Learning non-classical piano

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.

JohnCW

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

So, TC3.... 12 days and 200 posts later....
Did you get all that? All set? Good to go?

TC3 Some pretty deep stuff, eh? Unfortunately all that reading is no substitute for butt on the bench time. And, "B on the B" is something I need more of. So, off I go.

JohnCW I believe people are capable of achieving anything they set their mind on, with one exception. And that is the Arts.

I agree with you, however, respectfully, I'd like to add one other exception: rhythm. I have personally met people who were absolutely "rhythm-deaf", to the point where it was almost baffling how they managed to put each foot in front of the other evenly. And that was not for lack of trying, both on their part and the part of the teacher trying to teach the basics. I'm not even talking about syncopation or other "intricate" patterns. It was simply impossible for them to play a rest at the beginning of a measure, no matter how often it was explained to them that they should not be skipped.

If I hadn't met such people personally, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you... but I just wanted to throw this additional exception in

And also, I realize this is only a side remark that doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand

Hi Sophia

In the late 1980s I replaced a guitarist in a Jazz trio, and the bass player told me that whilst the guitarist was a very good player in many ways, he had a weird rhythmic sense. They had spent quite a few months rehearsing and had failed to get one song completed to a high enough standard to play at a gig.

The guitarist's problem was that he tapped his foot to keep time (as a lot of people do), however he didn't tap the beat (i.e. 4 to the bar or whatever), he tapped the rhythm of the melody. This meant he was forever going out of time with the bass and drums. So whilst he could play clever solos and intricate chord patterns on the guitar, it was all wasted as he couldn't keep time, which is quite a unique handicap in my experience.

So I replaced him on Piano, and whilst I'm not a proper Jazz Pianist and my improvising skills are very limited, I can normally keep time.

Again, sorry, off topic but it shows how different we all are.

Cheers

Indeed the piano accommodates all. It can ... like a lot of instruments be used solo ... or collaboratively ... with other instruments.

The power of music.

I'll present a different perspective on the idea that lots of different instruments can be played solo. Actually I think in practice terms, ONLY the piano can do this, and is the very reason for attracting me to it.
How long can you play drums or bass on your own? A guitarist who sings actually has two instruments going. Yes truely great guitarist like Chet Atkins can play a guitar as a complete instrument. But that level is so high, and beyond the vast majority. This I know from years of trying. The piano and its relative the piano accordion are the only two instruments that I can think of that allow the average person to play solo and sound somewhat complete (for want of a better word). The piano is also the easiest instrument to play a recognised piece of music on, even if it is just a simple single melody. Doubt that, see how long it takes to musically play 'twinkle' on a flute or violin.