Question about listen to established recordings when learning new piece

iternabe · 2025-07-14T14:38:54+00:00

I suppose the question is not "if" I should listen to established recordings, but "when" and "how"? Should I listen to recordings even before starting my st...

TheBoringPianist

@thepianoplayer416 has put together a pretty good list of good reasons to listen to recordings before/while learning a piece. I'll attempt to add a little color of my own to a few of their points:

Listening to recordings can help you make sure you read the score correctly
Clef changes and accidentals can trip up even fantastic sight readers — a friend of mine from the local piano meetups whom I consider to be a very good sight reader told me the story of how he missed the clef change at the end of Prokofiev's 8th Sonata, causing his teacher to burst out laughing the first time he played for them and that menacing Jaws-like motif came out in the treble clef.

Listening to recordings without the score can give you the wrong sense of rhythm
I do think it is important that if you're using recordings as a part of the learning process to spend some of that time listening with the score in front of you. Recordings alone can give you a wrong sense of rhythm — when I finally sat down to learn Clair de lune earlier this year, I had no idea how a lot of the rhythms are actually notated because so many recordings out there take the "Tempo rubato" marking a little too far imo (e.g. the last four chords here are NOT the same duration and still in 3)

Bach Invention No. 6
@iternabe re: your Bach Invention, I haven't studied this piece, but if you think about the harmonies the LH is spelling out then you can see how it might make sense to group B-D#-G# and C#-E-A# in the RH. Also, it seems more likely to me that the 16th notes are the actual pulse to this sequence (on beat) and the 32nd notes are more like ornamentation (although it could be interesting to try accenting the off-beat on a repeat).

As for the overall line, two general possibilities come to mind: you have an ascending melodic line (G#-A#-B) so you could make the 3rd measure the peak (pretty common for 4-bar phrases); alternatively, the most harmonically tense measure is the diminished chord in the 2nd bar, so you could try making that the climax. There's more possibilities out there too; this is where listening to multiple recordings, studying the score, and trying different things while you play can help you avoid constraining your own interpretation.

iternabe

TheBoringPianist I like you explanation, and it makes sense. I also begin to realize why my initial reading differed from you explanation: 1) the preceding phrase (without any ornaments) are syncopated between the two hands, but the phrase of the discussion actually looks like not syncopated if the ornaments are taken away (I missed that), and 2) when I look at each 3-note ornamented group, I was looking at the first note (because it is that's the finger need to go next?), but really it's the last (16th) note on the beat being the one to receive accent.

This also makes me want to go back to listening to Paul Barton's recording and verify which note I was actually hearing as melody. Big thank you!

Josephine

Hey Iternabe, I listen to my favorite recordings as well. Before I start learning, and then I stop for a while while I'm learning it, and then I'm listening again. It's not on purpose, I'm just listening to music to find a piece I want to play.

I have the same problem as you have, I memorize the music, and the tempo/time when I hear it. So I didn't learn much about that. I took lessons for a while again 2 years ago, to fix that. The teacher asked all sorts of beginner questions about it and I didn't know the answers. He said, I don't understand, how can you play this while you don't even know things like that. Oops, I felt really ashamed. I still can't do those things so I'm thinking about taking theory lessons somewhere for it. With a real teacher, not with videos. Because I do want to learn it, but I don't really want to play my first methodbook again now.

pianoloverus

I think most piano teachers agree that, at least for beginners and intermediates, listening to a piece beforehand is a good idea. There is a giant project call something like the University of Iowa Piano Pedagogy Project where the teachers at that school have recorded online a huge number of pieces, I think in the thousands, commonly played by beginners and intermediates. So they obviously think this would be helpful.

Unless a particular piece is extremely rarely played, most professionals are familiar with the pieces they are learning before they learn them even if they don't decide to listen to them right before learning them.

rsl12

Agreeing with everyone here. In addition, I think of it this way: the fastest way of becoming creative is to first imitate what you like. Self-taught artists of all media may show off a unique creativity (though often their "uniqueness" is very similar to many other self-taught artists), but it comes at the cost of a lot of time reinventing wheels, a lot of technical deficiencies, and usually a lack of variety. I think people can be wary of this approach because they don't want to be derivative, but when you imitate what you like, you are first of all picking techniques and approaches that closely (though probably not exactly) match your personal style, and eventually you can synthesize from that foundation to make new things that really match your personal vision. So yes, I recommend listening to a LOT of recordings first, and, picking and choosing between the recordings, finding the approaches you like.

twocats

rsl12 I think people can be wary of this approach because they don't want to be derivative, but when you imitate what you like, you are first of all picking techniques and approaches that closely (though probably not exactly) match your personal style, and eventually you can synthesize from that foundation to make new things that really match your personal vision.

I definitely find myself doing this. I find a recording I love, and in all honestly believe that I'm using their interpretation (which, as an amateur, I feel zero guilt over) but later I realize that I'm not at all. I'm taking elements of their interpretation that I love but have also made it my own.

rsl12 I personally wouldn't worry about that. As you progress to harder pieces, you will become more reliant on what's written on the page, and you'll learn how to read better.

Definitely!

And also someone had mentioned learning things wrong (either notes or rhythm) if you're not familiar with the piece. That's a huge one!

rsl12

iternabe Maybe what's in my mind is less about learning to play a piece, but about learning the ability to read and interpret music? Reading is a weakness for me. But I memorize tunes well. I already noticed if I am looking at the score of some tune I know, my memory of the melody seem to automatically substitute (or supersede?) any effort to really interpret what's written.

I personally wouldn't worry about that. As you progress to harder pieces, you will become more reliant on what's written on the page, and you'll learn how to read better.

MRC

iternabe Reading is a weakness for me. But I memorize tunes well. I already noticed if I am looking at the score of some tune I know, my memory of the melody seem to automatically substitute (or supersede?) any effort to really interpret what's written.

have you tried going in the other direction, from heard melody to written music? What happens if you start with a melody you know by ear, take out some manuscript paper and a pencil, and see if you can transcribe that melody into notation?

This is a vert useful exercise, to be done both with a tune you know well and with one you hear for the first time on a recording. I had to do this as part of my musical training. Once I had transcribed a passage, it was fascinating to compare my version with the original notation: sometimes very close, sometimes way off.

iternabe

iternabe Reading is a weakness for me. But I memorize tunes well. I already noticed if I am looking at the score of some tune I know, my memory of the melody seem to automatically substitute (or supersede?) any effort to really interpret what's written.

MRC have you tried going in the other direction, from heard melody to written music? What happens if you start with a melody you know by ear, take out some manuscript paper and a pencil, and see if you can transcribe that melody into notation?

Great question! I have not, and I know I cannot, yet. I want to be able to do this, which is one reason I am doing RCM's ear training exercises daily. One of the task in that exercise is to listen to short snippets, then play it by ear. Of course at the beginner level it is just simple five finger position. With practice, I am getting better.

It is a curious situation in my case. As I said I can learn melodies by ear and sing it by memory without much difficulty. But even I can sing the intervals I heard accurately, I am not to able to tell what that interval is. Is that relative pitch? Or am I just good at imitation?

pseudonym58

Apologies to those who have heard this story before, but when I was trying out for a youth orchestra (cello) many years ago, they handed out orchestral parts to study before the audition. Included was a tricky part of the Dvorak string serenade. The particular section was notated in an old-fashioned manner, to my knowledge only found in late 19th century German scores: treble clef, and meant to be played down one octave from where it was notated. Stupid me, I didn't bother to locate that particular spot on the full score, and apparently didn't listen to a recording so that I would realize that I had to play it down an octave. Needless to say it was extremely difficult to play, and I imagine the judges on the jury had to suppress their laughter. They said "You DO know it's played down an octave there, don't you?"
I was a completely mortified 14-year-old, and that's bad! Lesson learned.
So yeah, I would definitely listen to a recording if only for that reason at least.

pseudonym58

One other recollection: A few years ago I was studying some of the Poulenc Nocturnes, and one of them has a fairly uniformly consonant modal section without much in the way of dissonance, when all of a sudden, the melody jumps to a very discordant single note. I thought it might have been a misprint, but upon listening to several recordings, it's always played as written, so I have my answer.

twocats

iternabe But even I can sing the intervals I heard accurately, I am not to able to tell what that interval is. Is that relative pitch? Or am I just good at imitation?

I think you're just imitating. Learning the interval requires studying! It helps if you map songs that start with specific intervals (e.g. we were always told that augmented 4th is the beginning of The Simpsons theme). I still refer to the songs to identify intervals, haha.

iternabe

twocats Thanks!

The RCM ear training course I am taking does include interval recognition exercises. So far, I‘ve got major/minor 3rd and perfect 5th. It also had chord recognition exercises. Before, I was telling major/minor triad by feel - but that turned out to unreliable (when pitch changes). Actually hearing the major/minor 3rd in the chord, as I have found, is the most reliable way. I was so glad.