ranjit Guys, what about the idea that imagining music in your head is a non-negotiable skill to learn piano?

I sure hope that’s only non-negotiable for those who aspire to become a concert pianist or similar level.

The bar of entry to just learn piano (and become an average piano player) should be quite low. Maybe something like not tune-deaf, or hand can at least reach an octave?

    • Sophia

    • Post #59
    • Edited

    Kaydia I'm sorry for being abrupt about it.

    No worries at all!! I'm enjoying the discussion and I didn't think you were being abrupt at all, nor controversial.

    ranjit Guys, what about the idea that imagining music in your head is a non-negotiable skill to learn piano? Thoughts? Because that's what is actually being said here. IMO.

    Personally, I don't think it's a vital skill for beginners. I'd argue it's not even all that important for amateurs. I think the only non-negotiable skill is the desire to learn, and (arguably) finding pleasure in learning. Ok, and some willpower to not quit at the first hurdle (been there, done that, got the t-shirt) Everything else, in my opinion, is only "nice to have".

    Also I'd like to say that the above is just an opinion, I don't mind people disagreeing. I might even change my mind if it's convincing enough. Make me 😄

    As usual I am exaggerating. It will be fine. Whatever I'm playing - I am just trying not to massacre it completely. A bit of massacre is fine 🙂

          Here's what it boils down to, no matter what age you are.

          Sophia Personally, I don't think it's a vital skill for beginners. I'd argue it's not even all that important for amateurs.

          I think it's not important if you just want to play some tunes with the correct notes.

          But I think to have beautiful phrasing and tone you do have to be able to hear your intention in your head. And I think that should be a goal, even if you're a beginner or an amateur 🙂

            Kaydia Do you have any experience with a person's natural physical "demeanor", such as them being stiff, ungraceful, clumsy, etc. as far as how it impacts the learning process? I can picture learning to be more graceful, for example, would be easier the younger you are. I'd be interested in any thoughts on this aspect.

            I have my personal experiences, and then I know certain people I've tried to teach technical things to and discussed them with.

            I don't think I really felt a difference in terms of my ability to learn motor patterns with age. It might be there but I haven't really noticed it. I wasn't very sporty as a child and was self-conscious about it, so I made it a point to try and improve my coordination. Eventually, I ended up learning a lot of tricks to learn quicker and I feel like I probably learn new movements quicker than I would as a child. Maybe they don't persist as long, but that remains to be seen.

            My hands do look clumsy relative to that of a serious pianist. I might be contradicting myself here, but sometimes I do wonder if that is because of the age at which I started. But I find that once what needs to be improved upon is identified, I tend to be pretty good at assimilating it in the span of a few weeks. And it is getting considerably better.

            With older adults, it really depends on the individual. I have a feeling that the kind of feeling of comfort can be learned, but I usually see people reverting to old technical patterns. Many people find it really hard to relax the hand completely, which is really the starting point to an advanced technique.

            I wouldn't say it's not possible, because that's what people told me too and I don't think it is correct. I have heard of very occasional exceptions. But I think that if you really want to achieve a great technique as an adult, you have to really look beyond the obvious.

            Your starting point absolutely makes a difference. I would imagine that an elite athlete (depending on the sport) or video game player would have a massive advantage. Mental stamina is also very important, so being in an intellectually demanding profession would help too.

            My go-to has kind of been to "just do it", to sit down for a couple hours at a time, recording yourself/with a mirror, and feeling out different movements until it clicks.

                Sophia I missed it, you did say that! 🙂

                  ranjit pianoloverus Absolute pitch is not necessary for audiation unless one thinks audiation means hearing a piece in one's head at the correct pitch.

                  No, the idea is that when you hear a piece in your head, it tends to be around the right key. With enough exposure, this sound memory develops. It is a distinct neurological mechanism from perfect pitch, and most good musicians I've seen have it. Like, I can sing a C and it's usually close to accurate, like within about a quarter tone. That kind of thing.

                  You say "the idea" but you're talking about your personal idea of what that word means. It's not even clear what you're referring to when you use the phrase "the idea", but I assume it's audiation . Then you say audiation is distinct from perfect pitch, which is exactly what I was saying. But you begin your comment with a "no".

                  Just because you can find. a video about developing perfect pitch, you can't assume it's true. If Chang was correct about perfect pitch being important and so few people(including Juilliard students) have it but it's really possible to teach it, then why don't they teach perfect pitch at all the top conservatories?

                    ranjit Like, I can sing a C and it's usually close to accurate, like within about a quarter tone. That kind of thing.

                    I believe the perfect pitch is much more than that. In the NYT article I cited:

                    Dr. Profita, who studied the piano and violin at the Juilliard School before turning to medicine, realized he had perfect pitch at age 6. "The minute I hear a note, I know it," he said. "A single note takes on a real nature, like an object. An A is an A just the way a table is a table."

                    In addition, people with true perfect pitch can identify all notes in a chord without thinking. You can find video of Rick Beato demontrates this amazing ability with his son.

                    This is the kind of perfect pitch that is born naturally, and it cannot be attained by training.

                        Sophia Ok, and some willpower to not quit at the first hurdle (been there, done that, got the t-shirt)

                        Wait...!

                        There were T-shirts for this? I didn't even know there was a gift shop. 🤣

                          iternabe I believe the perfect pitch is much more than that. In the NYT article I cited:

                          Dr. Profita, who studied the piano and violin at the Juilliard School before turning to medicine, realized he had perfect pitch at age 6. "The minute I hear a note, I know it," he said. "A single note takes on a real nature, like an object. An A is an A just the way a table is a table."

                          In addition, people with true perfect pitch can identify all notes in a chord without thinking. You can find video of Rick Beato demontrates this amazing ability with his son.

                          This is the kind of perfect pitch that is born naturally, and it cannot be attained by training.

                          I know, and I agree. What I was saying was that I think what Chang meant to say there was that the sort of pitch memory that I was talking about can be trained. But he conflates it with perfect pitch. Although a part of me thinks that maybe he believes that "true" perfect pitch can be learned. Regardless, that to me felt like the least important thing there. The idea of "Mental Play" or audiation is extremely powerful imo.

                          I understand that many people might struggle with it, so I don't mean to say that everyone must be able to do it. But I think it is extremely important to playing musically, to the point where I can't think of an extremely musical player who can't to a pretty good extent, "visualize" the sort of sound they want to produce. And it can be developed early -- I know I did and it sped up the process of learning piano by a lot.

                          There was a video where a famous jazz musician was asked how he played musically, and he said, you know how when you imagine a piece of music, you kind of go "da, da, da...". Well, that's not enough, you have to imagine it go "DA, DA, DA..." in your head. It was funny but oddly instructive.

                          A lot of the issues with Chang's book boil down to him taking something that works in some cases, for some people, and generalizing it to the population as a whole. But a lot of what he says is still A valid way of approaching things, and often one that's not very commonly known by average piano teachers or students. So in that way, it is interesting. A lot of his tips around "post-practice improvement", the importance of sleep and breaks and so on predate Molly Gebrian etc. by over a decade, and are just as valid now. It provides an interesting framework for practice. I can't think of another book that tries to clearly lay out how practice should be structured in the same way. You can glean similar information (and at a higher level) from books written by other concert pianists, but I think those books are too difficult and inaccessible for beginners and are also usually targeted at more advanced students/teachers (Seymour Bernstein, Gyorgy Sandor, Josef Hoffman, Gieseking, just to name a few).

                              ranjit You can glean similar information (and at a higher level) from books written by other concert pianists, but I think those books are too difficult and inaccessible for beginners and are also usually targeted at more advanced students/teachers (Seymour Bernstein, Gyorgy Sandor, Josef Hoffman, Gieseking, just to name a few).

                              Sandor's book is light years better than Chang's book because it has diagrams Illustrating the points about technique he is making. Hoffman's book is based on articles in a magazine. I think it was the ladies home journal or something similar. It was definitely not targeted towards advanced students. I don't think Gieseking's book is useful for most anyone. His big idea of memorizing the score just by studying it away from the piano is incredibly difficult even for conservatory level pianists. There is a youtube video showing 3 sensationally good pianists (who have gone on to successful careers by this time) given the task of memorizing a page or two of a scarlatti sonata just by looking at the score. They all failed quite miserably.

                                ranjit I believe the perfect pitch is much more than that. In the NYT article I cited:

                                Dr. Profita, who studied the piano and violin at the Juilliard School before turning to medicine, realized he had perfect pitch at age 6. "The minute I hear a note, I know it," he said. "A single note takes on a real nature, like an object. An A is an A just the way a table is a table."

                                In addition, people with true perfect pitch can identify all notes in a chord without thinking. You can find video of Rick Beato demontrates this amazing ability with his son.

                                This is the kind of perfect pitch that is born naturally, and it cannot be attained by training.

                                I know, and I agree. What I was saying was that I think what Chang meant to say there was that the sort of pitch memory that I was talking about can be trained. But he conflates it with perfect pitch.

                                So if Chang conflates what you are calling pitch memory with perfect pitch and you say they are different things, this just shows his comments are wrong and/or presented unclearly. If Chang's book was good and well written he shouldn't have "meant" to say something.

                                  Player1 The reality is, as an older beginner you don't have the potential to become a world renowned virtuoso pianist merely because you probably lack the 40 years you'd need to get there.

                                  On the other hand, many of us who did start learning as an older beginner understand that we're not going to get to a highly advanced level because time and age have stolen the necessary dexterity and flexibility from us. Because of that understanding we're usually content to be able to progress to a point where we can play music that's close in quality and content as what we enjoy listening to from professional musicians.

                                  Fortunately, I don't have my sites set on a high level. Right now, my high bar is to complete my level 2 method books.

                                  Player1 What I find interesting is that much of the music being produced for general public consumption, once you get out of the classical music realm, isn't much more advanced than what a late intermediate/early advanced player can perform without the music needing to be arranged. Depending on the system used for ratings, I think that's about a Level 5 or so.

                                  That is interesting. But I will be happy with easier originals or arrangements of classical or other genres. Maybe even some Fake books.

                                        twocats This is something that can be learned! Also, it's important to get to the point where a piece becomes second nature, so that you will be relaxed and not tense with effort. Have you thought about getting a teacher? I personally think that it's so important especially in the beginning stages, because they can help correct bad habits before they set in.

                                        That's a good point about getting more familiar with a piece for the purpose of being able to play more relaxed. I'll go back to the easier pieces in my method books for this purpose.

                                        I would love to have a teacher, but I don't have the funds for it. I'm hoping that will change later this year.

                                          Kaydia Today I did a speed read through several sections of this book and reached these conclusions.

                                          1. The author has a pretty high opinion of himself and his book, but his writing skills lag behind his scientific qualifications.
                                          2. Most of the practice methodology is included in the Alfred's piano course books that I have been using, although the author does also include specific advice about things such as working on difficult measures in isolation, and recognising where note patterns are repeated in pieces, to enable people to mark them accordingly so as to help learn longer pieces more quickly.
                                          3. Despite the author's broad assertion that, theoretically, most people could become "Mozarts", diving into the detail of the book he acknowledges that people who begin playing piano in early childhood have a much better chance of becoming concert pianists than those who start later in life. He writes: "Ages 13-19: This group still has an excellent chance of becoming concert level pianists. However, they may have lost the chance to become those super stars that the younger beginners can become." He also states that although somebody starting piano in the age group 20-35 could become a concert pianist, they are less likely to achieve that goal than others who began playing piano during their childhood and thus gained piano skills at a time when their brains were more malleable. All this is probably no surprise to anyone, but helps to keep expectations real for adult beginners.
                                          4. The author gives detailed suggestions on how to tackle several key pieces such as Moonlight Sonata. This is a nice idea and could be very useful when I reach those key pieces, so I might revisit the book then.
                                          5. The book provides some interesting insight and analysis into the composition methods of several composers, which helps to demystify how they managed to compose lengthy pieces of work by, for instance, repeating key patterns intermittently throughout a piece.

                                          Some of the technical detail in the book went a bit over my head (well, I must admit I zoned out a bit in places) and I am not experienced enough to judge how valuable (or otherwise) Mr Chang's advice is, but some of it made sense, albeit I think much of it is explained better in the Alfred's AIO course books.

                                          "Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)

                                              ranjit I have my personal experiences, and then I know certain people I've tried to teach technical things to and discussed them with.

                                              I don't think I really felt a difference in terms of my ability to learn motor patterns with age. It might be there but I haven't really noticed it. I wasn't very sporty as a child and was self-conscious about it, so I made it a point to try and improve my coordination. Eventually, I ended up learning a lot of tricks to learn quicker and I feel like I probably learn new movements quicker than I would as a child. Maybe they don't persist as long, but that remains to be seen.

                                              My hands do look clumsy relative to that of a serious pianist. I might be contradicting myself here, but sometimes I do wonder if that is because of the age at which I started. But I find that once what needs to be improved upon is identified, I tend to be pretty good at assimilating it in the span of a few weeks. And it is getting considerably better.

                                              With older adults, it really depends on the individual. I have a feeling that the kind of feeling of comfort can be learned, but I usually see people reverting to old technical patterns. Many people find it really hard to relax the hand completely, which is really the starting point to an advanced technique.

                                              I wouldn't say it's not possible, because that's what people told me too and I don't think it is correct. I have heard of very occasional exceptions. But I think that if you really want to achieve a great technique as an adult, you have to really look beyond the obvious.

                                              Your starting point absolutely makes a difference. I would imagine that an elite athlete (depending on the sport) or video game player would have a massive advantage. Mental stamina is also very important, so being in an intellectually demanding profession would help too.

                                              My go-to has kind of been to "just do it", to sit down for a couple hours at a time, recording yourself/with a mirror, and feeling out different movements until it clicks.

                                              I appreciate you sharing all that. I found it inspiring. And you know, it never occurred to me make use of a mirror. I like that idea since video recording with my phone is a pain and poor quality. Thanks for the idea.

                                                Nightowl Most of the practice methodology is included in the Alfred's piano course books that I have been using, although the author does also include specific advice about things such as working on difficult measures in isolation, and recognising where note patterns are repeated in pieces, to enable people to mark them accordingly so as to help learn longer pieces more quickly.

                                                The examples of advice you mention that aren't included in the Alfred's books are all ideas I've heard or read about. I've been trying to incorporate these ideas into my practice. It's a struggle for me to not just keep starting from the beginning. Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy. 😬

                                                  keystring The sonatina will have a theme - little melody-thing, which asks and answers a question (how I felt it) - like a sentence or two part conversation. "What are you looking at?" "What am I looking at? - those birds!" It did a twiddle-diddle and suddenly there was a "new Do" (it had modulated), danced around there. Then more twiddle-diddles and the old conversation came up in the original key (old Do), "What are you looking at, pray tell?" What am I looking it? - those birds, those lovely birds!" This is how I had absorbed music as a child. A story tells itself in a logical way, and thus it is not hard to remember. Whatever this gentleman proposed seemed abstract, like memorizing a chain of numbers and letters in some code. I could not relate to it.

                                                  Memorized music was also like an unfolding story where you have the key points. That camping trip has packing up stuff, traveling, arriving, setting up, the adventures while camping (maybe a key one), decamping, travel home. As I get to each point, that part "unfolds" - 'setting up' a bunch of things happened. This is also how I experienced music.

                                                  Would you mind explaining more about this? Are you saying you visualize a story for a piece to help with playing through it and/or memorizing it?