TC3 Over years of lurking at various discussion forums, I've seen many variations of the following exchange:

Q: "I want to learn piano, but not classical piano. I have no interest in classical piano, I just want to learn [insert non-classical genre here] piano. Any advice?"
A: "Spend years learning classical piano first ... "

I am late at the party, but this reminds me on some of my friends visiting another school that teached latin:
Me: "Why do you learn latin? This language is dead, is it?"
Her: "If you speak latin, you learn other languges faster"
Me: "If I want to learn italian, why not go for italian directly?"
Her: "Knowing latin helps you to understand italian way better."
Me: "How does this work?"
Her: "Italian evolved out of latin. And latin is more complex, so it gives you the best theory underground."
Me: "Isn't it enough to know only complexity of italian?"
Her: "But then you don't understand the language."
Me: "So the average Italian does not understand his mother language?"
Her: "You don't understand... 🙄"
Me: "Okay, how much time do I safe learning italian, if I know latin beforehand?"
Her: "One or two years, probably"
Me: "How long does it take to learn latin?"
Her: "About five."
Me: "Okay... but then the total time is"
Her: "Shut up! 😡"

This "start with classical" is very similar in my opinion. The only fair point I can see, is how music evolved. Classical is the oldest genre (if I count hymns and chorals to classical). This means, all the people of that time period have learned classical music without another music genre as educational background. And this is the ultimate proof you can start with classical music from the scratch.
And music schools are doing this for centuries (and it works, obviously).
This means all young kids sent to a music school are starting with classical music. And some of them are becoming great musicians. Some of them even the best musicians out there.
And this is why you will always hear the same argument: "Start with classical, because the best musicians started with classical, too."

    It’s ok to learn about different genres of music. Much of Western music evolved from “Classical” which is a broad classification for music including the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical style of Mozart & Beethoven, Romantic.

    Jazz & Pop evolved independently in America. There are other music traditions that did not evolve from the Western music traditions in Europe.

    Many people including myself started music early playing some Classical pieces. Years ago I still remember the “Old French Song” by Tchaikovsky out of a recorder book. There were arrangements of “Twinkle” originally by Mozart and versions of the Haydn “Surprise” for absolute beginners.

    To say that Classical music is a prerequisite for learning other genres is a bit of a stretch.

      ranjit I just don't see someone without classical training pull this kind of thing off.

      Generally correct, with very few exceptions. Outliers might include the likes of Art Tatum or Errol Garner, both of which were amazing players with little classical training.

        thepianoplayer416 To say that Classical music is a prerequisite for learning other genres is a bit of a stretch.

        It's true in what you wrote above. Because in life etc ... it is known that (cliche) - problem solving - or (cliche) reaching a solution/objective can often have more than one pathway ... or various pathways. And doesn't necessarily start at the same condition or point.

        Today ... in most cases ... people learned or learn from what has been accumulated in and around the world ... techniques and examples. Accumulated over the centuries/years, and some of that distilled, evolved.

        And people also learn from what composers taught directly or indirectly in the music they wrote/played etc, which they themselves (the composers) learned techniques too ... and applied, and generated new stuff ... including unique melody and patterns, counterpoint etc.

          thepianoplayer416 To say that Classical music is a prerequisite for learning other genres is a bit of a stretch.

          True. And not only did some popular music not develop from classical background, it would be fair to say the overwhelming majority say hasn't . Most of it has its roots in traditional folk music, Irish giving rise to bluegrass and country, and African rise to blues and jazz and in turn pop and rock.

          Sydney Australia
          Retired part-time piano technician

          • TC3 likes this.

            All the talk about Francesco Parrino's version of Creep made me want to share this version which I improvised a year ago. 🙂

              As it is about learning 'non-classical' - which also involves applying - I decided to hop on the piano 10 minutes or so ago and do this quick semi-imp from ideas that I had in my head while away from the piano today. It's just free tinkering of ideas obviously.

              Unrefined - but is an example of taking this and maybe sifting through, looking for bits that might work or sound nice to us, for later 'refinement' - and development/re-development. There is lots that can be done of course. And once again - foot in door. Stage 1.

              Excuse the various typos in my semi-imp music.

              I used the nice rounded/muted bosie sound this time on the Yammy P-525.
              If possible - don't play it through mobile/cell phone speakers. Go for fav headphones or fav speakers.

              Billie Jean mod - WAV

              Billie Jean mod - FLAC

              (above are identical audio content- except the flac file is about three times smaller in size - relative to the wav)

              I think I have more ideas about where to go with it after that quick semi-imp.

              And my opinion is ... about where to start. Start anywhere we want. And know the options if possible by reading, watching etc.

              Wow, Ranjit, that was great!!!!!!! Love it!

              ranjit Very nice!

              Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.

                Thanks guys!

                • TC3 likes this.

                Player1 The one thing that stands out above all the others is that a classically trained pianist can play all the musical genres while those pianists which studied under another method cannot.

                That touches on something important - to me, which is to never assume that a person cannot start in one area first, followed by expanding into another area. Objectives can be achieved in various or many ways.

                One trained person in anything is generally different from another. They often may think similarly in some areas, and differently in other areas. And different in potentials.

                And a lot of people are seen to start treating piano and piano playing like many other things ... such as my group is better than your group. This type of piano is better than that. This technique makes for a 'superior' piano player. This style of music is better than that. And I'm so up myself etc. That's for example the sort of thing we do see in piano circles. I think a lot of people are aware of it. It is still part of nature though. Some human or society nature. And a discussion about it could start up on it in a general forums section later.

                It can be assumed that from where-ever a set of techniques start ... techniques and methods exist, and they will develop. And as we have seen with our eyes ... or heard with our ears or hearing system, we get variety when various people go their own ways, and techniques are involved. The interesting and spectacular and special thing in music and piano etc ... is variety.

                And ... many people can't foresee where they will go or end up in their life ... such as their exact career pathways etc, let alone where they will go or end up in piano.

                So I'm just thinking ... if it's not going ruin us in terms of career pathway where piano is not involved, or no highly-focused desire to play every single bit of piano music etc ever written/performed or to be written/performed, then just get in there and start where anyone wants.

                And because we have internet etc, everyone is much more informed about their options ... as in being able to access more information and examples and tutorials etc, as compared with times before high speed internet with video and search engines etc.

                "I want to learn piano, but not classical piano. I have no interest in classical piano, I just want to learn [insert non-classical genre here] piano. Any advice?"

                Of course ... internet tutorials on piano playing, and learn a bit first. And build up on the skills from there. Options will be to talk to professional teachers to teach the finger exercises and skills, and listening skills, and reading skills. And translation skills ... for playing what melody and/or chord pitches in your mind on the piano ... translating directly to the keys etc. Volume and pitch etc. And preferably some music theory that may help with generating your own music at some level that satisfies you. And tell the teacher that you want to be set up for the sort of music you want to be playing ..... so that they know what workbooks and exercises to put you on.

                In any case ... hand and finger independence, and translating mind pitches to keys, and some loud/soft control, and hand/fingers control (flow, rhythm, etc) is a fair bit to work on. And counting can be important in many cases ... but not necessarily essential. And some people automatically or naturally have their own internal beat mechanism in their brain for music, as musical flow can and does come naturally to people. Or they understand for themselves that timing and flow can be important. Not always though ... depends on what sort of 'music' we're dealing with.

                    SouthPark Player1 The one thing that stands out above all the others is that a classically trained pianist can play all the musical genres while those pianists which studied under another method cannot.

                    That touches on something important - to me, which is to never assume that a person cannot start in one area first, followed by expanding into another area. Objectives can be achieved in various or many ways.

                    Agreed. Also, the other thing that I think is important to mention is that all music requires training. So if someone is classically trained, they're not going to be able to just sit and start playing jazz piano without training in jazz piano.

                    I maybe said this above, in which case, forgive me for repeating myself.... but I do think there are a lot of contemporary solo piano styles for which classical training is sufficient. (Looking at you, Einaudi, Nevue, Ffrench...) But others (jazz, boogie woogie, blues, rock, playing from lead sheets...) will require training in that style.

                    It may be the case that someone who is classically trained will progress more quickly in those other styles, but the reverse is probably also true (a jazz pianist will progress with classical training)... but this is because the person already knows how to play the piano....

                    Anyway, I think I'm starting to repeat myself so I'll stop. 😅

                        If a piano player is 'trained' or experienced in a particular area -- then they can indeed have the option/choice to 'train' in another area at some time - such as 'classical' - in which case the person will be/become 'classically' trained too.

                        So basically - they can go one way or another - or even both ways at the same time. As we know - there is a lot of variety in piano players, because people not only have different 'training' - but different in their own potentials, ways of thinking, feelings, understanding etc. It all depends on goal/aim etc. And importantly - one 'style' of music isn't better than another style. So if somebody can't play every bit of music that was ever written or performed, then it doesn't mean that they're 'lesser' than somebody else - even the 'world class' professionals ------ because everybody is different. A 'world class' professional might not be able to 'think' in the same way as the 'other' person -- and hence the a world class professional is not necessarily 'better' than others at the piano -- and generating particular music. And as mentioned - 'classical' music is not 'better' than other types. To me - they're all amazing, excellent, outstanding. I know that others have different opinions. But that's ok. It's good to see how people out there 'think'.

                        ShiroKuro It may be the case that someone who is classically trained will progress more quickly in those other styles, but the reverse is probably also true

                        I think, for the most part, someone trained in classical piano will have a leg up. This assumes certain things, however. It assumes that they learned technique and basic ideas of musical interpretation properly step-by-step from a good teacher. Many "classically trained" pianists have just had a teacher assign them pieces, and that is usually not sufficient.

                        I can't see why this can not be the case. As part of classical training, I've learned the functions of each of the fingers, the wrist, the arm, coordination of various kinds to the point where you can execute difficult passages with ease. Unless someone works on the same aspects of coordination with equal rigor in a non-classical style, the classically trained person will have an advantage.

                            A person won't necessarily have an advantage over another .... and it also depends on what area we're talking about.

                            For example, I very likely cannot think like somebody else or have their experiences, and vice versa. This means maybe overall .... we and/or anybody is not better than each other.

                            There seems to be that belief/opinion (of some folks) on needing to start in the same area for everybody. If a course is set up adequately for the listening and hand/finger techniques, independence, finger sequencing, timing, rhythm, reading etc to start with ..... then that sets people up to branch off to where they want later.

                            Also ... it wasn't even us that came up with the techniques. It was other people ... contributing to knowledge and techniques over time .... and development/refinement of the methods ... that gave us our basic skills, that we learned from ... that got us to this stage, and the variety/variations we have ... from all the people, the cultures etc.

                            And also noting that people enjoying piano can have their enjoyment in various different forms - and all are just fine, including playing scripts, playing own music, playing impro, playing semi-impro etc. No one form is better than another. And that's what some people need to aim to understand.

                            ranjit I think, for the most part, someone trained in classical piano will have a leg up. This assumes certain things, however. It assumes that they learned technique and basic ideas of musical interpretation properly step-by-step from a good teacher.

                            Yes, I think a lot of the discussion in this thread is much more about "learned piano from a good teacher or not" than it is about classical or not.

                            ranjit Unless someone works on the same aspects of coordination with equal rigor in a non-classical style, the classically trained person will have an advantage.

                            I guess that's my question, though. I don't see any reason why one couldn't learn from rigorous pedagogy in a non-classical style, if such a curriculum were available (which it often isn't). For example, when one learns dynamics, one does so through scales, exercises, etudes, etc. Those are either genre-neutral (like scales often are) or written in a genre-related style (like etudes often are). The latter could be jazz or blues or whatever just as well as they could be classical; it's just that there's already a ton of classical materials out there for that purpose, but less so for other genres (though I have seen "Hanon" books for jazz and blues).

                            Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.

                                  TC3 If I may....
                                  I think the term "classical" may be the problem. One can study with a teacher who teaches technique, style, theory, by teaching Classical pieces, Bach, Beethoven, etc. And, there are teachers who teach using "classical" methods, but are willing to apply those theories to music other than "Classical". Make sense? And, in either case, whether one wants to learn to play Chopin, or ragtime, or pop, boogie-woogie, or jazz, having a competent teacher to provide a sound technical foundation will be a great help.

                                  Berklee Press has tons of instructional material on jazz. Mark Levine's "Jazz Piano Book" is a great source of information. Jamey Abersold has dozens of 'Play-a-Long" book/audio combos, as well as a lot of technique and theory books. Some budding pianists will be able to hack their way into this realm, without formal training. But for those who have a sound foundation, it will be much easier to understand and execute.

                                      PianoMonk Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at (poorly) in my OP: I think there's some conflation between classical as genre and classical as pedagogy. Unfortunately, it sounds like that happens at least from threads I've read elsewhere. The poor student wants to learn Bill Evans and is forced to play Mozart for several years first. 😃

                                      I'm familiar with some of those jazz methods you talk about but not all of them. The ones I've seen assume you're already playing piano (probably via "classical" lessons ... ). Are there any that start you playing piano from the ground up?

                                      As a comparison, I'm into blues first and foremost, and most of the "beginning blues piano" books I see already assume you play piano to a degree. The word "beginning" seems to modify "blues" rather than "piano" if you get my meaning.

                                      I might have mentioned it upstream, but Mel Bay's Modern Piano Method is the only example I can think of that teaches piano from the ground up with an eye toward non-classical styles. It's fairly new (well, maybe eight years old) and there's only one grade available (which seems comparable to RCM or ABRSM grade 1, maybe grade 2). I would love to see them continue that series.

                                      EDIT: I've noticed that the recent ABRSM piano syllabus is leaning much heavier into a variety of styles / genres. I'm not sure you can completely avoid Mozart and company, but it looks like you could do the majority of exam pieces in a non-classical style.

                                      Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.

                                          TC3 I think there's some conflation between classical as genre and classical as pedagogy

                                          Right, I think that was basically what I was trying to say in my first reply to you (about the non-classical guitar teacher who was hired at the music school where my dad worked). He taught students jazz, blues and other modern styles right from scratch. But it was still "classical training" in that he didn't skip the important basics, note reading, technique etc. It was a highly controversial topic among the teachers, especially when he became the most popular teacher they ever had ^_^

                                          It seems that 30-ish years later, this still almost as controversial a topic as it was back then!

                                          • TC3 replied to this.
                                          • TC3 likes this.

                                              Sophia It seems that 30-ish years later, this still almost as controversial a topic as it was back then!

                                              Indeed! Which seems kind of silly, but as an educator I can attest that sometimes it takes a while for pedagogical traditions to modernize ...

                                              Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.