Well some say that Mozart was basically the rock star of his time. If he had been born in the 1980s then he might have been part of the hip hop or rap or heavy metal movement for all we know 
Learning non-classical piano
- Edited
Or he might have become an engineer, or scientist or corporate manager, or school teacher etc etc ...... or ... if born in a poverty stricken place ..... who knows. Nobody knows what he would become.
The point is that I see no reason to get overly wound up over this because we're descending into the nitty-gritty of semantics. Today's pop music is the next generation's classical. For example is Strauss music classical or not? Good for hours of "discussion "...
- Edited
It depends on definition. In general - the 'classical era' pertains to some historical time period - associated with various composers - we know which ones. A general rundown -- just google - 'classical period (music)'. And they say that 'classical' music is scripted music from that era, or music that sounds like from the 'era' even if somebody today composes the style from that era. That 'genre'. I don't reckon it needs to be scripted though. It just needs to 'sound' like it in my opinion.
- Edited
Sophia Yup, I think you just proved the point I was trying to make
Your point was about wound up or something. And I don't think anybody got 'wound up' as such. They just have their opinions, and you have yours.
And - there is more than one 'Strauss'. Which Strauss were you referring to?
But regarding definitions ... you could have different kinds categories of 'classical music' - under the 'classical music' umbrella. But on the other hand - if you want to stick with the system, which already is working -- as in 'classical', 'pop', 'jazz' etc, then could just stick with it for a while. And of course - semantics can be involved - or grey areas, which happens in life as we know -- such as popular classical music of the classical era is considered as 'pop' for that period too.
- Edited
Taushi Also, I don’t think that Eldar Djangirov or Yuja Wang are in the same league as Tatum
It's true actually. Art Tatum is in his own amazing 'league'. Those other two cannot 'touch' him when he is in his element. And vice versa of course. Also - it's the same between you and I. And also between you and each person here. Same deal.
- Edited
JohnCW The thoughts of someone with real authority on this subject, Jools Holland. Jools could fluently play the piano before he could sight read, and has never played classical piano, He was making a living from it at school age. Of particular relevance to some of the themes of this thread is his comment in the video that good music is a mix of emotion and technique, the player requiring enough technique to perform the piece, but technique beyond that often "just gets in the way".
I found the video, while not short, thoroughly worth watching
Great post. I think this offers some good insight. I don't agree with everything he said (you can never have too much technique, in my opinion, so long as you have the creativity to know what to do with it), but the SUBSTANCE Of what he said rings true to me. And I agree on the sentiment that, again, classical music isn't needed to become an advanced pianist or even a virtuoso.
I think one of the reasons people have such a hard time divorcing piano excellence from classical music is because, for so long, the two have been tandem. Dare I say, the piano was the first "new" instrument built specifically for what we now generally consider "Classical" music - invented and developed in the 1700s during the Gallant, Rococo, and Viennese Classical/Classical proper periods, perfected during the Romantic and Late Romantic eras, finalized in the Impressionistic era.
And it's with this instrument and during these eras that keyboard technique reached it's zenith. And I maintain there's
no other genre where advanced keyboard virtuosity is the standard, and with vaunted amounts of repertoire to support it, like as with Classical music.
So that sealed the concept of piano excellence to classical music.
And then, of course, even with the advent of genres like jazz, where there was the presence of virtuosity - both technical and harmonic - was similar or equivalent to the Classical genre, there were, unfortunately, social, cultural, nationalistic, classist, elitist, and/or Ivory-tower ideologies that exhorted that Classical still be seen as the "superior" art form - the "one, true Art".
And, so the "conventional wisdom" - really rote ideological repetition - has always held that classical music is a necessary component to become a great pianist. But it simply isn't true. Demonstrably so.
When Art Tatum was introduced to the conversation earlier, things somewhat got lost in the weeds on semantics and comparisons- but I thought his introduction to the conversation was, most importantly, a superb support to the idea that advanced pianism is capable, sans classical training. Art Tatum - a jazz pianist who never studied classical and yet who was able to play with the same level of brilliance and éclat as his classical contemporaries - proves that case. And there were many other jazz pianists, modern pianists, and avant-garde pianists of similar ability who achieved superb musicality and technique but never studied classical.
And if the methods continue changing, as they are, we'll see more and more of this.
_
There's also logical support to the idea.
We just toss all these music from the 1600s to the early 1900s together under the completely-minimizing and ill-informed brute-force generalization term "Classical", because it's easier to parse things that way. But the reality is, the "Baroque" people saw the "Gallant/Rococo" people as something new, alien, unusual, and frankly wrong. And then those people felt the same way about the "Classical proper" people. And the Classical people felt the same way about the Romantics. And the Romantics felt the same way about the Impressionists, and so on. We're able to group it all together in 200 years hindsight, because our ears, harmonic language, and mind have been programmed to all as chronological artistic evolution. But, at the time, all of these were considered distinct, separate, eras of music. And yet, the fundamentals worked for each distinct genre/style/era.
Also, keyboard technique didn't start with the piano or classical proper. It started with the organ and harpsichord and clavichord. It was adapted to the piano which had the same seven-plus-five layout, but there were still minor adjustments that had to be made because the piano plays and responds differently than the previous keyboard instruments. And yet keyboard technique adapted through these distinct instruments.
So we already see, even in what we now unfairly generalize as "Classical", how keyboard technique & performance was constantly adapting and developing, and not married to any particular instrument or any particular style, as Gallant was different from Baroque and Classical was different from Gallant/Rococo, and Romantic was different from those, and so forth.
Added to those facts, during the Romantic era, we saw keyboard technique truly standardized and divorced from the music of any particular style. Again, Liszt began working on the fundamentals as pure drills to develop piano technique, and it took him further than anything he'd done before that. He began working on a series of exercises, ultimately published much later and rather poorly (with some contention) by his pupil. However, Liszt's work spurred on Hanon (whose exercises become the greatest purely technical development tool), and later Isidor Philipp continued the method of divorcing pure piano technique from any genre. And I don't consider the Hanon or the Liszt exercises to be classical music - it's not music at all - it's pure isolated technique drills following the scales. Same can be said of the Philipp, which follow a particular harmonic/chordal progression.
Sheet music notation and learning to read it is another standardized system, divorced from any particular genre/era.
And, music theory itself is yet another standardized system, also divorced from any particular genre/era.
So, now, there exists very standardized methods by which to achieve advanced pianism, without ever studying any particular classical. A simple method could be:
- Teach a student basic fundamental theory - scales, note values, keys, keyboard layout, time signatures
- Teach a student to read sheet music
- Use Hanon (and perhaps Liszt and Philipp exercise also) to build technique.
- After basic fundamental theory, select pieces from various genres - jazz, 20th Century/21st Century, pop music, movie music, standards, avant garde, solo piano, new age, etc. Use the skills to learn the pieces.
- As technical, theory, and musical abilities progress, continue through the Hanon (Liszt/Philipp) through the increasingly technically challenging exercises. In each collection, the exercises get more and more difficult, and by the end of the book, the requirements are virtuosic. These exercises can built the advanced/virtuoso technique.
- Develop the musical side of things by increasing the repertoire consumed, to ever more challenging, imaginative, and creative repertoire.
- Repeat at higher levels
Through a method like this, one never has to ever actually play classical music, and yet can still become an advanced and even virtuoso pianist.
And that's to say nothing of what might be possible for those musicians with natural aptitude (like the aforementioned Art Tatum), who never even had to do all that to achieve highest advanced levels.
Thus, I think it's very possible (having already been demonstrated by numerous successful advanced non-classical pianists) to become an advanced and even virtuoso pianist, and yet never touch the classical repertoire. And, with more schools and conservatories embracing modern music, and applying the pure fundamentals without restricting students to pure "Classical", we're seeing it more and more.
- Edited
Taushi Teach a student basic fundamental theory - scales, note values, keys, keyboard layout, time signatures
Teach a student to read sheet music
Plus listening exercises, and listening to pitch sequences and translating it to keyboard exercises (developing hearing and music memory), and also intervals/hearing training, and some pedal exercises, and finger sequencing problem-solving exercises, and chord work (how it 'fits' with melodies, and how to select/detect/determine workable chords). With some composition theory to come at some stage later as well.
As for the original post at the start of this thread ... regarding the person hypothetically wanting to have piano lessons purely for some other genre ..... eg. pop etc. People most likely assume that lessons will all involve beginning studies and playing of 'classical music'. And that probably is the norm ..... traditional.
So the person just needs to communicate with teachers, which might involve the teacher customising the course to suit. Or the teacher may know other teachers that suits the request, or meets the request nicely etc.
And of course ... if they can't find anybody ... then use online tutorials until there is (if any) a time where a workable solution is gained.
The original question was can someone learn to PLAY the piano without going down the 'classical' route. By "play" I take that to mean achieve a solid intermediate level. The answer to that straightforward question is an indisputable yes.
Somewhere along the line the issue became can someone become a piano virtuoso. With some of the suggestions I've read, spending hours practicing exercises etc. reckon most people won't even reach the play level, giving it all away in boredom.
Sydney Australia
Retired part-time piano technician
- Edited
JohnCW The answer to that straightforward question is an indisputable yes.
It indeed is not disputable. The straight forward answer is yes.
Even if somebody does become a virtuoso, it doesn't necessarily mean they have achieved and learned everything 'they' wanted in music, composition, etc.
For example ... they may be hoping to have wanted selected skills of composing or the thinking or feeling or life experience of others, which they haven't been able to acquire ... because everyone is different ... thought processes, brain wiring and processes, physique, environment etc -- all leading to different potentials, even when a group of people from the same baby age were put on the same program -- all will be potentially excellent in their ways, but with differences. Some might not be able to do what the other does ----- because of the mental, physique etc etc differences.
So ... appreciating the variety is just great.
JohnCW piano virtuoso.
If virtuosos are happy with where they are at, then that's excellent. That is good.
And also, I reckon that - as long as piano playing folks are enjoying the (cliche again) 'journey' of piano and music, then that is good. And even if they don't enjoy it - then sure - everybody is different - and it's not compulsory to learn music or play pianos or other musical instruments in the first place. Although - we do know that many kids etc got forced into it, or at least some country or countries were 'encouraging' it - with incentives etc -- in the past that is.
Just because we play music instruments and reached some level - it doesn't mean we're better than anybody that does not play any music instrument or reached any level. Not that anybody said that - but - just mentioning - just in case.
Especially keeping in mind the comment made earlier somewhere - about some under-privileged people living in some parts of the world without enough assistance etc (money etc) - having huge hidden potential, where they could run rings around all of us combined together (in music, piano and other areas) if they are fortunate enough to have the same financial etc opportunities as us.
I introduced the advanced/virtuoso element to the conversation because I emphatically believe that one can not only learn to "play" the piano without going the classical route, but that one could learn to play at the highest levels. I don't think "intermediate" level has to be the final stop - I think one can go all the way through. That said, introducing the "advanced/virtuoso" level to the conversation was not a dismissal of the original scope of the conversation. It was meant to be an emphatic agreement, and an encouraging addendum. If one wishes to learn only to the intermediate level and stop there - that's valid, too. There are many styles and genres where an overabundance of technique may not necessarily be necessary. My only suggestion was that I don't think the scope of the conversation went far enough - and that, indeed, we have both A.) demonstrable examples and B.) proven methodology by which someone can achieve advanced playing and even virtuosity without ever having studied classical.
That said, exercises aren't the only way. Again, we can look at someone like Tatum, who I thought was a wonderful addition to the conversation. No, he didn't spend hours practicing formal exercises, but he DID spend hours playing each day, and he got his practice and honed his abilities through that method. He spent hours at home playing along to piano roll recordings, emulating what he was hearing - and in some cases emulating piano roll recordings that had actually been made by two pianists instead of one - that is a form of exercise. In much the same way the great singers of 20th Century popular music didn't study at conservatories via doing formal exercises, but rather developed their skills in church or in the nightclub, or at home in front of the radio - hours of practice weekly still went in to the development of the skill.
Also, I think that if someone wished to pursue advanced/virtuoso playing, they wouldn't get bored from the work of it. People who have, not merely the desire, but the passion to pursue excellence know that there's work involved. And it's hard work. And it sucks. Whether it's the classical students who spends hours at conservatory going through Hanon, or the people like Tatum who spent hours in the club practicing-through-playing, excellence requires hard work. But they push through, because the achievement - when their abilities begin to develop and progress - is it's own reward, and the overall accomplishment of the level they want to reach is the highest reward.
Hi TC3
Well I've been lurking here for a while and finally here's my first post.
I'm an example of someone who after an initial short (maybe 6 lessons) classical period as a child went down the non-classical route for the next 20+ years. And now another 30 years later I'm doing both (again).
To answer the initial question directly, as I think most others have said, no you don't need to study classical to play non-classical. Though I obviously haven't read the whole thread - 199 posts! I think there are benefits to learning to play scales etc. Good technique is good technique whatever you play. If you're trying to do a flashy run in a Jazz piece if you haven't learnt the 'thumb under' technique the run is going to have gaps in it.
I think classical technique has helped my non-classical playing, but there are elements in non-classical that studying classical won't give you. The most obvious thing being that you can't play in a Pop/Rock/Blues/Jazz band and be reliant on sheet music. In all the various amateur bands I've played In (about 15 over 40+ years) nobody I played with used a fully notated score.
I'm not a great improviser, but I rarely play the same thing exactly the same way each time, and in fact I'd find it horribly restricting to have to play things as written out, in exactly the same way in non-classical context. That's why I've played non-classical more than classical, as there is a freedom to change a chord voicing, inversion, fill or rhythmic device on the spur of the moment that gives me a thrill I don't get with classical music.
I'm not saying non-classical is better, it's not, it's different. In fact on a technical level the fact that I've been able to play in lots of bands over the decades but have done virtually nothing in terms of classical recitals (I've played at my teachers last year and this year) says to me that refining a good classical technique is much more difficult that being able to hammer out a rock song on the Piano.
Anyway enough of my rambling, just a few thoughts of mine.
Somehow I missed that Jools Holland interview. Thank you for sharing. I just watched it from start to finish.
Cheers
Simon
All round average Jazz, Blues & Rock player.
Currently working towards ABRSM grade 8.
So, TC3.... 12 days and 200 posts later....
Did you get all that? All set? Good to go?
- Edited
It's ok. Reading this post here pretty much sums it up for everything.
Taushi I don't think "intermediate" level has to be the final stop
And -- nobody said that that 'intermediate' level 'needs' (or needed) to be the 'final stop'.
It was you that 'assumed' it.
And 'level' is actually something you can't really lay a finger on in piano plus music --- because the abilities extends in various different directions in the music/piano 'space', and people are born with different 'potentials' -- which is hard to put a finger on too - as we can't measure it or know it. Everyone is 'different' - and they have different life 'opportunities' and environments, brain wiring, physiques etc. And once again - not everyone is 'obsessed' with needing 'others' to reach 'highest levels' in piano plus music. Anyone that wants to learn and play etc --- they can read etc for themselves, and go their own path.
- Edited
Whenever Ive looked into the history of recognised greats of their instrument of choice I've noticed most offen some recurring themes. The first is coming from a musical family, with often both parents reasonabley accomplished musicians. The second is being recognised as something special even before mid teenage years.
And yes they go onto a life of dedication to their art. To me this raises the question of are they special because of that early environment or because of genetics? Personally I believe it's genetics. I believe people are capable of achieving anything they set their mind on, with one exception. And that is the Arts. You either have it or you don't. Yes you can achieve a certain level of proficiency if you work at it, but for the majority there is a ceiling that no matter how hard you work at it it's not possible to reach the level of greatness that sets that small number of individuals apart.
This thought is not to discourage anyone, the exact opposite. Be realistic in your goals and enjoy the journey.
Sydney Australia
Retired part-time piano technician
- Edited
@"Taushi"#p12243
I'm just balancing. So that it's not one-sided. Balancing - different perspectives/opinions.
@"Taushi"#p12243 Also, it’s very easy to find someone’s level from listening to them. When one actually has expertise, has studied piano properly for years, and actually put in the work, one is capable of delineating in that way.
You won't know somebody's actual potential. You can't know it unless you have some sort of future DNA and full physiology etc probing technology, plus other 'advanced' knowledge that we currently don't have.
And 'level' is impossible to gauge overall ... for those reasons previously mentioned.
JohnCW but for the majority there is a ceiling that no matter how hard you work at it it's not possible to reach the level of greatness that sets that small number of individuals apart.
True. And each person is different. So everybody has their own path or potential paths in life.