Learning non-classical piano

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.

If you don’t have any desire to play classical music, then you’re wasting your time studying classical piano. There are many capable, world-changing musicians - including pianists or piano playing musicians - who never studied classical music. Contrary to the ideas many in that field have, classical music is not the be-all-end-all of music.

If you wish to play piano, but aren’t particularly moved by classical music, you’d be doing yourself a big favor by just studying THEORY and TECHNIQUE more than anything. And you can get that, sans classical studying. There are plenty of theory books and theory teachers out there. And contrary to what many advanced classical pianists would have you believe, the technique of a virtuoso is not some endless collective of things. You only have ten fingers, and there’s only so much you can do with them. A virtuoso’s technique is primarily scales/runs/fingerwork - learning to move the fingers up and down and in any combination at high speeds, double notes (seconds, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, etc.), octaves, chords, leaps, being able to do these things in any order, and coordinating the two hands to be able to do these things in conjunction and independently. There’s actually not a lot to piano technique - the challenging part is the creative ways great composers, arrangers, and instrumentalists use the very basic foundational fundamentals, and the speed at which they combine them to create music.

Famously, Liszt developed what many regard as either the greatest technique of all time or one of the greatest techniques of all times - by simply practicing the fundamentals: scales, passagework/runs/filigrees/cadenzas, double notes, octaves, chords, leaps. He learnt to do all these things at extremely high levels, interchangeably, in any order, in any pattern, in any combination, with the two hands operating in conjunction and independently. That’s how Liszt went from the Czerny/Beethoven/Mozart standard of technique, to the standard of technique that ultimately bore his name, and, quite frankly, was never surpassed by anyone after him.

Now, yes, Liszt started in what we would consider classical, but, unlike any other composer before him, he, and the other Romantics, led a charge to standardize classical technique in a way that extracted it from the music, and really broke it down. That focus on technique as it’s own entity led to the Liszt exercises, the Isidor Philipp exercises, and, perhaps the greatest of them all: the Hanons, where, like never before, the arsenal of any virtuoso was broken down to its absolute fundamentals, separate from the music. Theoretically, since all of these things have been standardized and captured in minute detail - one could achieve virtuosity, without ever playing classical music.

By learning theory, technique, and applying it to the genre of one’s choice - one could become a virtuoso pianist, yet never have focused or studied classical music.

And there’s plenty of very advanced music in jazz, blues, and in modern/20th Century/avant-garde/21st-Century repertoire that an advanced pianist can play.

_

Now, if one’s goal is to reach the absolute heights of piano technique…then perhaps one might desire to focus on classical music. But only because of the repertoire.

Should the very most advanced playing be one’s desire, there aren’t many other genres that contain music as advanced as classical music, from a technical point of view. There’s nothing in any other genre, of the difficulty of Gaspard de la Nuit, or the 1838 Transcendental Etudes, or the Chopin etudes, or Rachmaninoff’s Second Sonata or his Third Concerto, or Islamey, etc., etc., etc. When I think of even the most difficult pieces in blues, jazz, or in modern genres, I can’t think of any that can compete with the very most difficult things in classical (correct me here if there is any).

So…if being a virtuoso pianist and performer of the absolute highest TECHNICAL order is what one desires - then classical may be the best option, because there one will find works that will most allow one to express one’s super-virtuoso technique.

But, even then, there may be a way around. If one is a composer or arranger, one could create modern works of virtuosity in any genre.

_

So, the question is: what do you want to be?

If you want to just be a pianist, you don’t need to study classical music to do that. You need to study theory, piano technique, and piano performance, and you can do that in any genre. And, there are many schools, such as Berklee School of Music, that focus on isolating those from Classical and embracing them as fundamentals for modern music. And, in fact, for certain genres of music, you may not even want to listen to classical, as certain genres have methods of playing that would be considered unconventional in classical music.

Moreover, you can even become an advanced pianist…and have never studied classical.

Only if you desire to be a pianist at the peak of virtuosity might you find yourself in a circumstance where classical is your best bet - simply, because the repertoire will allow you to realize that greatest technique and play at that absolute highest TECHNICAL level, in a way no other genre does.

Unless, you’re a composer/arranger, in which you can pioneer new, modern works, that are of equal virtuosity as that of the past.

But there’s, in my opinion, nothing stopping anyone from being an advanced pianist, and yet never having touched classical music. One merely has to find the right teachers.

ShiroKuro Is there any way in which his teaching pedagogy when it comes to technique differs from that of classical piano?

Oscar Peterson is quoted to suggest jazz players learn classical technique first because "technique is technique".

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

My suspicion is that most of the strong students at such a program would have had their technical development during childhood before entering college, and are taught more in the way of theory and ear training in college.

At no point in my post did I infer, suggest, intimate, say, or state that “most difficult/most complex equals best”.

ranjit I would not consider this more difficult than the Gaspard de la Nuit suite, or Mazeppa/Feux Follets from the 1838 Transcendental Etudes, or the Rachmaninoff Second Sonata/Third Concerto, or some of Chopin’s more challenging etudes, etc.

Is this stunningly difficult to play at speed, yes? But, I would not consider it as difficult as the absolute most difficult works in classical music, especially considering how short it is.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of this was improvisation - jazz pianists remembers chords, scales, modes, voicings, and often followed those in their improvisations. Still wildly virtuosic, and stupendously impressive - and played with dexterity most pianists could only dream of - but it’s still improvisation, and so there’s a level of freedom there - mistakes are not mistakes - they become part of the song if the musician is great enough - and Tatum was one in a century.

That’s a bit different from learning a piece note for note and having to replay it back as written with no room for error, especially when the piece is 10 or 20 minutes long, or more.

So, if one’s goal is to be some blinding virtuoso, then classical would probably still be the field to go into, only because it would offer MORE opportunities for blinding virtuosity.

_

That said, this is excellent proof that, as I said in my post, one can be a virtuoso pianist and still NEVER touch the classical repertoire, so long as one focuses on technique, theory, and general performance.

Case in point:

One could study pure theory and technique, and then apply it to works by Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, and Thelonious Monk, be a virtuoso/advanced pianist, and yet have never studied classical.

Taushi I would not consider this more difficult than the Gaspard de la Nuit suite, or Mazeppa/Feux Follets from the 1838 Transcendental Etudes, or the Rachmaninoff Second Sonata/Third Concerto, or some of Chopin’s more challenging etudes, etc.

I would think it is about equally difficult. At tempo, I think it is harder than several listed. In my admittedly amateur opinion, it seems like it's similar in difficulty to Gaspard but the much shorter length and having less kinds of technical difficulties to juggle at the same time make it easier to "perform" it. It is harder than any Chopin etude I can think of (plenty of people play the full set -- I think the Grande Douze etudes by Liszt are a much more apt comparison). I think an actual classical pianist playing it (one who could play Gaspard) would sound abominable and still lack the dexterity for the runs and jumps. Some classical concert pianists have unsuccessfully attempted these works. I think it is similar to Cziffra's transcriptions in that some of the idiosyncratic stuff at the original tempo is "Tatum only".

This was the original question, and I do think it competes.

ranjit @Taushi "#p11892 I can’t think of any that can compete with the very most difficult things in classical (correct me here if there is any).

Here's a video of one of the best current jazz pianists trying to play it. He is 5-10% slower at points and seems to lack some of the dexterity. You can see how hard the RH jumps, chordal passages (from what I can tell there are points with fast ascending blocked seventh chords and the like), LH fast stride (often in tenths) are. Getting the runs clean with an almost portato touch would also be incredibly difficult. This is also slower than the original so it seems a bit easier than it probably is to play it at tempo.

I don't really agree with the idea that in order for something to be hard, it should still be hard at 80% tempo. My experience with playing the newer version of Mazeppa, for instance, was that it fell fairly easily under the fingers at 70-80% tempo. It's that last bit which IS the hard part.

Here's Yuja Wang playing Tea for Two:

vs Art Tatum:

The clarity of runs at that tempo is dazzling. It's not just the feel, his technique is absolutely wild. It's an almost detached touch at an incredibly fast pace which somehow still retains clarity and remains perfectly intelligible. IMO just because someone can technically fumble the arpeggios at a similar speed doesn't mean they've done the piece any justice.

ranjit Well, we’ll have to disagree, because I don’t hear anything in the improvisation that makes it sound more challenging than the works I’ve mentioned. I don’t hear anything in it more challenging than Ondine or Scarbo of Gaspard de La Nuit, or more challenging than Mazeppa or Feux Follets of the Transcendental Etudes, or more challenging than the Rachmaninoff Second Sonata or Third Concerto. And while people do play the full set of the Chopin etudes (typically the most advanced pianists in the world play the entire set, not just selections), the amount who play them well is quite small - and when taken as a whole set, I still think they would be more challenging than this improvisation. The only reason “plenty” of top pianists don’t play this improvisation is because there isn’t real sheet music to it (contrary to attempts to transcribe/notate it that people have posted) - it’s an improvisation. I would also very much disagree about Mazeppa being easy under the hands, and I think most who play the entire piece at tempo would agree.

I also think comparing someone improvising to someone attempting to play back someone else’s improvisation is inherently problematic - one person was playing whatever they wanted to play it while loosely following a melody/progression and thus having a level of freedom to play at superb speeds because whatever they played would be “right” since it’s an improvisation…while the others are attempting to play back exactly what that person improvised note for note. Also, I don’t think that Eldar Djangirov or Yuja Wang are in the same league as Tatum, in terms of this type of playing. Wang is not even a jazz pianist. That doesn’t mean this improvisation is overly difficult - it just means they don’t have his touch and personality. Had Horowitz or Cziffra or a few other pianists who had a similar touch and temperament as Tatum tried their hand at playing back his improvisations, then you might find a similar rendition.

And a few challenging pieces by Tatum does not compare to the repertoire of classical music, which is full of exceptionally challenging works as a standard.

I think it’s really important to not let mythos cloud realistic perception of what we’re hearing.

-

That said, my goal was not to attempt to create some comparison/showdown between classical and jazz, Tatum and classical pianists, or the Tiger Rag transcription and the works I mentioned. Unfortunately, some seem to have zeroed in on one sentence in my entire post and taken it as some classical versus jazz call-out, which is simply wasn’t.

My overall ideas were that one does not need classical music to be an advanced pianist or even a virtuoso.

I merely only suggested that one might choose to go with classical if one wished to be consistently associated with the heights of virtuosity because the repertoire is more consistently challenging - that is not to say that there isn’t anything challenging in jazz or that there aren’t some jazz improvisations/transcriptions when - if attempted to be replayed as pieces and given a note-for-note retelling would be exceptionally challenging. Nor does that suggest that Tatum wasn’t one of the best pianists to touch the instrument.