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.

                          TC3 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.

                          Exactly! The key, classical or not, is comprehensive training from a teacher who knows both how to teach and what to teach. If someone has had that, then learning an additional style will be much easier.

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

                          Yes, this is a really good point to make!

                          Re books -- I have several instructional books for jazz, boogie woogie, blues and other non-classical styles. Very, very few of them can be used without a teacher. And your observation is correct (in my experience) that a lot of them assume the learner can already play piano. And years ago, that might have been about right, since many more people used to take piano lessons in childhood. So either the books assume you can already play, or they're set up in a way that they're practically useless without the guidance of a teacher.

                          So to me this looks like a pedagogical problem, in which the learning materials are only geared toward a specific kind of student.

                          So I think this may be another part of the problem.

                          • TC3 likes this.

                              TC3 Bill Evans studied classical music at Southeastern Louisiana University and the Mannes School of Music, in New York City, where he majored in composition and received an artist diploma. In 1955, he moved to New York City, where he worked with bandleader and theorist George Russell. This is not just a wisp of classical training; plenty of Mozart and others , for sure. And George Russell, developer of The Lydian Chromatic Concept, is a very heavy dude to be studying with. Also, at one point, to earn some money, Bill once said in an interview with Marion McPartland, that he was one of the giggingist boogie woogie piano players in north Jersey. By the time he joined with Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Cannonball Aderley (all three classically trained), Bill could walk the walk, and, perhaps, more importantly, talk the talk.

                              As for "ground up" jazz lessons, other than the few I mentioned, these might be closer to that:
                              Tim Richards - Exploring Jazz Piano 1 and 2
                              Mark Levine - Jazz Theory
                              Oscar Peterson - Jazz Piano for the Young Pianist (if you can find it).

                              However, the reality is, that while there are some who can connect with the piano and hit the ground running, most people who are drawn to the piano give up, simply because there are no short cuts IN THE BEGINNING. Once you have proper technique, so you can physically execute the things you want to play, THEN you can branch out. Jazz is not easy, no matter what instrument you play. Even if you have a solid understanding of the theory, you still need the technique to pull it off. And, the technique for playing Mozart is the same technique you need to play as close as you could get to Bill Evans.

                                  PianoMonk I appreciate the response, but I feel like you might still be missing my point. I'm probably not explaining myself well enough, but I don't know how to say it any clearer. It's fine, I'm mostly interested in the discussion. 🙂

                                  Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.

                                    I haven't seen any non-classical teachers who can teach piano technique to the same depth that a high level classical pianist (say piano professor or a talented doctorate in piano performance) can. I've exclusively sought out those teachers

                                      ranjit I haven't seen any non-classical teachers who can teach piano technique to the same depth that a high level classical pianist (say piano professor or a talented doctorate in piano performance) can.

                                      Jeremy Siskind

                                          @ranjit actually, I suspect there are a lot, go to any music school with a strong jazz program.

                                            Although, having said that, I had two jazz teachers, and I don't think either of them were very good teachers! 😅

                                              I think a determined beginner could make quite a bit of headway with blues, rock/pop and - to an extent - jazz without having go through the rigours, and most likely years of classical training. Having a good ear would help, accelerating progress and perhaps circumventing the need for ‘theory’ where self-discovery could become an effective substitute for ‘what works’. Emphasis on determined, of course. Hours upon hours upon years.

                                                That's the thing ... it's a case of we and who's army (?) that gives us some sort of power etc to seriously say that if you start here, then you're going to be 'limited' ... worse off etc. What do 'we' want to prove or achieve by having everyone agree that starting with course 'X' is necessary. And is it necessary for them? Or is it the 's' word thing again ... superiority compl...?

                                                I personally don't reckon that everyone playing piano actually cares if they don't delve into so-called 'repertoire' in all genres, and all levels.

                                                Once somebody develops 'adequately' (which is relative) - they will be unstoppable in their area(s) already. And piano music even in one or more area(s) is limitless already.

                                                Basically ..... a 'minimum but substantial' (which is relative too) setup for someone ... anyone ... will set them up for life. And they will be unstoppable, and will give a most excellent account of themselves in music and on piano. Any piano. Anywhere ... and any time.

                                                ShiroKuro I had two jazz teachers, and I don't think either of them were very good teachers! 😅

                                                I think that superb performers aren't necessarily great teachers. And some fantastic teachers aren't necessarily world class players. Of course there are a lucky few who excel at both, but it's not a given 😄

                                                  I can understand what some people mean. And this is good information ... as in how important is it to become adequately 'good' at piano and music? For self enjoyment purely? For work? For some other reason (for showing off? ... example only). Or any combo?

                                                  Just like how the world is often attempting to unite people ... and aiming for equality ... and seems to be a bit better these days as compared with the 'older' days ... you can certainly see that there are still particular mentalities ... in some areas. Piano area for example. Particularly 'classical' piano area. But also --- also got to watch out for the 'other' side as well -- as in there will be 'some' from the other side that think they're so good - and with their own behaviour, with nothing to do - and have a go at stirring the purely 'classical music' folks for some reason.

                                                  Obviously - with piano - you got to just start somewhere. That's the foot-in-door thing. And teachers etc have to choose examples for students to study/play. And while hand and finger exercises etc etc is certainly important for playing piano (obviously) -- students will certainly be asked to study/play selected music. So --- it's just going to be up to teacher and student to work together to see if they can have a plan to get to where they want to go. If no plan -- then the student just needs to keep on looking for one, such as communicate with a different teacher. And if cost/time etc is a constraint - then sometimes there is not much you can do. In life -- it's known that there are lots of things we can't reach due to constraints. Depends on circumstances/situation - which is different from one person to another.

                                                  And also must think and know about --- there are/will be people out there - such as living in for example poverty - and may see pianos and hear pianos and music, but don't have their chance to learn/study piano/music etc -- and their base potential might actually be incredible, such that if they 'were' given opportunities - under different circumstances - they would run rings around us/you in playing piano and music and composition etc.

                                                  And while I was mentioned incredible base potential (as as example) -------- we, as being good people of the planet -- don't have a requirement for anybody to need to have incredible potential for learning and playing and enjoying piano and music. And that is very important for remembering as well. Basically - we shouldn't aim to be stuck-up and up ourselves with piano and music etc.

                                                  PianoMonk Tim Richards - Exploring Jazz Piano 1 and 2
                                                  Mark Levine - Jazz Theory
                                                  Oscar Peterson - Jazz Piano for the Young Pianist (if you can find it).

                                                  BTW, have been looking these up a bit.

                                                  The Tim Richards presupposes grade 4 ability, according to their website. He does have a Beginning Jazz Piano book too, maybe that would be closer, I don't see a grade recommendation.

                                                  The Levine is for "intermediate to advanced" students.

                                                  The Peterson sounds promising! I'll see if I can find a used copy.

                                                  Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.

                                                    THis article talks about the different strategies, a little something for everyone.

                                                    https://riversidemusicstudios.com/2021/03/do-i-have-to-learn-classical

                                                    Interestingly, I pretty sure most of my blues and boogie heroes used method 3!

                                                    BTW, I did actually start with classical. I only had a smattering of formal lessons, mostly self-taught, but I was working with the RCM and ABRSM syllabi and was playing pretty comfortably at grade 4 or so before I switched over to non-classical stuff (at least for the time being - who knows what I'll do in the future!). I don't regret spending that time on classical but I sometimes think I'd be farther along doing what I really want if I had moved to the non-classical stuff sooner.

                                                    Enthusiastic but mediocre amateur.