secure and confident memorization, with minimal chance for a memory lapse, often requires more than repetition and mindful practice unless perhaps if the piece is short and/or simple. That does not mean the repetition with the score is not one major component of memorization. But for a secure memory many/most use additional methods. No article on memorization says to simply repeat the piece with the score many times.

Yes I agree. There are specific techniques that allow one to memorize really well and some of those techniques I wouldn't be surprised is what Ranjit is talking about. It might not take as long as he may think though. But at least from my experience and the experience of a couple of my former teachers I feel I'm implicitly memorizing large sections of what I play through simple repetition and practice.

Agree.
Secure memorization also assumes intact cognition.
Someone unable to come up with the names of their grandchildren is unlikely to be successful in performing from memory.

YMMV

I have heard the same thing bennevis says from certain people, that memory comes automatically over time, after learning a lot of pieces. (I'm not trying to target him here, it's something I've heard from some people and which I'm curious about.) I'm not quite sure how that works, and I personally feel like it may be a talent which can't be taught. Of course, memorization strategies can be taught, but I think what is being said is that the schemata in the mind which are used for memorizing music will be learned implicitly and automatically, and that explicit instruction to that end is not needed. I contend that this is probably only true for some individuals, in some situations, and that others may need someone to walk them through strategies to memorize securely. For many people it is not obvious even to look at patterns and chord progressions -- when I started out, I knew I told several people that all there was to a majority of pop arrangements was just the melody, and chords in some arpeggio figuration. I found it obvious, but there were others who saw the left hand as multiple separate notes and didn't immediately link it to the corresponding chord and arpeggio pattern.

I think that this is one of the ways in which talent can blindside people. I've heard some pianists/piano teachers say that technique is acquired automatically, just by doing exercises for a few years, and the hands just grow into the piano naturally. And they are fantastic pianists, and I believe them when they say that is how they learned. Similarly, there are those for whom memorization was never an issue. But the problem is that this probably only works for certain people, those who naturally do several things right. (It probably helps to be young, but then how many young kids can prepare a piece in a week? It's a combination of learning ability and talent/flair/whatever you call it.)

Responding to this, you seem to be stuck in a loop. I never said sight reading was unimportant or easy to learn. I have not learned my pieces from copying youtube videos, for the most part. It was more by ear. Of course, it's still not great for sightreading ability, but I did gain the ability to learn a pop song within a few minutes and to improvise, so it has not gone to waste. I taught myself technique by attempting to solve difficult pieces, to try to find efficient ways to execute certain movements, studying videos of online masterclasses on technique, and in general trying to understand the principles of efficient movements at the piano. And by improvising a lot, with which I would come up with more possible movements at the piano to solve. The reason I didn't focus so much on sight reading was because I didn't get into classical piano seriously until last year. At which point, I did indeed focus on learning how to read.

But no matter how many times I've reiterated this (and I've said it here quite often), it appears that I still must be stereotyped as "copy-paste-youtube-tutorial-guy".

Do others here remember how long it took them to learn how to read? As I remember it, when I was 5, at some point I just *could* read, and that was that.

Haha, read at what level? Jack, Jill, and the hill? If I stuck a novel by Thomas Pynchon in front of you when you were 5, I think you would stumble quite badly trying to read it and your comprehension would be close to nil. I think the same applies to reading music. Some pieces can be read fairly easily, others are incredibly difficult to read.

Yep, and if you can read music at a Grade 1 level, you can’t play grade 8 music by reading the score. It is not automatic: time needs to be spent developing reading skills.

I mean that there's a moment where reading "clicks" for you and you suddenly move from sounding out letters to reading entire words and sentences.

And has already been pointed out, the level of those words and sentences can vary astronomically. IOW saying one has learned to read words is extremely vague. The same is true for sight reading.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a young child in possession of good reading skills, must be in want of Pride and Prejudice to read.

In other words, if you can't read and understand said novel, you haven't learnt to read properly.

I know what you're saying, and it is cleverly said, but it can come across wrong.
It's a word play from Austin's "Pride and Prejudice", where the original says " "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

Your statement first took me aback, because there is no universal truth that if a young child has good reading skills, s/he will be able to read and understand that particular book. Which is also not what you're really saying. Developing reading skills in young children, as well as assessing and solving problems is an area of expertise and training that I have, together with linguistics and language teaching. So this caught my attention. To "understand" that book, which deals with adult topics such as marriage and relationships - I think the reader must have some life experience, be older, and also have learned something about the culture of that period. The child might get a literal meaning, like "He kisses her fervently." but not implied nuanced meaning.

However, if we do draw parallels, you might say that to truly be able to read and understand some musical works, and know how to interpret them, then theory, some music history maybe, additional knowledge would help. Just like the customs and times in the Austin novel must be grasped first. With that I would agree.

OT but not - One of my courses had been of French literature in a given time period, and there was a retold Aesop fable - the haughty tree that doesn't bend and gets snapped by the wind, and the bendy plant that survives the wind. By the choices of words, word order, and other devices, the author had actually written in code. He was actually criticizing specific political actions taken by the king and his minions, and each word meant something else as well. You would not be able to truly "read and understand" that poem, without knowing these things - which our prof was good enough to tell us about.

Not that any of this - or the last few pages - has anything to do with a teacher putting his student into a position of performing in front of someone else, after the student made it clear he didn't want to do so.

My understanding of the situation of the OP is that OP declined to attend some informal performance events. To me it seems possible or even likely that although the OP may have intended it as such, the teacher did not hear this as a policy statement on the student's part that performance is right out. The teacher may have heard the declined invitations as regrets, not able to join you Tuesday night at 7:00 or whatever. I doubt that OP stated simply "I will not perform for anyone, ever, under any circumstance."

Nevertheless, if, as a student, I felt a power differential such that my teacher seemed coersive or I felt unable to decline to play, I'd find a new teacher. Of course, I'm old and opinionated and haven't got time to put up with stuff like this. When I was younger, I would have submitted to this abuse as I did to much other abuse, because that's how it was. I even smiled when people told me to.

I think the OP previously made it clear to his teacher that he did not want to play in student recitals because it made him uncomfortable. It had nothing to do with something like the recital being at an inconvenient time or that the OP declined with regret. It's reasonable that the teacher would also understand that playing for a single student would make the OP uncomfortable although it's possible the teacher thought it would be less uncomfortable than playing for a group.

I think with almost every teacher-student relationship there is a power differential and this is true even if both are adults. There is also the desire on most student's part to please the teacher.

In a real performance we'd be practicing 1 or more pieces for weeks and try to nail every note perfectly. When somebody asks you to play something, it's an informal request. Nobody (the teacher or another student) expects you to play perfectly. Many people like myself have no trouble playing in front of a teacher. Once in a while the playing would stop and the teacher would give his/her feedback. If you're not comfortable playing a piece through, it's ok to stop and explain you're still working on it.

I remember 2 places with a street piano in the past. The first was a grand piano at the airport departure area. A young lady sat down and played an easy arrangement of the Mozart Symphony #40 in Gm mvt.1 theme. Another was an upright at a busy street corner. A young man played Scott Joplin "Maple Leaf Rag" from memory. They looked like students who took lessons for a few years. Last week I attended a party and played a Bach piece I worked on recently on the upright in the living room. In all 3 cases nobody prepared ahead of time. Don't think the young lady knew there was a piano in the airport and she didn't practice specifically for a performance before departure.

Playing music in an informal setting isn't asking someone to do something too challenging or impossible. If someone put an unfamiliar piece of sheet music on the stand and want to hear what it sounds like, some of us would panic. Playing a piece we worked on for at least a week shouldn't be a big deal. People don't walk up to a street / public piano fully prepared to give a recital. We'd play the last pieces we worked on. The only preparation is our knowledge of the music & hours of practice. Once i was at a public piano. The only piece i was competent playing was Bach Invention #8 for about 1 min. Even with a few wrong notes, 1 min. of playing is not going to ruin my life.

You described your own feeling about playing for others or how you imagine some other people feel. But that is not at all how the OP feels.

I was going off this:

From this post, I don't see a universal and eternal policy statement about performance. Certainly, as it is written I see room for the teacher to think that the student might be willing to perform some time under some circumstance.

I know that not everyone is as picky about communication as I am.

The 5 minutes that the OP performed in front of another student is already in the past. Any concern playing in front of others should be addressed earlier so shouldn't complain after the fact. Just have to learn from the experience and make the best out of it. Even if you messed up, 5 minutes of your life isn't a big deal and certainly not going to ruin your life.

I'd practice a piece assigned by the teacher at home, play in front of her and then at a friend's house. We all accepted playing in front of the teacher because we paid for instructions and expected feedback. When another student or a friend is in the room we don't have an obligation to play in front of him. The issue here is having someone else in the room. Whether I play a piece with nobody around or someone else in the room, it's the same piece. The tempo, dynamics & phrasing would come out more or less the same.

When we were young, some of us got toy keyboards with a few octaves. We would spend hours with it for fun. We didn't care if someone else is in the room. Even if we didn't know how to play a song we'd press keys at random and make noise. Later in life we take lessons. The teacher asked to play a piece by Bach and music that used to be fun has become serious business. With a DP at home at least I can practice with headphones when I just started learning a piece from scratch so nobody can hear the wrong notes.

Right now my teacher is taking a Christmas break. Would be interesting to hear her opinion on the matter in January.

I've never said that everyone playing from the score plays badly, I just said that one's peak power of expression can only be reached when playing by heart. That's what I think, yes. And this is the point of view that has been dominating the piano world for a very long time now.

(That said, of course it would be naive to think that the benefits of memorization were unknown before Liszt's era. It was considered appropriate, respectful to the composer then to play having the score on the desk, but we can't say to what degree a piece was actually read or played by heart in a concert. I don't think that Chopin or Beethoven didn't remember their pieces really.)

Besides, what is most important here and what I'm still trying to communicate, seemingly unsuccessfully, is that memorization is very beneficial in a learning process even if performance from memory is not planned. The mental, visual and postural constraints brought in by playing from a score inevitably affect learning. The mental load hinders listening to what one is playing, the visual constraints hinder watching one's technique and the postural constraints hinder important torso micro-movements. That all is obviously not good for learning. Plus the memorization develops aural imagination and leads to better, more polished technique. Though I agree, of course, with importance of sight-reading, too.


An interesting question. I think that a learning program for beginners and early intermediate students should not normally be altered, however for late intermediate and advanced students it's acceptable. If a beginner student doesn't pactice enough, which is frequently the case, his/her progress will be slower, but cutting down program is not the best approach in my opinion, because the foundation still needs to be built. When the foundation is created already, there are more options.
I would also really like to know what users with significant teaching experience in different areas think about it. ?

So Chopin, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, and Bach weren't playing with their peak power of expression? And what about chamber musicians who also play with the score?

Well stated.

But what Iaroslav left out is that for many pianists, including professionals, there is a major "mental load" because they fear a memory lapse. I think for many/most pianists this is far greater than any "mental, visual and postural constraints brought in by playing from a score". In fact, I think most pianists who regularly use the score would say that using the score doesn't constrain them at all. In fact it frees them. In all the discussion, I'm assuming the pianist is using the score mostly as a security blanket.

Finally, even if what Iaroslav said is true, for most pianists, especially amateurs, is all the extra time spent trying to memorize the score worth it compared to all the additional repertoire or technical work they could do if they didn't spend time on memorization?

Speaking from an amateur experience such as mine I think there are some good points here. I think there are mental, visual, and postural constraints brought in by playing from a score that invariably affect "performance" but not necessarily learning. There are definitely postural and visual constraints that come into play when one performing technically challenging pieces where memorizing the entire piece is actually more "freeing" than playing from the score. But if the piece is slow and not that challenging I don't see where memorizing a piece gives you kind of mental, visual, or postural advantage, nor learning advantage. It just takes practice to play comfortably and I think the security blanket of just having the score in front of you as a reference frees you up even more. A lot of memorization of pieces comes from tradition. At Eastman auditions they require you or prefer for you to play by memory on instruments OR pieces that are typically performed by memory. If you plan to a soloist career it is very practical to have a large repertoire that can be played by memory. If you are an amateur and you have limited time to practice it makes sense to focus more on learning more pieces rather than just memorizing pieces for memory sake. Only memorize the very difficult pieces or sections of pieces that are technically challenging to play while looking at the score. (just make sure you have a strategy to get back in place )Playing by memory takes practice just as playing from the score requires practice. Both have their practical advantages.

Also realize there are performance skill benefits that playing from the score may give you such as proprioceptive and kinesthetic sense benefits. Playing without looking at the keyboard develops these senses much as my teachers have told me to sometimes learn difficult passages by playing with my eyes closed. It’s an excellent skill to know where the keys are without looking at them. My last teacher an very talented concert pianists told me she learns difficult passages by repeating them over and over while reading a book.

I also think learning to play from the score offers more “real life” benefits for the amateur musician than memorizing (though that has its merits too). One, you learn more pieces in the same amount of time, two you may run across other amateur musicians who want to have jam session with chamber music and duets and reading from the score will be a necessity here, and thirdly come Christmas time there is that uncle who always asks if you can play this or that song from that holiday music book so he can karaoke along with you.

If it's something quite trivial, there's probably no point to memorizing it. I think a good measure is that, if you can't play something at sight perfectly the first time, there's still something to improve. The reason you find it hard to memorize is often because you aren't seeing it in the right way. As an easy example, if you see that a Czerny etude is I-ii-V-i with an Alberti bass in the left hand and an ascending scale in the right hand, it is instantly memorized. I think memorization really trains these mental representations of the music, though it is often subconscious.

The discussion on memorrization (which imho doesn't even belong to this topic) is very black and white, and presents extreme opposites which are not the reality for everyone. The way playing from the score is presented reminds of sight reading material for the first time, or a matter of extreme dependence, reading every single note as if for the first time. Many of us play with glances at the score. There will be cues here and there. Definitely the risk of memory lapses is eliminated, and with it, the associated anxiety. In my own redevelopment and relearning, there was a stage where I played more expressively with the score than without it, because of little cues I had put in. Or conversely, the overall pic of the score becomes a kind of memnonic, similar to when your car dings you reach for the seatbelt. Point: It's not black and white. There is not a single way in which people play with, or without music. Others may not be doing things, including their internal reality, in the way you (anyone) imagines it.

And this has nothing to do with the relationship between a teacher, a student, and who makes what decisions how by consulting whom. For all we know, the OP played with the score out. What does any of this have to do with memorization?

I had to go back to December 12 posts to figure out where this thread hit a sort of fork in the road. I joined the conversation after that fork thinking this thread was about the benefits or non benefits of memorizing versus reading by the score. Oops. There was a question of whether or not memorizing pieces adds to the fear that some pianists such as the OP may have in playing in public and that it may be an unnecessary requirement. So there is a relationship to the OP’s first post.

If the piece is technically difficult and therefore requires looking at one's hands a lot and memorization, that doesn't mean one can't still use the score. Whenever I've spoken in favor of using the score, I'm talking about using it mostly as a security blanket so one does not have to worry about memory slips and one doesn't have to spend all the extra time needed to play securely without that security blanket. In fact, what I just described is how even top level pro pianists generally perform technically demanding contemporary works.

Playing from the score doesn't require nearly as much time as playing from memory once one has mastered the skill of playing from a score because that skill applies to all pieces. Over the past 60+ years I think I could have performed at most 10% of the music I've done if I had to memorize it.

Unless one is a super memorizer, each piece will require considerable additional time to memorize and for many amateurs create a major concern of a memory lapse. One only has to read the PW posts about the contortions many people go through trying to memorize a piece. And even then they approach the "recital"(really usually just one piece) with dread.

Well, I pretty much agree. When I play from the score after lots of practice learning the piece I use the score pretty much as an outline occasionally shifting my eyes from the score to the keys only when necessary. But with practice this should become natural for any pianist. A lot of memorization is a natural outcome from repetitive practice. Reading with the score is also a prerequisite for sight reading. You can’t sight read if you can’t play well from the score with practice. How can you read from the score without previous practice if you can’t read a similar level piece with practice? It’s a required skill for sight reading.

If they were indeed reading the score, no, they didn't play with their peak power of expression, they could play by heart better. That's what I think.

Not every type of music requires peak power of expression or is difficult enough to require memorization in order to reach that peak.

In that paragraph I was talking about benefits of memorization just for learning. I mean playing from memory just for yourself or for the teacher. There is no reason to fear a memory lapse when playing for yourself.

I agree. However there may still be a "pleasure advantage".

The topic seems to be too interesting to be postponed until another day. Probably we shall make another thread about it? I would really like to know these theories and techniques which can lead to tremendous gains.

I can speak for my personal experience (although I must qualify that I'm a young adult and not an older adult). Some of these may seem obvious to you, others may not.

Learning in context: Always have an end musical result in mind. Even at the very starting, when playing stuff like scales and arpeggios, constantly link back and forth to excerpts of pieces you're playing. Don't expect that playing your scales for an hour a day will automatically generalize to being able to play all kinds of figurtions, especially as an adult.

Understanding underlying principles of piano technique instead of relying purely on observation and mimicry: I was only able to really improve my technique when I started carefully analyzing my technique for inefficiencies. I found a teacher well versed in the Russian school as well as the Taubman method, and importantly, I didn't just practice exercises, but went over how to efficiently play every movement. Trying to decipher which exact movement or tendency was leading to a compromised musical result.

Goal-directed practice: I always tried to play pieces of music I knew in my head -- this is because you already have an ideal version in your head which you can use as a goal. There have been studies on motor learning where they observed people shooting basketball hoops: even as adults, with a clearly defined end goal (getting the ball in the basket) the body adapts to the task with repetition.

Careful listening to improve understanding of musicality and ear

Figuring out optimal periods of concentration and rest

Figuring out where and how mental practice and visualization is useful


Looking back at it, many of these things may seem obvious. In a lot of cases, we have heard similar things from great pedagogues but they are scattered. Nothing new under the sun, I suppose, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

You may be interested in checking out this video. The guy is a Stanford professor, and basically does a literature review for his podcast. He talks about skill learning here:

I am not an expert in piano pedagogy, therefore I dont have any set opinion on that subject. However as I learned a number of new skills as an adult, I did not do it any differently than when I was younger (or very young). Regularly new theories come out that are supposed to accelerate the learning process which quite possibly work for certain situations. However as far as I know, there isnt any known new method that would drastically shorten the effort/timeline to learn the piano. If there is one, then I think It should be usefull to advertise in detail what that actually is for the benefit of the PW community and then of course the entire adult piano learning population.

The proven results should not be based on a few cases, but on a meaningful statistical number of students when compared with a similar group being taught with traditional methods. The issue often encountered with some innovative ideas (i.e. "thinking outside the restrictive box") is that they may have worked for particular individuals, but wont for the majority of others. Just as one individual may progress faster than others, not due to the learning method but to his particular abilities or because that particular approach suits his profile/abilities. Any learning method should be applicable to all students and yield average results for the majority of students.

Certainly, you do allow for individual variation in pleasure?
De gustibus non est disputandum.

Huberman lab
As you know it's not an area studied in much depth specifically as it applies to learning the piano. Motor control and motor learning was area I did study in-depth in college and post-graduate work and research at a medical school. But where to begin to really explain in depth how all this could work requires a background in neuropsychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and biomechanics- subjects I had to study in graduate school and regularly use in my line of work. In addition, I don't feel I have even remotely the experience or knowledge in piano pedagogy to make formal recommendations on how students- particularly adult students should try to learn- though from time to time I am not shy about sharing my opinion on the matter. If I came up with such a model I think it would be a collaborative effort that involved an experienced and qualified piano pedagogue one of whom I do have easy access to but the question of course always is- who has the time? The director of the academy I attend happened to be at my office one day and commented that the problem with piano pedagogy is that there there is no paradigm from which all music teachers base their teaching methods. I recognized this as well. It's all based on anecdotal observations, tradition, commentaries, and yes opinions but there was no real science behind their teaching methods but what they do know is that in many instances the methodology simply works and that probably was a result of years of trial and error but no one can really look at an RCM or ABRSM syllabus and say why it works so effectively with many children but cannot explain why it does not work so well with so many adults.

Some teachers might say that they don't like teaching adults because they're too set in their ways and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". I'd say there's a lot of truth to the former and not so much truth to the latter it's simply a matter knowing how to teach them and recognize that there are differences when teaching a developing brain versus when teaching a mature brain. However many of the applications of motor control theory and motor learning theory would be applicable to the developing child's brain as well and could be used to optimize current standardized syllabi but my thoughts on the matter are is that they already work so maybe we don't to fidget too much with them. But the same cannot be said as these standardized teaching methods apply to adults. In my opinion there's far too many failures or far too many adults giving up when most of these adults have the motivation to learn and are not being pushed by their parents to learn the piano but they give up anyway because they are not getting anywhere. This is where motor control theory and learning theory can help. The application of motor control theory and motor learning theory is often associated with patients who have suffered some sort of brain injury, but these theories are not specific to brain injury only but by necessity we had to understand how the brain worked to help these patients overcome functional and cognitive disabilities oftentimes requiring the reacquisition of motor skills.

There is a lot of truth to the idea that adults are difficult to teach because they are "too set in their ways", but more accurately that should read: adults are difficult to teach because "brains are too set in their ways". A lot of the mature human brain has been hardwired by adulthood. We lose that plasticity to lay down new neural pathways to optimize motor functions and fine motor movement. That's the advantage children have. There are is a lot of evidence however that children and adults learn motor tasks equally well. Adults just don't lay down the fiber optic cables in their brains to make this skill acquisition relatively permanent so they simply never be as skilled as they would be if they had learned certain motor skills when they were children. And as adult piano students we just have to accept this. It's for these same reasons why brain injury in an adult can be such a traumatic event. Functions in certain parts of the brain for speech, perception, vision, memory etc.. are hardwired by the time we reach adulthood. If you knock out any of these centers it's a devastating event oftentimes causing permanent disability. But we have found by applying theories of motor control and motor learning we can teach these individuals to "adapt" rather than "compensate" for their physical impairments and oftentimes relearn sometimes very complex motor skills by essentially tricking their brains to solve problems more efficiently. Some might point to these findings as signs that brain plasticity is present throughout one's lifetime, others such as myself believe that there is neural remapping or utilization of current pathways to come up with alternative solutions.

What does this all have to do with learning the piano you might ask? Well everything! You have the same mature and hardwired brain as these brain injured patients have, but you want to learn how to play the piano effectively and have to overcome the fact that your brain is too set in its ways. That requires thinking beyond the standardized way of teaching adults unless you are convinced they are so effective and successful. If you're not convinced like I am then it might be to your advantage to understand how theories of motor control and motor learning work to optimize how you are learning. In many cases I would tell adult pianists to stop learning like a child and learn like an adult. Unfortunately to understand how these theories work at a deeper level requires a lot learning of new material but if you are really interested in learning how this all works then you might want to study up on it.

Here's a nice review of motor control and motor learning theory. The 4 videos at the end of the write-up are also very good at explaining how these theories can be applied. What might be surprising to many piano teachers is that they are already utilizing some of the theories and practice techniques of motor learning with their students but they might not necessarily be able to explain why they work. The instruction manual on how to optimally teach the adult piano student hasn't been written yet but I believe this is the way to proceed- with a paradigm in mind and science to back it up.

So how do you apply these theories? That's a tall order to explain and if I was able to come up with some model many of you would think I was crazy with some of the suggestions I would come up with. Any model that optimizes adult learning would optimize manipulating the task, the individual, and environment- to challenge the brain to adapt. It's not about boring repetitive practice. Or finding one exercise or scale to solve a technical problem. It's about challenging yourself by changing up the environment in which your learning, changing the task at hand, and working on your individual deficits through practice and the nice thing is that motor learning theory already gives you some pointers on how to practice efficiently.

I don't know if that helps, but enjoy reading! lol

READ THIS. MOTOR CONTROL AND LEARNING

Jethro - well written with obvious depth of knowledge and lots of thought. Let me give a try at my end.

The first thing I ran into when I tried to learn a brand new instrument which was the violin: I actually had the right mindset. That is, I had the fascination of a child - in the sensations of a bow gliding over different strings, I could hear sympathetic resonance long before I knew there was such a thing (finger a note just so, and it becomes crystaline), I loved making the bow go boinga-boinga while racing it with a scale to go with the boingas. Our first experience with an instrument should be direct, physical, involve the senses, and should not be abstract, intellectual, where the mind overlays "knowlede" in a way as to block these things. It is not about making "Gavotte in G" sound right, and musical. In a way there is no Gavotte: there is this sound and the next sound; this sensation and the next sensation. And there is also that Gavotte. The "Gavotte" binds itself with the growth in our nervouse system - in the body, the sensations, and also knowledge - and the knowledge is not divorced from body and senses, and is also not their supreme head.

I also had years of singing and playing music on any instrument, always untaugt (so no fearfulness of doing wrong), and everything was generaly diatonic, in a Do Re Mi world, and my world had been movable Do solfege. This a) served me, b) restricted me into a narrower musical world, like a ghetto, c) masked, to my teacher, what I did not know. I also had a lifetime of "If I hear an effect in my head, I'll contort my body until I can produce the wanted sound." - which can be convincing to a teacher, at low level music, and gets deadly when "perplexingly" you get stuck in more complex music. The teacher I was with said "When I close my eyes, I'm jealous of your vibrato." Had he opened them, he'd have seen the strain, and realized, I could only do it on one single note. I'm a singer. So I'll picture vibrato. But will my hand stay balanced while it's doing its wiggly sound "somehow"?

What often happens is that the teacher will perceive how quickly the adult student grasps things, esp. abstract things - how the student already has a feel for music in general. And so he addresses that side, connects with it, and the first progress is done sort of at an advanced, abstract level. It is missing the boring, simplistic, childish connection with the senses, with holding down this note and releasing it, the next one, relishing in the experience for its own sake. You can get a teacher skimming over and rushing past (not even through - but past) those essential things: or the student being impatient, or both of them are in sync with this rush. And then "puzzlingly", this house with a roof and no foundations and not much by way of supporting walls, gets rickety.

Just to make it more complicated, our way of using our bodies may be suboptimal by the time we get to learning to play an instrument. What some of us get into might almost amount to rehab, and can spill past the instrument. Years ago, our dearly departed John v.d. Brooke (senior teacher) used to insist that activity in sports; climbing monkey bars; was the base training for a young piano student, because of connection with their bodies. I have thought about this increasingly.

I've seen things going in this direction. I worked with Jaak Sikk's course when it first came out, where he begins with a single finger and what it does. "What Every Pianist Should Know about the Body" explores the body end to end: so does PianoOlogist. Seymour Fink "Mastering Piano Technique" (book & CD) starts you away from the piano, standing up, whirling or rotating your arms, bringing in sensations and motions, that you then bring to the piano. Yehudi Menuhin did the same with his "6 lessons" that aired in BBC decdes ago. And you might even go inthe direction of Feldenkrais, Alexander, and similar.

Senses: What do we hear? What have we learned to hear? How long does your note last, how much does it blend into the next note - and piano being counter-intuitive, you can lift your hand and move to another position while the note still sounds, via pedal - which is also coordination. You don't get it by knowing how a piece sounds played by a famous player. In fact, you may not even be hearing what is being done. You start getting it by delving into certain minutiae, like a little kid engrossed in what happens when you mix sugar, oil, and detergeant and my, aren't those cool, goopy sensations. Here, if a patient and good teacher, who isn't trying to bring you up to the next grade level (and doesn't indulge the same) guides you, then you can start hearing - and listening for - and aiming for - things you didn't know existed.

How much does any teaching or learning go toward these kinds of things?
(Stream of consciousness, with a TLDR awareness that none it it might be read).

Something to be aware of in any of these discussions is that we all have had different journeys, we're in different places, with different strengths and weaknesses. What is right for one person may be absolutely wrong for another, because of the opposite places they may find themselves. But there may be some generic broad principles that they have in common. If I'm south of Rome, and you're east of Rome, my road to Rome means I have to go north, and your road to Rome is due west. If you take my "due north" you'll skip right past Rome.

When I started violin years ago, my sister already had lessons for a year. Mom got me into lessons out of convenience so that we could share the same teacher & instrument. Knew next to nothing about the instrument except you’re supposed to hold it between your shoulder & chin in an awkward position. Coming from a non-musical family it’s like I was driving without a roadmap. No expectations the repertoire to play as I progressed through the levels.

Starting piano a decade later I’d go online regularly to hear student performances. I know the pieces they’re doing so I included some of them into my repertoire list. Besides playing the teacher’s assigned pieces, I’d download sheet music regularly. 1 topic that get discussed a lot is choosing repertoire that is right for you. There are assigned pieces I wouldn’t perform even after working on them for weeks. Some pieces I’m eager to play anywhere (in a music store or public piano) for hours.

Everybody has at least 1 favorite piece. These are pieces you can just sit down and play without much thought. Playing a recently learned piece may cause anxiety. A piece you like to listen to and played many times won’t be a problem doing it in public.

Pp416
Playing a piece in public would not be a problem for you if you have played the piece many times snd like it. That’s great for you! But you can’t assume that will be true for everyone else.

You should do some reading about the performance anxiety of Martha Argerich snd Vladimir Horowitz. It will be an eye opener on how crippling performance anxiety can be.

This experience is not universal.

Ranjit I had a chance to listen to the video. Two thumbs up on how to use science and theories of motor learning to acquire skills or how I like to say- learning like an adult. These are just examples.

I have also started to listen to the video. I have only heard half an hour, and it is time to go on practising now, but it is a great video!

So essentially, these theories (which the practical application to piano is not very clear ....) have not been tested fo piano learning, we dont have any return of experience and you do not believe you are qualified to make recommendations. So what are we then speaking of (sorry for the abrupt shortcut summary) other than intellectually interesting topic for forum discussions ?

[/quote]There is a lot of truth to the idea that adults are difficult to teach because they are "too set in their ways", but more accurately that should read: adults are difficult to teach because "brains are too set in their ways". [/quote]

Before going into theories about how different adults and child brains are (which I dont deny), there are a number of simple differences that can be highlighted.

1-Adults have a lot of opinions, and many believe theirs is better than the ones used by the teacher. This discussion is a good example of how complex adults can make a given subject. Or try to find new theories that would reduce piano learning time. This ability to deal with high level theories is what adults are good at, but I am not sure it shorten the learning timeframe.
2-Adults are not learning piano to become pros. It is a hobby in addition to their busy lives.
3-Children sole purpose is to study. They can focus on their topics. Adults have a ton of other subjects they need to deal with which occupies their brain capabilities.
4-Adults have little time available, they get home tired after a full day of work (hopefully not all of them) and have many issues going through their head which makes focus difficult.
5-They have to raise their kids also ....


I dont understand what "learning like an adult" practically means.



With piano playing, the question is not to adapt but to be able to play properly. Either you can or not. How you execute the mouvements is up to you.


I dont have any stats, so I dont know if children are really that much more successful than adults. There are probably just as many child that get nowhere or quit altogether.

Finally If I understand well, to learn piano, which is already quite complex, an adult should first get a degree in the theories of motor control and then develop by himself practical teaching methods (still dont understand what they could be) for his own usage. Looks like learning the piano is getting even more difficult than I thought ... It reminds of Cortot who for preparing students to play Chopin Etudes proposed exercices more difficult than the Etudes themselves. Unless people have a lot of time and interest, that does not look like very practical.

I think you should give some practical recommendations as to how better learn the piano. I assume you have used these theories for your own purpose, even if one case is not enough to draw conclusions, that would make the discussion more practical. I ahve read the attached doc but difficult to extract something practical out of it.

Nurse on neuro-rehab ward here for people with traumatic (car accidents) or acquired (strokes) brain injury. I’m pretty interested in neuro-plasticity and learning or re-learning skills. Therefore, I have enjoyed the turn this conversation has taken. ‘The brain that changes itself’, by Norman Doidge is a fairly accessible book on the subject.

From my own experience I can’t offer any piano-specific insight, though I recommend goal setting, fatigue management and breaking tasks down into smaller components. Massage of the affected arm can’t harm.

On a positive note, we have patients with hemiplegia (that’s weakness on one side of the body to you) who play the piano with one hand and occasionally I duet, though this is usually ‘Chopsticks’. Violin players are out of luck, however.

Teacher (an 80's PTG Examiner) pulled me aside and said I was ready to tune a temperament on the (main) college's sole concert grand. I'd been doing pretty good whole tunings for a while, but only on the tuning school dept's pianos (one beat up 9'). This piano (nice/OK SD10) was maintained by the main colleg's music dept's tuner. NO ONE in the tuning student class was allowed to touch it.

Jethro, thank you very much for your detailed answer. However I feel a little bit confused now and you probably can help me clarify a couple of things. I've been looking into motor learning theory for quite some time now, but maybe I missed something. As far as I know, this theory makes no fundamental distinction between adult motor learning and children motor learning, it recognizes no difference in brain motor functioning physiology between children and adults, and it contains no definition of a "mature brain" in regard to motor control. Am I right?

Furthermore it seems to me lately that the emerging research on that topic that uses control groups not only shows good motor learning potential in adults, but also questions the very concept of adults inferiority in regard to learning coordination motor tasks. What do you think about it?
For example, this: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00538/full


Of course, I understand that things are very different for adults recovering from brain injury, but we must realize that this branch of research is very special and motor learning of impaired adults may hardly be comparable to learning of healthy individuals of any age, because every task has an associated brain area which is most efficient for that task in terms of neural pathways, and when this area is destructed, new neural pathways, even if they appear, are always suboptimal. Not to mention that an injury may impair other brain functions required for efficient learning.

Certainly, that's why I've written "may be".
Do you happen to be one of those persons who get greater enjoyment playing from score than playing by heart?

This is my concern, as well, with the motor control and learning studies that are based on adults with brain injury. Unless maybe one defines adult = brain injury. Which may have some truth to it, in practice, when you consider the age range that "adult" encompasses.

Someone would have to come up with concrete, actionable practice and learning "dictums" for learning the piano and show superior results with respect to a control group. That's a tall order.

But still one has to consider that no virtuoso classical pianist, with audiences that pay to hear them, started piano after approximately the age of thirteen (exceptions have been cited on various threads, but they don't hold up). I think if there were no difference in child versus adult, then a few adults would have found a way to becoming virtuosos, even without concrete instruction tailored to adults, even if by chance.

Here is one case of a pianist that started to learn at age 20. I think she plays well enough that it would satisfy any amateur, though it is only one case. She played in Carnegie Hall. I think a lot has to do with the amount of times it takes to learn the piano and the fact that starting to study toward a completely new carreer at 20 is not something one would consider as a safe path. Other than that i have no set opinions about respective learning capabilities of kids and adults.

You're observation is correct this theory makes no fundamental distinction between adult motor learning and children motor learning and I mentioned that a few posts above, but the fact is whether it be through trial and error, anecdotal observation, experience, or opinion the traditional method of teaching children seems to work pretty well and some systems have been considered the gold standard for some time now. This does not mean it cannot be improved upon using scientific theories such as those found in motor learning theory and motor control and this does not mean that children acquire motor skills in exactly the same way as an adult. But to understand how children interact with their environment and acquire new information in stages requires and understanding of developmental psychology and work of cognitive scientists such as Piaget. There's the sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operational stage and formal operational stage. It's complex because when we are speaking of children we are looking at brains that are developing and while they may acquire motor skills in similar fashion as adults problem solving happens in stages as outlined by Piaget.

What is pretty much universally accepted by nearly all neuroscientists including those who specialize in the study of motor control or motor learning is that neuroplasticity is a feature found to a high degree in developing brains. Neuroplasticity is not the same concept as motor learning, or motor control. It simply describes the flexibility or physiological malleability of the human brain. We know that children's brains have a high degree of neuroplasticity whereas the adult brain does not comparatively speaking. Motor control and motor learning describe how we acquire movement skills. It is assumed however that there are physiological differences in the developing brain versus the mature brain but many of the theories admittedly do not describe what effect this may have on learning.

Think of a child's brain as a computer that you can build from scratch that you can optimize and build any way you want to perform certain tasks such as playing the piano where you can install better graphics cards, more ram, faster IDE cards, solid state drives, and optimize how all these subsystems work with each other. Look at the adult brain as an pre-built computer with a set amount of ram, specific graphics cards, a specific drive and specific connections to these subsystems. Think of motor learning and motor control as the ways we program these computers. That's the best way I can try to explain this. In a child's brain you can manipulate both the hardware and the software and integrate them. (Think Apple Computer in it's early years) In an adult brain you can only manipulate the software. Modern theories in motor control and motor learning simply aim to provide better programming for older hardware. It's at the programming ie. learning level at which you are trying to optimize the adult human's brain not at the hardware level. My question to you does it make sense to program an older computer the same way you would program one that you can build from scratch and use the same program it's developers created?

As for your last observation, no, these motor control theories were not created to understand brain injury, rather clinicians used these theories to find how they can be applied to brain injury. These theories are already being used in other fields including sports performance. I just think piano pedagogy is a little behind the times. Here is how one movement expert is using theories in motor control to enhance athletic performance. The dynamical systems theory and ecological psychology he talks about is cutting edge and the theory that I follow in my line of work. He does a beautiful job outlining it but even he explains how difficult it would be to explain this theory in single sitting. Notice the key concepts of the task, the environment, the individual, emergent behaviors and adaptation.

Not read much of the thread. I hope someone has mentioned it's all about myelination. Something the young are the Lewis Hamiltons of.

The results are the tall order aren't they. Maybe best to ask the people who are learning Chopin Waltz in 5 months or Fantasie Impromptu in 5 years how are they doing that? Keep an open mind is all I'm asking at this point.

But she is not without earlier piano training, according to Wikipedia.
I read this to mean she had some piano training--still quite late in childhood, to be sure.

Exactly so.
Many of the recent posts remind me of why I refuse to teach adult students, and that my only short experience of teaching piano to an adult beginner (a few lessons to a neighbour, in return for looking after my cat when I was on holiday) is not at all unique.

She had bought several piano method books even before her piano arrived, and it was obvious to me that none of them were suitable for any beginner wanting to learn classical piano properly, which was what she told me she wanted. She had also done a lot of 'research' on her own, and printed out several papers which purported to show why adults should learn new skills differently from children, as well as having seen many Youtube videos with the same message. My heart sank when she started showing them to me.

During every lesson, she kept telling me what some Youtube piano 'teachers' (I put in parentheses because I have never heard of them, and doubt they really are teachers) said, which contradicted the way I was asking her to play something. Midway into the first lesson, I gave up trying to teach her properly, and instead, used the lessons mostly for chitchat (which she loved), and let her do whatever she wanted.

I have a colleague who does teach adults, and she tells me her adult students fall into two broad categories: those who are willing to learn as beginners with no preconceptions of how they should be taught (i.e. like all child students), and those who have their own ideas (of their own invention, or based on what they have read or seen on social media and videos) and think they know better than her about how they should learn. Of those in the second category, she lets them learn the way they want, only stepping in when they keep making the same mistakes (same wrong notes, same wrong rhythm etc), and she never mentions the possibility of doing any piano exams to them, mainly because they would never pass Grade 1.

My advice to all adult students is:
There are no short cuts to learning piano, and don't waste time looking for them.
And don't make everything more complicated than it already is.

Which reminds me of the time when a light bulb went out in the piano room of a school I once taught in. I reported it, and was told it required a qualified electrician, but it would take a few days. I offered to change the bulb myself if they gave me a new one, but was told I wasn't "insured" because I wasn't qualified to change bulbs (yes, that's exactly what I was told). After a week and nothing happened, I brought my own spare bulb from home and changed the bulb myself, standing on the piano bench to do so. (This was before the days of LEDs and long-lasting lights, and incandescent bulbs were cheap). When the electrician finally turned up, I told him the bulb had turned itself back on.
How many people does it take to change a light bulb?

How many silly theories does one have to read and understand to learn to play piano?

@liliboulonger
I'd love it if you read my post. You probably haven't - it was long.

One of the things we adults face is teachers rushing us ahead, not taking time for the body-mind part to come in (i.e. the body has to catch up, it doesn't matter what abstract concepts we can grasp). It is not always the way you wrote, and it is not that black and white.

I'll counter your statement with one of my own:

Don't waste a student's time giving shortcuts which will blow up in their face as they progress.
Don't assume that every adult student wants to have instant gratification.
While it may be true that abstract thinking is there, that doesn't mean you should reach out to us in that manner, or that is what we need.
And don't make things more complicated than they are already are, by rushing us through. In fact, they are NOT complicated.

You probably don't need that advice - otoh, you only taught one student. But these are the things many of us do face, or have faced.

PS - Your advice to all adult students grates. Just as it would be if I gave advice to "all" teachers. It assumes a universal attitude. And after 15 years, I'm tired of the same canard still being out there. SOME. Not all.

You are drawing from a limited sample size. Of the people posting on this very thread, Jethro, keystring and I have all self-taught in the past to above a grade 5 level for sure, and maybe much more than that. I have personally used ideas from YouTube videos and my own ideas while learning (such as attempting to play while closing my eyes, improvising, visualizing a piece in my head etc) as well as various strategies I watched online to develop technique. Realize that these are the same people on the thread who are "overthinking" it, because even with dedicated practice, they find it difficult to get to a high level of playing, even with good teachers. And hence the ensuing discussion.

I read this to mean she had some piano training--still quite late in childhood, to be sure.[/quote]

Yes, but she was just getting basics in the same time as other topics. As you know learning classical dance is in itself very demanding and time and energy consuming. I doubt she had gone very far into piano at the time.

Funny. There is absolutely nothing in motor control or motor learning that says anything about skipping steps, rushing, or being impatient. RCM and ABRSM are specific schools of thought that utilize motor control and motor learning concepts that work very well with children. These programs might not just be the ideal programs for adults. And as far as I can tell no one here including myself have offered a specific program other than to say we could do better. Here are some considerations.

My god folks for a brief moment keep an open mind!

There was one person I met online who started piano at 17 and later got to a high level, where he could play Gaspard de la Nuit. However, he was already a promising cellist good enough to go professional, and had some basic keyboard skills. There are rare scattered examples of people who seem to have become extraordinarily good starting at a late age. Artur Cimirro is another person I found online who I believe started at 19. You may want to take a look if you're interested.

But also keep in mind that these are often one-offs, essentially anecdotal. Yes, they may have something to teach, but they can also be random successes, given the number of people who take up learning the piano. Some are going to hit the bulls-eye by pure chance. I'm not saying the students aren't making reasoned approaches to learning, but to be generally applicable it would require more data. I know, that data is hard to come by, which is why the subject is endlessly debatable, lol.

I don't really think it's possible to hit the bullseye by pure chance. You can have a headstart, but there are so many things that need to go right in order to develop a good piano technique. Even in extraordinary situations, such as with prodigious talent, or after a stroke suddenly causing a person to suddenly become musical (it's happened), they still take years to develop facility with the keyboard, and even then often don't reach the highest levels.

In short, I think there's a method to the madness, but not everyone has the tenacity or talent to get there. It's tricky to talk about averages, even your average kid who started at 5 isn't going to play Fantaisie Impromptu. And those who finally manage to play Feux Follets and piano concerti and the like, they are probably quite special even as children.

About critical or sensitive periods -- it's not just age, I've heard that upheavals in your life can also cause similar mental states. I believe that the kind of story we hear of e.g. David Goggins suddenly reaching a breaking point and deciding to turn his life around even if it could have killed him, does speak to an inherent potential in the brain. It is very rare people who would push themselves to anywhere near that extent though. And it may have unforseen consequences. You can't really have systematic studies (maybe it's possible to have a longitudinal study over decades, but it's hard to compare across people because it is almost never the same) of such things because you can't really force a person to experience a personal upheaval like that, and that may be the only way to achieve that kind of change in the brain. I recall reading that people in Bangladesh from a certain era had two periods where they had enhanced memory, one under 30 (which is common to everyone across populations), and another around 50 years of age, which was because of a war going on at that time. I think that extreme conditions can often cause surprising change in the brain and induce sensitive periods of learning even into adulthood. It's hard to come across evidence, and it's often anecdotal -- people talking about a pivotal moment in their life where something just 'clicked', or they just decided to do something a certain way. I think there's definitely something there, but it's not been adequately studied as far as I know.

Yes of course this is too small a sample size and the observations are anecdotal but this is how studies begin by anecdotal evidence. There is already strong evidence that modern theories of motor control such as dynamical systems theory are effective in other populations where skill acquisition or reacquisition is required.

Yes there area number of studies that show that adults can acquire motor skills just as good children. Some adults in this very section are showing rapid skill acquisition. Question is: how are they doing it? No one is saying that you can’t achieve a high level of performance into adulthood. We’re just saying all things being equal it would be better if your neural substrate foundation that affords you that skill was comprised of cement rather than pound cake. All things considered you are better off learning fine motor skills when you are young than when you are older because of neural plasticity. But there are some talented people out there whose brains are better pre-wired for music who can still achieve a high level into adulthood but most likely not as good if they had started earlier.

I would expect that it becomes harder to truly consolidate skills, and build upon them as adults, but the initial acquisition would be about the same for talented adults. That is, the kind of chaining of skills, where you use multiple skills already learned solidly in order to learn a new skill, may be harder as an adult if the latter have not been learned when young. But are there any studies in this direction?

I'm not sure where the skipping steps etc. had to do with what was written by liliboulongor, by myself, someone else, or nobody. I did indirectly wrote about skipping and rushing - though what is being skipped may be important. And the rushing and skipping can happen on the teacher's side. Because of our awareness of music as a whole, we may "get" things the kids don't get, with the teacher not realizing that there are some important "before" things we need to acquire. If you want to go along a method book or RCM, the early music is really "easy". But the point of it is to acquire certain foundations that we can skim past. And these are probably in the physical / neurological or whatever areas. We can get at the music while skimming past. So in this way, the motor learning can be compromised.


I don't think this is actually true. Btw, did you learn via either of these programs yourself? If so - as an adult or child? It's been explained by someone working with one of these programs, that they are actually geared toward "measurable" results because they are designed toward exams. Be that as it may - they are a kind of framework and checklist, and it is very easy to go through all of it, without actually addressing skills at the core. In fact, that was my experience. I did a grade about every 3 months, in the first year; did brilliantly in my first exam, and the whole thing collapsed on me after about a year. I never did fully recover, though now I know the road to that recovery. Instead, I went to piano at that point.

When I did my grade 1 exam, I was told that the child in front of me had taken over 2 years to reach what I had reached "in only 5 months". But that child had time for his body, ears, whole system, to consolidate things. Sure, I played more musically. A small child won't aim at musical expression. But that's not the point at that stage anyway. So is the difference of "RCM for the child" vs. "for the adult" really that of suitability, or how it ends up being approached?

Here’s a simple ABC explanation of dynamical systems theory. Start thinking how these simple concepts might apply to learning the piano or how to optimize learning the piano.

Children this age do not have the neural development to be able to walk at this age but look what happens when you manipulate the “environmental” constraint.

More of the basics of motor skill acquisition and the 3 major constraints that allow movement to emerge.

A little more detailed explanation of complex movements and skill acquisition.

Hmmm, let's see. I could try to catch up on this thread, drink beer and binge watch 20 episodes of SVU, or practice.

How should I proceed? Maybe I should start a new thread, so the group mind can help me get it sorted out.

Ranjits evil twin brother giving a lecture

Sorry Keystring, that wasn't directed at you. I read comments by some others and all I see is immediate resistance to new ideas.

While it's true that virtually all great pianists started quite early, it's also true that very few adults would have the necessary time for the practice to achieve a very high level of professional pianism. I think it's also unlikely that some one with a great enough love of music to do the enormous amount of work involved would start feeling that way as an adult or not have had the opportunity for extensive practice at an earlier age. i do think that despite all this some pianists who started at say 18 or later have achieved a level equal to that of a good professional, but you made the bar much higher by requiring that audiences would pay to hear them.

Looks like the discussion is getting off topic from performance anxiety to adults learning new skills. I don't have problem taking up piano as an adult. Wouldn't regret I had not taken up the instrument sooner since I was a slow learner.

Took a few piano lessons at 5 and played "Twinkle" in front of relatives unsuccessfully in the living room. The experience kept me away from piano for a few decades but didn't cause permanent damage psychologically. At the time I accepted the failure that I wasn't ready for piano. I'm sure professionals suffer from performance anxiety when they're in a concert hall with a few hundred people in anticipation. At a friend's house with a small crowd I can play a few songs in a relaxed environment. If someone asks me to play a piece of Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, I'd be more anxious since these are pieces that would take time to master.

Now that we're getting into the Christmas break, holiday music is everywhere. I'm playing festive pieces at home, in a piano store & at a friend's house for fun. Definitely not serious music that you need to play every note perfectly based on other people's standards. Playing a seasonal piece like "Jingle Bell Rock" I don't have to be overconcerned with dropping a few bass notes, playing with the dynamics & phrasing precisely. Unlike a recital at an auditorium or a concert hall, you don't need to prepare your pieces ahead of time when playing at a friend's house. You just play the pieces you feel comfortable with at your own tempo. After taking up piano for a while, we get into more and more technically challenging pieces and tend to forget there are pieces that doesn't require hours to learn and we can have fun playing them anywhere without much preparation.

Here is the movie "Big" with Tom Hanks playing the foot piano in a toy store with the manager. Totally spontaneous with no preparation beforehand.

Jethro -- thanks for posting the links! I think the dynamic systems theory makes a lot of sense. I've heard it being referred to as a generalized motor schema, if I remember correctly.

I can see why people think we are overanalyzing this, but I would say that things which are intuitive, so to speak, are often very complicated, and in order to teach them or get them in a format which people can understand unambiguously, often there needs to be very precise, technical discussion.

I wouldn't agree that this requires a degree in neuroscience or similar. The papers are actually not that hard to read if you put your mind to it and have some experience with college-level texts. At least to get the gist of what is going on, you can often just hop to the conclusions section of the paper.

I think that there are people out there who do many of these things intuitively and may even have better methods which work for them. That said, if you want to traverse a city, it's a good idea to buy a map.

You said that you did a grade about every three months as an adult in your first year. This is what was meant by saying that it seems to work for children, but not adults. You were taught as a child would be taught by an okay teacher. Children typically come out alright, adults often don't. It probably has to do something with the child's ability to mimic movement.

About addressing the skills at the core -- it's not clear whether children need the same kind of instruction. I know my teacher teaches children according to the Russian school, according to various principles I have been learning. However, you have a number of other children who don't have such instruction, and yet they seem to get by and pass grade levels without issues. So it's possible that simply teaching ABRSM by the book, even without a very qualified instructor, may still work for children because of their natural ability to learn physical coordination. I would still think that the best combination is a great teacher with a young child who is able to focus intensely for long periods of time (which is rare).

If I was going four times as fast as a child, how was I taught "as a child would be taught"? I wrote a fairly long post a few days ago which nobody responded to and may not have been read. In that post I wrote of differences. A child reaching mid-grade 4 would have had lessons for almost 5 years - not my single year.

The children would have been given time to acquire the skills, instead of being rushed through. When I did my grade 1 exam, I was told of the child ahead of me, "It took him over two years to reach what you did in a few months." While I got a high grade in that exam, I never gained the solidity at ground level, and this undermined me later.

"Passing grades" is not the same thing as acquiring skills.

(I don't think you saw my first post in this thread.)

Thank you, Jethro. I wasn't sure which way you wre going. And yes, that, or preconceptions, often hold sway.

What age were you back then? Also, my bad, I was under the mindset that you didn't have instruction as a child.

Right, we all know it, but I'm asking if there is a scientific evidence of adults inferiority in regard to learning motor tasks. Observations are valuable, but they are not scientific. For example, there may be other factors (social, educational, etc.) besides motor control deficiencies which explain why adult beginners don't become concert pianists.

I think I have not been clear. Sorry.

I was almost 50 when I had violin lessons. It was the first time in my life to have lessons, and it was the first time I ever touched the violin. I made sure not to touch it until I had lessons. I had played piano self-taught, since age 8, when I was given a little electric organ (1960's) - well that wsn't a piano, was it? the piano came age 12.

The violin lessons went along RCM. In my first critical 3 months, the teacher was absent for the last 6 weeks, and graduated me to grade 1 when he spot checked if I could play random pages in the book. I missed the crucial movement along the outer G and E strings, which had become "self-taught" and learned later that this caused loads of mischief.

I did the grade 1 RCM exam when I had been playing maybe 6 months, and by that time I had been doing grade 2 for at least a month. A seven year old child was also doing the grade 1 exam. He had started at age 5, had taken two years, and I think was about to start grade 2. Same teacher, same RCM program.

Therefore I went through the material much faster than the child - a lot faster.

Yes, I understand your point of view, but I'd like to know if there is a scientific evidence behind it or not. Having access to scientific research databases I see a number of recent papers proving that middle-age adults on average can acquire motor skills just as good as children or even slightly better. But if what you say is a scientific consensus, there must be by an order of magnitude more well-designed studies proving that children can aquire motor skills better than adults, isn't it? And subsequently there must be meta-analyses of these studies with aforementioned conclusions. But for some reason I can't find it. Could you, please, point me to these meta-analyses?

First, why "concert pianists"? That's a profession. And there's a whole other kettle of fish there in terms of "getting into the profession". What we want to be aiming for is playing the piano well.

Scientists are not involved in pedagogy. And pedagogy is its own field. You would want those who teach, who have observed, tried things - and various methods and approaches - that would be much more effective. That cannot be done in science. At most, a collaboration of some sort.

Then, my point stands. The fact that you were an adult here is very important and I think this is a not uncommon experience. What's being argued is that you would have had a different experience as a child with the ABRSM system, that the ABRSM system seems to work well for children far more often than it does for adults.

It's not even about speed of progression, children tend to learn more natural hand movements even without great instruction because they are unencumbered by previous habits, hence less to undo.

I have a strong feeling that there might be some kind of inflection point, that above a certain threshold of difficulty, children are better off. However this inflection point may be after over a year or so, which makes it impossible to have controlled trials. We could of course have some kind of longitudinal trials, but it's hard to prove causation with those. It's possible that there is less generalizability as an adult, so you can learn one scale as fast as a child but it won't automatically translate to playing passages in your pieces well. Are there any papers along these lines?

To add to the discussion on the effectiveness of ABRSM for kids: I started basically as an adult, and my teachers have said that there was essentially no difference between my technique and that of a general person who had been learning since they were a child. There was a difference when you compared my playing to someone with *good teaching* as a child, who has rigorously been taught technique. This indicates to me that it is commonly acknowledged that there are things to be taught to children beyond the ABRSM system if they are to become good pianists. And the good teachers I know tend to explicitly teach technique according to a particular school, nothing is left to chance. The instruction takes place in the form of simple directives, "do X": curve your hands, don't let your finger collapse, move your arm, etc. in a way which children can understand and follow.

You can’t design a trial because there are too many variables to make the results meaningful. Even human clinical trials for pharmaceutical drug development design the trials to eliminate as many human differences as possible so that the results have statistical significance. I can’t see that happening with an artistic field.

You seem to be missing some very crucial points. I was taught differently than the children. If two groups are taught extremely differently, then the results will be different. At this point the mode of teaching is a major factor. If a child were rushed through in this manner, there probably would even be a greater failure. Especially important is that time is needed for the body-senses system needs time to absorb things, and this is often largely bypassed among adults in favour of intellectual concepts and such.

I am talking about actual elements in teaching an instrument, and I looked into this in depth.


Why are you ignoring factors of "what is taught" and "how much time" (months / years) is taken?

Conversely, if you follow the tale of "transfer wrecks", you will find teachers in certain areas, where a school that manages to advertise itself into a reputation "hothouses" kids ..... who do very well in first exams, and then "mysteriously" founder. Those children are missing foundations which trip them up later on. That is what happened to me too.

Is it not pure logic that if a student is rushed through superficially, that student will do less well than a student who is given time to build foundations, and is also instructed in tools that are needed? Isn't this just common sense?

Ranjit, you started off saying that I had done the same as the children, when in fact I had gone four times faster than the children - not by choice. That is not the same.

It is also not just speed of pseudo-progress, but what things are taught and not taught. There can be a vast difference. In past writings, you have listed various components, and those are the very things that get omitted, bypassed, or "shortcuts" are given which are actually obstacles. You were lucky to skirt around these, and get your instruction later.

A quick thought occurred to me.

If the aim presently is to find a kind of formula for adult learning, I don't think it can be found. That would be simplistic, because of the many factors involved. There may be a few principles, which are actually common to all learners for learning to play music on an instrument. Most of them have probably already been touched upon here and elsewhere.

Wishing everyone a lovely Christmas and holidays.

I volunteer as a test subject! I'll be starting next week when my piano arrives. I'm 53 with hands, that due to a lifetime of hard work are definitely not as supple as a child's. In my case, however, my hands were not supple even as a child, as I was often used as menial slave labor by my stepdad. My index and middle fingers of my right hand are permanently bent vertically and horizontally.

I didn't let it stop me from learning guitar and bass, and played them professionally for years. My belief is almost any physical shortcoming due to my age alone can be countered by intelligence, wisdom, and the focus the previous two bring to the table. If I'm having trouble with my legato, because my right hand is stiff, I can hopefully work the problem out, while a child might not even comprehend the situation, and is only doing "what my teacher told me to do." A 5 year old lacks a lot of perspective that an adult has acquired. To disregard that perspective is to say playing piano is a physical experience, and not mental. For instance, when this virus mania is finally over (if ever), I will certainly seek out a local teacher. Unlike with most children pupils, I can assure you they will not need to correct my tempo, volume, etc.; i.e. the more literal aspects of compositions. The experience of age brings acute awareness of those things already.

My own opinion is that it's bell curves, and the bell is farther to the right the younger you start. But within reason, the ends of the curve are essentially the same. But like I said, within a year, two years, and so on, I should have the answer to this debate, at least for myself. I also don't agree that there is a "formula" for beginners of my age. There might be a number of generally-true axioms, but at the age I am, people and their personalities and capabilities have branched so far out on the possibilities tree, that it's going to be up to the only person that (hopefully) knows what makes the player tick...themselves.

Oh, and have a merry, MERRY Christmas full of beautiful piano, everyone.

As adult learners many of us have some experience in music. When I started, I already played violin for a few years. Even as a beginner in piano I was certainly not a beginner in music. I knew all the major & minor keys, different chords. Playing 2 hands at sync was a challenge but many people already developed a musical ear.

IMO some people like myself wasn't ready for piano before age 10. As adults, we listened to music for years and have some idea the pieces we want to learn. A child needs to pick up everything from scratch including a common piece like Beethoven "Fur Elise". The many years of experience added up. Keeping track of your playing is something many people are doing. There are online videos of adult beginners learning from day 1 to day 100 sort of thing.

Physical limitations don't need to be a hurdle. A few years ago an American self-taught pianist became famous playing alongside the Korean composer-pianist Yiruma at Carnegie Hall. Darrius Simmons was born with birth defects missing fingers on both hands. The physical limitations don't stop him from playing piano.

Good luck in your endeavor...

What previous habits? If they never took piano how could they have previous habits that would interfere with playing the piano?

Ranjit is saying children do not have previous bad habits. But new adult piano students do not need to have previous bad habits, either.

That was my point.

Ranjit also claims piano exams do not work for adults. He hasn’t looked at the exam thread in the ABF

It seems to be a support thread for those who want to do exams. Could you please elaborate?

I meant that adults already seem to have certain default ways in which they are used to moving their hands since decades. Children don't seem to have that as much. It's apparently harder to go against this previous conditioning as an adult (also probably due to declining neuroplasticity).

The exam group thread is indeed a support group thread but if you read the posts, those that have taken exams generally score quite high on the exam. Bennevis has already explained that the examiners include technique in the score. You write that exams are not suitable for adults, without evidence. That thread in the ABF demonstrates that exams are suitable for adults.

Adults who have not played do not have pre-wired how they move their hands at the piano. They learn that skill. It doesn’t matter how they have learned to move their hands in non-related activities.

No, I was saying that I basically agree with Jethro that in order to simply following the ABRSM exams doesn't work as well for adults as it does for children. He explains that simply repeating stuff like scales over years, children automatically develop the a lot of technique which seems to generalize to all of piano playing, that the conventional method, so to speak, seems to work for children. And I do see that most students who started as children and put in some minimum amount of effort at the piano seem to pass grade 8 ABRSM, for example. There is no such school for adults which consistently manages to get that kind of result. And what exactly is the reason for that?

Of course it matters! You are never drawing on a clean slate, especially not as an adult. If you press a single note at the beginning, the very way in which your hands and body move in order to press that will be determined by what kind of mental schema you have for pressing things. And it starts from there, the habits you have to sit, to apply force, whether two fingers are conditioned to move at the same time, whether you have a certain hand posture because you've been typing since years... All of it obviously affects how you learn to play the piano.

One thing I see in adults is that they are able to learn to play things quicker than children initially. The key issue isn't the time taken to learn things. It's that children typically tend to learn slower but what they learn is more ingrained than it is with adults. They take more time to learn, but what they do learn seems to lay down pathways in the brain more often than not, compared to adults who seem to use their preexisting problem solving abilities in order to get themselves to play things quicker. This very rarely happens with children -- as my teacher pointed out, often when it comes to the children he teaches, they learn slower but once they practice something for a week, they never really forget the underlying hand movements and it becomes ingrained, so they can develop on it easier. On the other hand, I can improve a lot in just one hour by focusing intensely, but it doesn't seem to stick as deeply. (It's something I'm working on.)

I don't think the issue is purely with the amount of time spent. I don't see adult beginners learning the piano like children would and getting better in a similar time frame. I think that pure repetition works for kids in a way that it may not for adults. Of course, this is all conjecture, but from what I've observed, it does seem like children can just rely on the conventional system, and on the other hand everyone seems to be giving up on adult students because they aren't progressing well. I don't think it's simply a matter of the adults lacking discipline or time or whatever. It's quite probable that the same methods do not work well.

I would be cautious about using 'grade levels' as markers for how well you have learned something. As you said, you passed 4 grades on violin in a year while not having proper fundamentals. I think it is similarly very possible for someone who is an adult to reach somewhere in between grade 5-7 on the piano, and then flounder. Because this is the level at which pieces actually start to get a bit hard and require technical skills and other skills which may have been bypassed. In my personal opinion, I think that around dipABRSM is a good measure -- there are lots of kids who reach that level, but hardly any adults. And I think it's because most adults who are learning according to the ABRSM system are probably missing a lot of fundamental things which start becoming absolutely crucial when you reach that level. That there is a difference in kind, not degree -- for example, between grade 4 and grade 5 there is a difference in degree: you need to play a few more scales, slightly harder pieces etc. But at some point, when you are required to have very solid fundamentals in order to play the pieces it all breaks down. And I think that point is somewhere in between grade 7 and dipABRSM usually. This may be hard to appreciate for someone who has not faced that bump -- if you are comfortably playing grade 6 pieces, you may think that you'll get to playing grade 8 pieces in two years and diploma pieces in 3-4 years, but I don't really think it works that way, especially as an adult and that this is where a lot of people will hit a plateau.

Piano exams work quite well for adults I think. I have some experience with it. I hope to take RCM 9 at some point and confident that I can do quite well.

Merry Christmas! Maybe I can be this guy when I have aged gracefully. It was a pleasure to listen to him. And look, he is reading from sheet music!! Oh my. 😂

Sorry, having issues trying to embed images while on a cell phone. In Florida spending time at Disney and with family.

[img]https://imgur.com/a/8pc7oEI[/img]

Maybe this is better. Having issues 🤣

[img]https://flic.kr/p/2mT7m87[/img]

Ranjit, I must admit that I am getting frustrated, which is not characteristic of conversations with you. You are speculating about mights and maybes, while discussing concrete observations. You seem to be utterly discounting my experience, knowledge, and explorations, which were done over a period of years. I examined what happened in depth and not alone. I wish now I had not shared anything, since it is all dismissed.

Look - if foundations are not given, if time is not take for the body to absorb things, and if destructive shortcuts are presented as the real thing, then the thing founders later on. Time is a factor because it takes time for those skills to become solid: the real, foundational skills. This will undermine a child as much as an adult. That is why some teachers were despairing about the hothoused 'transfer wrecks' they were getting. Those were kids.

What got to me is that when you wrote about my experience, and said that I was doing the same thing as the kids, when absolutely, I was not. This was never acknowledged. This mattered a great deal to me. I think I'm done.

Your post about adult learners is not based on the experience and learning path of other adults but seems to be based on your own challenges of missing technique that now needs to be developed late. That should not have been a surprise since you self-taught for so long, using your own plan.

It is not fair to others here that you generalize that your experience will be universal. There have been no threads from others that they are missing foundations when they hit around Grade 7-8.— but their choices early were far different.

It seems like you are basing your conclusions (or conjecture like you state it yourself) mostly out of your own case. As I said earlier once you exclude those children who eventually choose to make music their profession and therefore pursue higher certificate/grades, I dont have any stats about the distribution of students who quit and what level they reach in various categories or age. The number of kids that quit or dont reach a high level (above RCM 10/ABRSM 8) is much higher than you seem to imply. I think a number of PW members who studied as kids can testify of that.

That said, after all those speculations and conjectures based on limited experience, I still dont understand what would be the new and different method for adults and practical recommendations for learning the piano ? Method of course that would yield significantly improved rate of success and faster learning path, proven by statistical evidence across an average and meaningful representative sample of people. I am open to all new ideas and methods if they prove to be more efficient. I am certain all teachers would also be interested to learn it as well.

All the videos I have seen so far are stating fairly common sense generalities and high level principles which arent in contradiction with current piano methods, but there is nothing in there that is specifically explaining how to better learn to play piano.

It seems obvious to say it but RCM or ABRSM is just an exam based system. It is not a learning method. It states what you should know and be able to do at a given level. It does not say how and what you should do to acquire those skills. Just like when you pass an exam in math, you must demonstrate what you know and can solve certain exercices. How to get there is your choice.

If you believe that practising your scales isnt necessary and you can do without (like Argerich), or not doing repetitive exercices, thats possible. You just have to be able to show that you can play a scale as if you were playing a piece of music which would contain it. Playing an exercice disconnected from any musical context allows to judge the pure technical skills you have (or not). Just like doing a math exercice demonstrates (to a certain extent) that you have understood the underlying principles.

Hitting a plateau is not necessarily related to the learning method. People eventualy hit plateaus in every discipline. Not everybody can become an advanced tennis or golf player or get a math doctorate, even if they start early as kids. Indeed statistics does prove that the large majority of kids dont get to a really advanced degree in their studies. The vast majority will stop at an intermediate level and only a few will advance to really high level of diploma.

+1

Not surprising, given that there are very few threads IF AT ALL regarding adult beginners successfully getting to grade 8 and beyond. If you want to disprove it, why don't you link threads or responses to that effect?

I will make a thread for you Ranjit when I take RCM 9. I will start when the new set is out and will give my self 2 years to prepare. Seems reasonable to me. Ear training will be difficult. 23andMe tells me that I am less likely to be able to match a musical pitch 😁

This is getting ridiculous, it's not about my experience. The fact is that you almost never see someone who passed dipABRSM or even grade 8 ABRSM piano starting as an adult. What I have written is my best explanation as to why. I've seen countless people starting as adults on forums such as these, and most seem to get stuck in that similar stage, between grade 6-8, beyond which you need "real" technique to play well, at least as I perceive it. I don't know if this makes sense, but I think a lot of people can play stuff such as Comptine d'un Autre ete, or Chopin waltz in A minor within 6 months to a year of starting to play the piano. This is achieved just by figuring out where to place your fingers and forcing yourself to get the right notes over time, with a somewhat relaxed playing style. The notes aren't fast, the rhythms aren't super hard, there are very few real technical difficulties, be it fast octaves, thirds, jumps etc. If I'm wrong about this, what do you propose? Show me a bunch of diploma level pianists who started as adults. Otherwise, there are only two possibilities, either that people simply didn't want to play difficult pieces at that level or that they hit a plateau at some point.

Such a method doesn't exist in a clear form, as far as I know. If you read early 20th century books on piano pedagogy, they all seem to have secrets to mastery and seem very convincing. Gieseking, for example. Why can't everyone follow that book and become a virtuoso? I don't really know. There's not much new under the sun, I used to think that I came up with so many ideas to learn piano, but I realize over time that there's pretty much always some teacher who has tried it with some success, no matter what you come up with. For example, at the starting, I thought I got decent success with visualization. When I read Gieseking I realized that he had obviously thought along similar lines with astounding success. So if I wanted to explain it to someone I would direct them to his book rather than my own paltry experience. But would it work? You read about how Argerich's teacher taught her everything through learning pieces. Or about how Nadia Boulanger made all her students appreciate music much better by making them learn proper counterpoint and transposing fugues etc. The question now becomes, given that everything is out there and readily available, why can't we all just become virtuosos by applying those techniques? Stumps me, but I will say that the methods many great teachers used seemed at least to me to have a very strong internal logic, but at the same time to be very different from what is typically taught by a conventional teacher. For example, a conventional teacher might get their students to play scales, arpeggios and whatnot. On the other hand, something Gieseking wrote made me really think, essentially, how do we get two notes to play at the same volume? Just try to play a C major scale with each note at exactly the same loudness and try to teach yourself to accurately perceive the velocity. It's incredibly hard. He said that he tried this with his students with great success, so there is at least an anecdotal data point. There are countless such ideas you come across.

So no matter what you see, I don't think it'll be fundamentally different or unheard of because so much has already been explored.

Which is partly why I think all of the hype around exams is pointless. Anyone can list a bunch of common topics generally agreed upon that you need to learn before you get to a certain point in math! I can reorder those fundamentals as I like as long as they aren't in conflict and it would still be viable. Funny you bring up math exams, if I were to teach math I would disregard such syllabi and teach according to my own experience. The problem is that the real thing you need to develop, a certain kind of mathematical acumen which will then allow you to understand different mathematical concepts equally well, cannot be easily captured by a syllabus of any kind. Of course, I can teach people the Pythagorean theorem and cosine angles and the like, but the question is whether I've actually taught math, and I may be forced to conclude that I haven't if all I'm able to do is teach them to plug in a few formulas. Will they still pass exams that way? The answer is probably yes.

Best of luck! Although I was talking about grade levels in reference to ABRSM and not RCM...

ranjit, I must say that Berlioz's quip about the young Saint-Saëns most certainly doesn't apply to you.

You may be right, but I dont think you have any factual data to backup precisely that statement, neither do I have any that would contradict it. So it is just based on a vague assumption, biaised by your own perception and a few cases you chose to highlight. In addition you would have to put those against the % of kids who started the piano and never got to a level ABRSM 8. That would start to be meaningful to draw some conclusions.

I personally know someone who started as an adult and can play any Beethoven sonata quite musically. But isolated cases like that dont prove anything without stats.


I repeat what I already said. People eventually hit plateaus in every discipline. Not everybody can become an advanced tennis or golf player or get a math doctorate, even if they start early as kids. Indeed statistics does prove that the large majority of kids dont get to a really advanced degree in their studies. The vast majority will stop at an intermediate level and only a few will advance to a really high level diploma.

We all have specific abilities. In addition adults have a ton of constraints that kids dont have. Then when talking adults, people at 20 are different than those who are 50 or 60. Therefore when talking about the specific learning method impact, one would have first to create consistent groups with consistent leaving environment to isolate the various factors. This is obviously impossible over several years. Therefore, all these assumptions and speculations about what adults can or not do and the value of current learning methods is nice but rather futile. If there was a magic method that would allow adults to become better pianists faster, I think we would already have it. That said I do agree that because of the personal and pro constraints of adults, the teachers must seek to accomodate the learning method to get the best out of the time available.

Sidokar - you hit major points overall in what you wrote.


This is something that I looked into, in depth. I'll go a few steps further. Elissa Milne, whose compositions are featured in the AMEB exams, and who gave lectures to teachers, answered me hear once, stressing that the syllabus involves what is "measurable". Many aspects are not measurable, but are important. This is one thing I had not been aware of.

"Those skills" - doesn't even get at the actual skills. What I mean is that any of the things in the exams, such as scales, chords, etudes, pieces along genres - they require skills that must be taught. In a sense, a scale is not a skill. There is a whole layer of skills, along various categories which support these "exam elements" and which need good teaching and guidance. These are also the things that are most likely not to be taught to adults since they can "get at the music" through other means ("the music" also not being the point, in a way). Children also get shortchanged. There are ABFers who had lessons as children, quit, and upon returning, have had to relearn. This "layer underneath" is like the layer under the water of an iceberg. It's the main thing.

The nature of what sits under the iceberg would take a lot of words, which might not even be read. But that's the actual that should get taught while going along that framework of RCM, ABRSM etc. They are not necessarily taught, just because a student goes through the system. When you have found those things, then you're aware of them. Otherwise you might not be.

I think you're right, but I suppose the question is why. Also, if it's indeed impossible for a majority of people to even learn the basics of a skill such as mathematics or piano or art, while it's rather sad, wouldn't we be better served by focusing on that subset of people who have the bare minimum "talent" to learn it? After all, we have specialized education which works for people such as e.g. law or medical school. It may not be possible for everyone, but still be possible for a significant minority of people.

Are you a teacher yourself? Are you trying to find a method which would work for all of your students, or one which works for you personally? I ask because the interpretation of the questions you ask is different in either case. The first is like asking whether there's a way to increase IQ which is statistically proven. The second is like asking whether you personally can become a doctor. Depending on who you are, it can range from easy to impossible. If someone has written advice for getting into medical school, it doesn't mean that everyone can provably use it successfully, but it is far from useless. You notice that the methods of instruction at a general public school vs a specialized instruction such as a good college is very different. I have always asked myself why I couldn't just take the kind of instruction I had at college, which was very good, and teach at school like that. The answer obviously has something to do with potential, but I don't truly comprehend what it means.

It's a very difficult question to answer in any kind of general way. Many of us here have written about methods which worked for us and which seem reasonable for other adults to attempt. There are commonalities among the approaches I have seen, and differences from conventional teaching. However, you can always argue them as one-offs, so it's difficult to prove anything either way.

I agree that you were rushed as a student and had a poor teacher. It's just that I've seen that there are a lot of piano students who don't seem to have actually not been taught technique properly as children (I don't mean wrongly, but with teachers who assumed it would "come with time") and who developed good technique and went to conservatory. I have had teachers who assumed I would also gain good technique that way and it didn't really happen. It's not just my own experience, all sorts of teachers seem to give up on adult students because they don't just get good technique with time like their other students who are children. Perhaps a majority of teachers (at least most of those I've talked to) say that it is impossible, and so they focus on teaching their adult students so that they can have music in their lives as a hobby. That is what I was referring to, which again wasn't your case as you were actively taught wrongly, so I apologize.

Agree completely.

^^^ To answer simply your questions, since I am trying to become a great pianist who can play Scriabin, Rubinstein, Arensky, Rachmaninoff, etc. compositions well, and I started at age like 20 or 21 ( you still have quite strong plasticity until you are 25, so maybe my case does not apply to your argument), I anyone can make it.

The thing is..


If you want to be a great musician, you just have to put in the time and work, it's that simple.

If you can play all scales and arpeggios in all the rhythms and with diff dynamic variation, play all the scales in thirds and sixths, etc.

Play through all of Czerny, Hanon, Plaidy, etc.

Learn a great amount of Bach inventions, beethoven sonatas, chopin etudes, and the pieces that are fundamental to a solid education.

Listen to tons of music, do composition and theory work, and ear training, transposition, etc. etc.

And you keep going and don't stop, you will be a good musician. It should not be hard to understand, sure you can speculate on how good you can get and you might cap, but there isn't like something that will physically hold you back from being a great musician if you are practicing daily and a lot.

Obviously, most adults do not have the time for this, so that's why most adults don't do it. But, if you know how to practice, and you practice hard, and you put your all into it. You will be a good musician, it is that simple. You can over complicate it, use science and data and all kinds of things, but this is where science fails...

ANY individual (or nearly any, let's say you have like some illness preventing you probably not), can become a great musician, if they truly have the love for the music, and put in the work.


If you can find someone who has done all of this work (and then some), and they aren't a great musician I will eat all my words. But, I guarantee you, if you put in the work, you will make it. It's that simple. I refuse to believe anyone who is able to play all scales/arpeggios in many rhythms, sixths/thirds, etc. plays through most of Czerny, all of Hanon, and all of Plaidy will have bad technique and be a bad musician in combination with listening to tons of music (we now have better resources then ever, with score videos on youtube, and videos of concert pianists that you can watch in slow motion), that they will be a bad musician. You can spend all day speculating, but until you put in the work yourself you never really know how far you will go.

Yes, this is what it feels like. It's not clear whether or not it's actually the case however.

The great musicians who are remembered as such are those who have either concertized or recorded on a large scale, or have done both. Have you recorded or concertized at this level, for decades?

You seem to discount the intense competition which exists at those levels. For every recognized great musician there are hundreds who are forgotten because they are not as good as other players.

It's important to note that pablobear was talking about just playing Scriabin, Rachmaninoff compositions at a concert performance standard, and not becoming a truly great pianist in the model of a Rubinstein. My comment was in reference to that. It appears that there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of pianists out there who can do so well, so it doesn't seem to be that high a standard.

I think and I think all top conservatory teachers would say that talent is a very significant factor in achieving a high professional level. Even more significant if one wants to be a "great musician". The famous 10,000 rule is probably necessary but definitely not sufficient.

How can anyway achieve a concert performance standard when they never concertize? How would such a standard be verified? It cannot be.

I do not believe there tens or hundreds of thousands of pianists who play at that level. That’s a huge exaggeration. Those who devote themselves to achieving a concert performance standard play concerts. They’re driven to do it.

In some rare cases, pianists achieve that leve and stop performing, but that’s after they have proven themselves onstage.

Your argument reminds me of one that coworkers have used on a friend of mine. My friend is an amateur musician. Her coworkers tell her that she can be a professional musician if she wants it badly enough. The truth is that there are thousands of conservatory students who play better than she does and she will not defeat them.

There are relatively few performance opportunities and many more excellent players.

At least that was my impression. There are hundreds of millions of piano students in the world right now, and there are extremely good teachers out there. I suppose it does depend on what people call concert performance standard, for sure. But I'm referring to even people who play the pieces with technical command, but whose performances are not at a super high level (such as the Youtuber Rosseau for example). I'm sure there would be tens of thousands of people at conservatories around the world who can play Scriabin and Rachmaninoff pieces very well. Of course at the highest level like at the Warsaw competition there is incredible competition, but I'm referring to people out there who can simply play the pieces. There are videos of 13-year-olds on Youtube who play difficult pieces well at what I'm calling a performance standard, so I think there would be many more who could play like that by the time they're 30.

I mean I may be biased -- but when you see a no-name 14-year old on Reddit ace Feux Follets and say that a lot of people they know can do the same, you start thinking that there must eventually be a lot of such people out there. I don't have real statistics.

Simply playing the pieces is not enough, at least, that’s not enough to command the price of a ticket in one of the world’s premiere performance venues.

I read somewhere that there are perhaps 200 concert pianists who command a spot on the best stages. Think about those odds.

China may have 40 million piano students but almost all will not pursue music as a career. They’ll drop out, probably before they reach the hardest repertoire.

Your hundreds of millions of piano students and tens of thousands of conservatory students studying piano seem like gross exaggerations.

If there are 200 pianists who are good enough to do the competition circuit, it makes sense that there are tens of thousands who can play virtuosic repertoire well. Only a handful of pianists from each country are regularly at a concert performance standard, but there are hundreds of good teachers and thousands of pianists. Multiplying that by the number of countries, I would expect there to be tens of thousands of pianists who can play difficult pieces at a very high level, just not consistently concert worthy.

If nobody hears a concert worthy performance in a concert hall is it concert worthy? If a pianist plays alone in the forest does he make a sound? Is it concert worthy?

Once you get to that level it's pretty subjective. Tons of people have forgotten about Pabst, more people probably know about Rousseau than Pabst, this is a horrible metric to go by what a great musician is. To give another example, even truecrypt is forgotten or almost was (if he didn't upload all of those old recordings + his own), being remembered has nothing to do with being a great musician.

Or, maybe my brother. He is a great musician, he can play anything and nearly any instrument, he plays by ear, can improvise, and can play literally whatever he wants, and is an incredibly fast learner/improviser in terms of music. He can even sing, with no formal training, nobody knows who he is, but I can tell he is a great musician... Being a great musician is not just about recognition and the glory, it's about pouring your heart into music, and being in good spirits with the composers/spirit of music in general..

To me, a great musician is probably defined by something spiritual.

Or, also having the physical ability to do whatever you want, and the knowledge.

When you listen to Art Tatum, or certain performances from people like Sofronitsky, Cortot, Busoni, etc. you just can tell there is something special there. More people know about Kassia and Rousseau though, which would make me think your argument is silly. Who cares if you are forgotten, if you truly are a great musician, you will know it in your heart.

The amount of speculation in your post is extreme. In addition, many terms are not well defined so statements using them become meaningless. And there are many misconceptions.

1. Some ill defined terms: tens of thousands(could be 10K or 50k, "virtuosic repertoire well", "difficult pieces at a very high level","concert worthy"(a concert at a local church or at Carnegie Hall?)

2. It's not true that only a handful of pianists from each country can make a living solely as a concert pianist.

3. There are many levels of the competition circuit because the are many level of competition. So talking about 200 pianists(did you just make that number up?) who "do the competition circuit is vague, Even playing at the highest level competitions doesn't mean one is a great pianist in the usual way that term is used. Most graduates from even the top conservatories make much of their living from teaching and do a small amount of concertizing at mostly unspectacular venues.

So what's your estimate? Mine was a back of the envelope calculation to try to find the order of magnitude. It's easy to poke holes in definitions. I was basing it off being able to play most pieces of Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Liszt well given enough preparation time.

1. Ruth Slenczynska

I agree, I don't use the 10,000 rule. I use metrics that you can define, you can complete all of Czerny, Hanon, learn scales in many ways, etc. faster than 10k hours probably. This would probably give you a really great start of one of the three pillars of piano playing.

Piano skill is made of three things: Mechanics, Common Sense, and Heart according to Horowitz.

I think this is a pretty good explanation, of what is required for specifically piano. I'd probably say Heart > Mechanics > Common Sense is what matters the most, but their importance is debatable for sure... I believe what talent is, is really just passion. If you are putting in the work in a way where it doesn't feel like work, that is the greatest gift you can have, it means you truly love the music, that is why I say being a great musician is so spiritual (and also, I've had a piano teacher who would fit the bill for "top conservatory teacher" or whatever say the same thing that spirit is very important).

I think you can make an argument that if someone is not talented, they will not have the facilities to complete all of Czerny, Cramer, Clementi, Hanon, Bach, Scales in the ways I mentioned, etc. to get them the technical base they need to learn the rep that's needed. I know you can't scales your way into playing RPC2, but, it definitely helps, and a great musician would push through whatever weakness is holding them back from playing it once they have the technical ability. I think talent is just a way people say "this person works really hard, and they enjoy every moment of it", when a top conservatory teacher says talent is required, I would argue this is what they mean. Talent, is just TRULY loving the music. You can disagree all you want with me, but, I've competed in something highly mechanical, and the one thing I noticed, is the best players, will play 12+ hours a day, and they will love every moment of it, and those are the people who are deemed as 'gifted', but, I don't consider it 'gifted' I just consider it they are given the gift of the love for whatever their skill is.

We can use the same logic for math, if someone wants to be a great mathematician they have to do tons of problems, proofs, read books about math, think about it all the time, etc. if a person has to force themselves to do it, and does all the stuff and even achieves a lot in the field, I would still not consider them talented. An example of someone who I think is talented is: Srinivasa Ramanujan. I think anyone can do all of the stuff he did, I could probably do if I put my mind to it and decided to no life math, but I don't think I have the 'talent' to do it, we all probably have the ability, but, do any of us have the gift of loving math as much as he does? No... This is what I consider talent, and I think it doesn't matter at all unless you put in a [censored] ton of work, and as rachmaninoff says. The more talented a student is, the less he realizes he is working.

This is a delusion. It’s simply not true. Performing classical music at concert-level is one of the hardest things to learn, but it’s simply impossible if you don’t have an innate talent. And if you don’t start very young, you can forget about it. Sorry to shatter your dreams. This whole thread seems to be filled with self-delusional ramblings.

Agreed. So much of this is delusional. It takes starting young and a lifetime of work. I would define talent as say, a good memory for pitch, excellent hearing, strong cognitive abilities, fast reflexes, etc, but then, it takes decades of hard study, where at each step, you are measured against your peers and threatened with elimination.

Yes it makes sense. When executing various isolated exercices, teachers are looking to see if you have the basic skills to execute properly a scale or an arpeggio. It is like solving a math exercice at an exam which demonstrate that one has understood the concepts and can apply them to a case.

You may think you are a great musician in your heart, it does not make it so in the real world. If you want to claim greatness when you are surrounded by evidence that you are not great, that’s you’re choice. Most of us are unable to discount the evidence.

We struggle to learn an instrument. We see others play with a facility that we lack. We attend concerts and see truly great players, performing works in a way that are beyond our abilities. That’s the reality of musical study.

You go from a list of exercise books as a metric for defining a great musician to claiming that being a great musician is spiritual. Both of your metrics are nonsensical.

Yes, however for one 14 years old that plays well, how many have dropped before. In fact it would be interesting to know what is the real % of kids who do get to play well (ie with fluidity, and musicality), lets say at a diploma level like DipABRSM out of the total number that started to learn the piano. I would venture to say that the % must be quite low.

For adults, there are probably people who decided to switch to a musical career, lets say after they are 20 and manage to get to an exellent level. But to get to a top concert level is very unlikely, irrespective of one's talent simply because it takes about 20 years or so to reach such a level and starting after 20 would lead you to 40 years old. In the meantime one has to make a leaving and have a normal life.

For adults who have a normal active life, the main issue is time and availability/focus. Kids and youngsters can spend several hours per day to focus on piano. And then being a pro or a student with the purpose of becoming a pro and leaving within a musical environment permanently gives an edge vs the amateur who does it only occasionally. We all know that learning a language when leaving in the coutry speeds up the learning process.

I dont know if kids learn faster than young adults, but certainly the whole social conditions do play a large role in the fact that it is way easier to get a degree when starting young. And then the natural selection makes the rest. Those kids that dont have any special abilities drop by themselves and look for other professions.

Coming from a different instrument, I'm always surprised to see how you define the ultimate success in piano playing as becoming a concert pianist.
Is that really what everybody strives for? I know I don't. There's so much beyond that.
What about composing? improvising? arranging? altering? exploring different styles? playing with others and creating something together? teaching? simply enjoying music?
This repeatedly occurring discussion suggests that success = becoming a concert pianist. If that's the goal people strive for, they are limiting themselves to a niche, and I think that's not what piano - the instrument which can do it all - is about.

One lesson, my teacher, who attended Juilliard as a piano major, and has concertized, mentioned that he used to only practice on the day of his lesson when he was a kid. I didn’t say anything but at the next lesson I said,

Ok, how did you get into Juilliard by only practicing on the day of the lesson?

He replied, daily lessons.

So, clearly someone saw great potential in my teacher when he was a young child and arranged for daily lessons. This is something that comes to few children.

There are scant members here who strive to be a concert pianist, they just are very vocal, very small group. Most of us have other employment. Most of us here love to play, explore new music and styles. Some do aspire to improve their playing and perhaps the difficulty of the pieces they play; some do not have those aspirations, but are quite content. The common denominator is a love of the music. Look at the thread ‘why do you play the piano’.

I do wonder what will happen if the ‘I want to be a concert pianist’ group doesn’t get there. Will there be bitterness or is there a strong love of music that will remain? I hope there is an enduring love of music. It would be quite sad if the career was the motivation.

It's just one or two people on this thread, but they are the ones flooding it with their own weird ideas (I was going to use a different adjective, but this is a family forum ) .

They are the ones taking two years to learn one piece, and then call themselves "advanced", and they rubbish the exam systems that actually make a distinction between real pianists & musicians, and one-track ponies.

For me, success as a pianist means that you can do what you want to, technically as well as musically, on the piano - and away from it. That includes plonking down Britten's 'A New Year Carol' on the music rest, and sight-reading it to accompany singing (because your girlfriend has just turned up and wanted to sing it, because she just discovered it here in PW - see below ); or liking that new pop song by Lady Baba, and playing it by ear, while adding the appropriate harmonies; or listening to Prok's 7th sonata and hearing immediately that the Precipitato finale is in 7/8 time; or singing "Yellow Bird" in 3rds with a long-lost friend you just discovered (via unsocial media) was living around the corner, who's now making a living performing the great oldies in bars.




.....and before I forget, Happy New Year, one and all!

In my home, I am a concert pianist 😁

Piano is a rewarding hobby I can enjoy and improve upon for the rest of my life.

Thanks for these replies guys. dogperson, bennevis - you've explained my motivation to play better than I ever could

I can find exceptions to your rule of starting young, but, what I cannot find is anyone who has became a concert pianist who doesn’t work extremely hard. Liszt would practice 8 hours a day, and when he was a child he LOVED playing exercises and scales. The more ‘talented’ a student is, the more they will enjoy these things as

Excellent hearing, cognitive abilities, and fast reflexes can all be developed. Nobody comes out of the womb a good sight reader, you must learn all this stuff from hard work.

I’m not a great musician, because I haven’t put in the work yet. I’ll come back to you when I can play all my scales in sixths, do all of bach inventions, czerny, etc. and then we will see how ‘talented’ I am.

Also, I don’t believe much in talent, but, I’ve had multiple teachers who are definitely qualified say I was— one who studied at Julliard and with Rosina L, and then one who studied with Soulima Stravinsky, and I discount what they say everytime. It’s just because I listen to a lot of music, and practice a solid amount (I can practice much more, I’ve been too busy to get 8 hour days in, but soon I will be able to over break).

If you have the heart, you will have the discipline to put in the work, it’s that simple. You can argue on piano forums all day and speculate if you can make it or not, but, like I said again. Any individual, if they are willing to put in the hard work it takes, can make it. To give a very simple metric for you on what a great musician is I will use this.

If you can play all 32 Beethoven sonata, and WTC1, at a performance standard, you are a great musician.

I believe any individual, if they spend the lifetime it takes to do this, at nearly any age can achieve this. I think you probably have to be under 25 and then, when you get past this age, your odds decrease exponentially. But, I’d say it’s even still possible. Say you retire at 35, and you play 8 hours a day everyday for 20 years, I would say this is possible. Just because you guys are lazy/don’t know how to improve at stuff, and compare yourselves to others in an unhealthy way does not mean that it’s impossible. Of course a conservatory student who is groomed from the age of 4 will be better than someone who starts late, nobody is arguing that here. But, like I said, if you have the spirit and love the music you will get to where you need to go.

If all the great pianists thought like you guys, they would not be great pianists. I’m sorry, if Richter saw that there was kids in Moscow that showed more ‘talent’ than he did, when he entered conservatory late, and started comparing his progress to them, and said that he couldn’t be a great musician he wouldn’t be one. You need the heart to do it, it’s that simple. I’m not the only one who says this either, you can say it’s self-delusional ramblings, but, I can appeal to authorities much stronger than your shallow arguments.

You legit said earlier that, someone can’t be a great musician if they don’t concertize. You had 0 counter argument for the fact that nobody knows Paul Pabst music, but tons and tons of people know Rousseau. I’d say both are great musician, but one is obviously more great than the other. Now, I’m going to practice =D.

We all have our humble beginnings. Some people just get better & better at piano...

Yes, they did. The rest is debating how many whorls belong on the bow that adorns the gift of learning to play the piano.

Actually, to a very limited degree only, and it is genetics that put the limit on it. Yes, you can develop your hearing, within your range of possibility, and you can to some extent develop your cognitive abilities. But however hard they work at it, most people won't be able to develop perfect pitch, or become a space telescope scientist. Reflexes are involuntary and nearly instantaneous movements in response to a stimulus, and you cannot develop them.

However, almost everybody can learn to play better piano than they do right now, if they are willing to put in the work.

Yes, there are genetic limits. You didn’t mention hand size. Of course, the sustain pedal is a third hand so there are ways to compensate for small hands but still, if you don’t want the chords rolled and your hands are small, you can only cry about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can play better than they play now. The study of the piano is on a continuum, and there is no end to the possibility of improving. It is the argument that anyone can achieve greatness that I find ridiculous. That definition of greatness appears to be that anyone can play all of the most difficult piano repertoire if their heart was in it. That’s just not realistic for most people.

I remember a video about a teacher auditioning young kids for entry into a music school. (I can't remember which one, but it was in Russia.)

The first test she did was to play a widely spaced 3-note chord on her piano and asked the child to replicate the same on the second piano. The child couldn't see her hands, but played the same notes instantly. The teacher played a few more, and each time, the girl played the correct notes without hesitation. She looked about 6 years old.

That was just the starting point for entry into the school.

So, how does that leave the rest of us?

As I said earlier, if you can play the piano (and have the musical skills) at a standard that enables you to enjoy the music you like, that is a measure of successful learning. How much time & effort do you want to put in to achieve your goals?

BTW, there is a PW member in Pianist Corner who used to be a prolific poster, who first started posting when he was quite young and his posts were a typical teenage mixture of bravado and insecurities plus a few inane observations. But what wasn't in doubt was that he was talented, had good teachers, made rapid progress, and he was soon playing in competitions (I think there's a YT video he posted of Tchaik 1). He kept changing his username so I don't know what name he's using these days, though lately he seems disillusioned with the competition circuit, the bane of all concert pianists trying to get established.

And I'm sure we all know of PW member Can Çakmur who's now an established concert pianist and has already made three CDs for BIS - you can trace his progress through the years (starting as a teenager) via the videos he posted here.

Why am I mentioning them? Because they have something in spades which hardly any of us here have: real musical talent. Which is why they can play anything in the classical rep they want, to concert standard: all they have to do is pick up the score and start practicing. (And they didn't learn by copying other pianists' videos.) The rest of us can strive to be the best we can be by dedicated practicing and learning from good teachers, subject to the limitations of our jobs and family life etc. Some may already be satisfied with their current level, because they can already play the music they love to their satisfaction. (For instance, there are amateur pianists who have learnt to play their favorite pieces to a reasonable standard, and have no interest in learning anything else.) Others may want to keep on striving to get better......

And let's not forget musical skills, because they are what enable us not just to enhance our listening pleasure & acumen, but also to branch out into other musical spheres - playing with others, accompanying, singing, composing, improvising, conducting.......

Your story about the entrance exam in Russia reminded me of an article I read about how Russia went through and tested every single child in Siberia to try to find the students who should study violin. I don’t know how many concert artists they produced with this system, but I know that Vadim Repin came out of that effort:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadim_Repin

Repin started at the age of five.

As an aside, I spent ten years studying the violin, when I was in my twenties, with a good Russian teacher. At one point he said to me, maybe I could have done something with you if I had taught you when you were child.

At no point did I ever delude myself into thinking I would play the great masterworks, but still, I labored on. At one point, my teacher brought me to play in the back of second violins at a rehearsal of a Mahler symphony in a community orchestra. I was seated two feet from the timpani player. Every time he hit that thing, I wanted to kill him. I never went back.

Eventually, life got in the way, I moved to New York, and I stopped playing the violin.

After a few years, I took up the classical guitar, and spent ten years studying that, with an excellent teacher who graduated from Juilliard. I suppose the results were similar to the violin, without that horrible screeching sound under the ear.

I eventually wearied of the classical guitar, could see that I would never become a great soloist, but enjoyed playing in a little trio at one teacher’s apartment.

Life happened again, I moved again, after having started piano with a wonderful Russian teacher who attended the Gnessin school at five. She is an encouraging teacher, who believes that adults can achieve great things on the piano, but I’m pretty sure she would not promise me that I would play all of the piano repertoire, but would probably say, we’ll see.

I encourage everyone to keep playing. Music is a great gift and a great comfort in difficult times. Even the simplest of pieces can lift our hearts.

Very interesting, thank you for sharing. If you'd care to share more I'd be happy to know what was the draw to the piano after having played these instruments. AFAIR you still play the guitar, right?

When I was packing for a one week trip to Pittsburgh for work orientation for a new job, with my wife, in March of 2020, I was going to bring along my beloved Antonio Marin Montero classical guitar.

My wife told me that I did not need to carry a full-sized guitar and so I brought a Soloette, an annoying little practice instrument. We wound up staying five months in Pittsburgh because of the pandemic. I could not stand to play the Soloette and so I stopped playing and no longer play the classical guitar.

Before that, I had started piano lessons back in New York. The main reason was the realization that the works of Bach do not work that well on the classical guitar, well, some do and some do not. I had ordered an arrangement of the Goldberg Variations for the classical guitar. It is beyond ridiculous, and is something that I would never be able to play on the classical guitar.

Most likely, I’ll never play the Goldbergs on the piano either.

Anyway, Bach wrote for all of the extant keyboard instruments of his time so I decided that it was about time I made a serious attempt to learn a keyboard instrument. I had tried once before in my 20s, but my violin practice won out back then.

I have restarted piano lessons in Pittsburgh, with a wonderful teacher, Juilliard-trained, and I hope to be able to continue for many years.

I agree with Ido, very interesting Larry!


Heartwarming, and truly the reason why I play.