Coming in late hereā¦.
@Ithaca this thread progressed a great deal before I had a chance to come back to it, but your comments about language are interesting. I always think there are a lot of parallels between music and language study, although of course there are other ways in which the two are quite differentā¦
So Iām not sure this is the best comparison, but you mentioned Korean, which makes some distinctions between consonants that Japanese does not. Well, if someone wants to learn Korean, they need to be able to comprehend produce those distinctions, but if they want to learn Japanese, they donāt.
It seems to me that the classical/non-classical distinction may be like that ā IOW why learn some aspect of piano playing if thatās not the kind of playing you want to do. That was basically where my comment was coming from. But I want to emphasize, as a few others here have hinted at, the following: adults have limited time to devote to piano learning, so everything is a trade off. There may be a ābest approachā in terms of ultimate attainment, ultimate piano ability (i.e., which approach will make someone most able to play a range of styles, switch styles, etc.). But that approach may also involve a lot of delayed gratification and include focusing on aspects of music that the learner isnāt interested in.
So IMO the most important question is not what approach is going to make the learner the most all-around good musician, but rather, what approach is going to keep the learner at the piano? Because in the end, if they donāt continue, itās meaningless. So if the learner doesnāt want to play classical, they shouldnāt be told they need to learn classical in order to play the other styles they do want to play.
So for example, when I first started, I very much wanted to be able to sightread well and play music from a score. So I worked hard to develop that skill when I first started, and now, after all these years of playing, it is one of my stronger points. OTOH I really donāt care about being able to improvise. During the pandemic, I took jazz lessons for maybe a year, but what I wanted out of jazz lessons wasnāt exactly the ability to improvise. So there was a bit of a mismatch between my aims and the techniques my teachers were trying to impart.
But I want to get back to the other things you, @Ithaca , mentioned in your post, which I think have more to do with cognitive learning and in particular with adult learningā¦.
I wonder if there's something about classical piano training that opens/keeps open more neural pathways than non-classical piano training, so that if you want the ability to shift to a different style or instrument, it's easier if you started with classical.
This comment has two parts to it ā¦ the first is, what kind of training facilitates learning (which is what youāre talking about regard to neural pathways) and the second is what kind of learning facilities switching styles, and Iām not sure the answer is necessarily going to be the same kind of training. Oh by the way, yes, Iām a linguist, but the my area is not language acquisition, so Iām not up on the latest research in that area.
But there is a ton of research about adult language acquisition, as well as about learning as a cognitive activity and whether or how learning can effectively occur at later and later agesā¦ one particular area of research thatās relative here is the idea that is a ācritical periodā (age) for language learning, after which the learner becomes much less likely to acquire the language to a native-like level. So the idea that you canāt learn a language, or learn the piano, as an adult comes from the idea that thereās an age after which learning becomes much more difficult and the learner is just not going to be able to learn some things. Although the research on this is far from settled, it seems clear that there some learning tasks which are harder for adults than others, and one of them is learning pronunciation. A lot of studies have found that adults can become fluent in a foreign language because very effective communicators, but often retain a foreign accent. There are numerous problems with these studies, however. For one thing, we canāt tell if the problem is that adults canāt learn pronunciation, or if the teaching method is just not right.
Another problem is there are enough outliers that it throws the whole idea of a critical period into question. What I mean is, there are adults who do actually acquire native-like pronunciation in a foreign language. And their very existence means we have to question the utility of the concept of a critical periodā¦
Hang on, Iāve gotten into the weeds hereā¦. Back to your original comment: the kind of training that facilitates learning, and the kind of training that facilitates switching styles. I suspect that while there will be overlap, these are not the same thing. The kind of training that facilitates learning will make use of learning techniques like repetition and spaced repetition and so on, while training geared toward switching styles would need attention to a wider range of concepts. But doing that will take time away from the other activities (esp. because weāre taking about adults here, not full time students with no other responsibilities etc.)
So why spend a lot of effort on preparing for switching styles if the learner does not intend to switch styles?
but if the standards for learning to play non-classical styles ignore technique, then I think that's a solid reason to start with classical.
Lastly, Iām curious as to why you started at this point, because it sounds a bit like a stereotype of non-classical playing, and I donāt think ignoring technique is a necessary component of non-classical study. (Thereās also the problem of how we define technique but I feel like that might be a topic for a different thread). I think the degree of attention to technique is much more dependent upon the teacher (and method) and some teachers do a better job than others of bringing it into instruction effectively.
. . .
@Player1 re this:
If given a choice I'd choose to have a teacher and a classical education begun at a young age because it creates the best and most solid foundation for whatever path the student chooses later in life
This is idea that is mentioned a lot, but I just donāt think itās true. A classical education is focused on reading a musical score and does nothing to prepare you to play from a lead sheet, or improvise around a chord progression. Likewise, playing from a lead sheet and learning how to improves around chords does nothing to prepare you to play from a complex, classical piano score.
BTW I see that @Ithaca mentioned the Suzuki method, which brings up a really good point, and I just donāt know enough about Suzuki to comment effectivelyā¦Except I will say this: 1) itās my understanding that Suzuki trains learners to copy what they hear, and trains them in classical music, so itās not the same as a non-classical method focused on non-classical, chord progressions etc. 2) a common critique of Suzuki is that learners in that method never get comfortable reading the score, because theyāre not trained to.
So (assuming my understandings are correct) this underscores the importance of aligning your training with your ultimate goals.
. . .
Also, this thread now has comments about children and adults mixed in, and I think the circumstances of adults and children are different enough that it might be more helpful to keep the discussion separate.
But my post has gotten quite long (nothing like a leisurely morning with coffee and Piano Tell) so Iāll stop here for nowā¦