Learning non-classical piano

TC3 · 2024-07-04T01:05:45+00:00

Over years of lurking at various discussion forums, I've seen many variations of the following exchange: Q: "I want to learn piano, but not classical piano....

diretonic

TC3 Do people think that classical piano is truly a pre-requisite for learning non-classical styles? Or is it just that there isn't sufficient non-classical piano pedagogy out there, and it's just easier to say "learn classical first”?

Good question, difficult to answer in the general given that non-classical fans out into 101 different categories. I’m thinking here of one of my early idols, Oscar Peterson, who I seriously doubt would have played as he does without some serious classical training, (although about his alleged mentor, Art Tatum, I’m not so sure - mythology broadens with age).
And by very sharp contrast, a pianist who I latterly had much more time for than Peterson; Mac Rebbenack (aka more famously, Dr. John) who I suspect would have had little time for the wrist-slapping doctrinaire approach. There’s something remarkable about his playing I can’t pin down; his ’touch’ is like no other. It’s thick, dense, heavy and by far my favourite of the New Orleans bunch and I would defy any classical virtuso to come within an inch of mimicking him (though I grant they probably wouldn’t want to!).
From what I’ve read he started on guitar, lost a finger via a stray bullet (only in the US!?) switched to piano and got it together by messing around the keyboard.

PianoMonk

Sophia You might blame the sheet music, too, since a lot of sheet music is crap, renditions of tunes that are over simplified, and many books of music have wrong notes, wrong chords, and lack the necessary nuances to accurately represent the version of the song the player is expecting to hear. So, if your mom played exactly what was written in a book that was sloppily produced, what else could you expect.

By the same token, many written versions of tunes simply provide the basics, chords and melody, and, in the case of some standards or jazz tunes, might have the notation written "straight", meaning even eighth notes, and the "swing feel" has to be interpreted by the player, playing a sixteenth and a dotted eighth, to get the proper feel. If the player isn't accustomed to taking such liberties with sheet music, the tune will sound rather stiff.

Sophia

PianoMonk If the player isn't accustomed to taking such liberties with sheet music, the tune will sound rather stiff.

Right, I'm pretty sure that's what happened. She played what was written I'm sure, but it sounded all wrong all the same. She just didn't have the feel for it to make it sound any better. We never repeated the experiment which was definitely the better option for both of us 😂

thepianoplayer416

PianoMonk
Simplified versions of scores exist for several reasons. A beginner or lower intermediate player can get into playing a piece arranged for "easy piano". The simple lead sheet usually don't represent the way a Pop song is performed. It's intended to be a shorthand version for experienced performers to improvise around.

People who focus mainly on Classical music would want piano sheet music to represent more accurately a Pop song as performed. The simplified version is supposed to be a rough guide to work with. To make the piece more interesting you'd embellish it as you go.

Have to admit scores we download often have mistakes. A few years ago downloaded a piece by Haydn off IMSLP. Haven't tried learning it until recently. Found at least 5 mistakes in the score that are obvious.

PianoMonk

Sophia So much of music is "the feel", the unwritten part. If you are presented with a set of chords to play and provided with drummers to accompany you, one bashing a back beat and the other with a light stick on a ride cymbal, you will undoubtedly alter your approach to fit.

Three women pianists - Diana Krall, Eliane Alias and Sangah Noona. To me, Diana is a singer who also plays piano, and carries the feel from her vocal ability. Eliane Alias is a pianist who also sings, and the best pianist of the three, digging deep into the tonality and emotion of everything she plays. Sangah Noona might play some of the same songs, gets around the keys in a flashy way, but is completely void of the feel for the tunes.

Ithaca

SouthPark
Tommaso Zillio was a hoot; thanks for posting the link. I don't know that I agree with all his points, but his comment about language being a type of music has me thinking....

SouthPark

Ithaca Tommaso Zillio was a hoot; thanks for posting the link. I don't know that I agree with all his points, but his comment about language being a type of music has me thinking....

Most welcome ithaca. Thanks for your post. The way I see language is - having defined code words/symbols with meanings -- including instructions, yes/no, and all the various rules for asking questions in order to have 'proper' replies/response/actions/instructions, which is understood and applied by at least a couple of people, or machines etc. Much more can be added to this of course.

As for music ... absolutely ... codewords for doing the above is certainly possible to do. But it looks like there is no agreed upon convention at the moment for using 'music' in that particular way for information/data etc exchange between people etc.

I think of it as ... communications where both sides understand each other in a conversation ..... with an 'adequate' set of rules for having a coherent conversation ... and that example of being able to get the receiving side to order a pizza (for example, among countless other examples) is a good one.

Definition of symbols and conventionalising ... and having coherent conversations, and having an adequate set of sequences for the conversation/information exchange ... are some key aspects of language. And I'm talking about music instrument music without lyrics, and without spoken words.

Music (regular instrument - not human speech) without spoken words is obviously expression ... artistic expression. It's not ... or not yet a language unless a convention is agreed upon and demonstrated by people ... demonstrating those particular features associated with language.

Ithaca

JohnCW Ah, thanks for explaining. I totally agree that non-classical piano doesn't just mean chords on the left, melody on the right. I was just under the impression that for jazz, students are often started this way (left hand chords, right hand melody) for an extended period of time, which doesn't help build equality between the hands. (The more this discussion goes on, the more I wonder if what I think is really important is developing the left hand to a similar level as the right.)

Ithaca

ShiroKuro IOW if you do a bunch of crossword puzzles, you’re going to get better at doing crossword puzzles, but not necessarily at other cognitive tasks. So if you want to improve your memory (say, because you’re getting old and forgetful) then you should do memory improvement activities rather than play crossword puzzles or other brain games.

Note to self: I should stop playing the NYT games, and try other ways to remember where I last left the keys. 🤣🤣

Ithaca

ShiroKuro There are all different kinds of learners, so there is never going to be a “one size fits all” approach, and maybe that’s what I hear, and what’s making me resist your ( @Ithaca ) focus on classical training as the best starting point.

I'm beginning to wonder if the way I was trained maybe wasn't that classical after all. (It was definitely not one-size-fits-all; my teacher was also teaching sisters who were 1-3 years older than me, and she went about it completely differently for each of them.) Just to be clear - I'm really not wedded to the idea of classical training being the best way to start. There are certain things that I got from it that I think are important to start with - but I definitely can't make the argument that my training was better than that of my non-classical guitar friend. (I didn't know non-classical guitar friend played the piano until recently - somehow 4 years went by w/o him mentioning it - and then he said his retirement dream was to learn to play Bach on the Steinway L that he's inheriting from his aunt.)

Ithaca

JohnCW Now the internet is full of obviously talented classical trained pianists doing covers of popular songs, clearly it is financially rewarding. They are no doubt highly talented, but most don't really impress, because they still have that 'Spanish accent' in their arrangements. Creep by Radiohead is not supposed to sound 'classical' like.

In the same vein - this morning I was at the final concert for a week-long intensive w/the local Suzuki institute. It was all classical, except for one kid who had decided to play a blues piece. A measure in and I was wincing - his teachers had never given him a real feel for what blues sounds like, I think. He did his best, but...yeesh.

JohnCW

Ithaca I think it's why I like my favourite popular covers player so much. She has no classical background so each of her arrangements are true to the spirit of the original without fills that are more at home in a classical piece of music.
I see the same with jazz players doing popular covers. The spirit of the piece can get overwhelmed by complexity. There is just as much musical beauty in an appropriate silence as filling every moment with scale runs.

Sophia

I also think it's important to realize that the first year or so, basically all method books start the same way. There is only so much you can do when you are a real beginner.

Unless someone really wants to bypass all convention (for example that falling block method), we all start with Mary Had a Little Lamb and 5 finger position in C.

What is commonly referred to as classical training doesn't start until much, much later.

For example, I consider myself very much in musical kindergarten still.

TC3

Sophia Yep! At the beginning, piano is just piano. And all technique -- however we define that -- can be applied to any genre or style, it's really just a matter of frequency and emphasis.

SouthPark

Possibly what is missing is just statements about what somebody wants to generally achieve or work towards ... if possible. So when they rock up to lessons for the first time ... or at some stage during the lessons, the teacher or student initiates a conversation about what the student would ultimately like to try to do. What skills etc.

Eg. sight read? Play the piano with mind notes/melody/patterns translating directly or almost directly/immediately to the keys in real time or near real time. Play 'classical' music very well and remember heaps of it, and play it reliably and accurately, listening and playing skills, composing skills, genre skills ..... or any mix of these components.

Because the regular/traditional lessons might not have accommodated all that, it probably has led to the various different directions from the many different people ... which is interesting. It's kind of nice to have the variety of piano players and variety of music that we see today.

Maybe the 'online' lessons etc are catering more to the desired aim of piano playing students these days. I don't know how those sites work though.

Pallas

JohnCW My pet peeve is when folks make reharmonized arrangements of popular songs. I rarely like the result. Give me the "boring" original harmony any day. 😝 But I do very much enjoy classical arrangements of lots of music. There are two classical pianists who have made arrangements of Radiohead songs that are bliss for me. I dig and dig trying to find classical piano arrangements of pop music. I actually love how each musician can find their audience. Wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same stuff? So many interesting and different musicians would not find an audience.

HeartKeys

JohnCW true to the spirit of the original without fills that are more at home in a classical piece of music

[I'm getting off-topic here, but...]

In contrast to that, I've recently felt Lang Lang's rendition of some Disney songs [I recently listened to them out of curiosity, not because I like Disney songs] are very... vomitable.

My niche (not saying I'm incredible, but definitely fairly good at) is doing covers, as I play by ear and have no classical background. And I like my own versions more, of non-classical performances than his. Not referring to technique, dexterity, but moreso the artistry choice (I'm not sure if he himself transcribes those, but they sound very cheesy).

His tendency, whether or not intentional, seems to be to put as many arpeggios, rubatos, ad nauseam, for genres that are not intended as such. I won't be shocked if one day he tries to do major scales galore for a song like... Lorde- Royals 🙂

[Disclaimer-- I love lots of Lang Lang's performance, namely while at his pinnacle of career. And I abhor some of his more recent performances. So no intent here to hate on him so to speak]

SouthPark

JohnCW There is just as much musical beauty in an appropriate silence as filling every moment with scale runs.

Exactly. A 'well thought-out' (eg. refined, evolved, iterated) piece of music is probably the ultimate level of music. In situ (semi-impro and full impro) is highly enjoyable too, very interesting and also excellent. But refined - through planning, evolving, with adequate forethought, working and re-working etc - is probably the ultimate. And through history - as we know it - there is certainly a lot of very well through-out, planned, refined music. Although - well thought-out/planned/constructed/refined etc is subjective, or we just know everybody has their own tastes/preferences etc - just like food and their other 'tastes' (eg. art, tv, movies, people, interests etc).

So in the end - it just comes down to each person appreciating what there is available out there. Or otherwise - if possible - a case of roll-our-own. But hypothetical roll-our-own only -- because, as Yul Brynner did warn everybody - whatever you do, don't smoke. That's what he said anyway. Whatever you do. And what's not to love about Yul Brynner and his piano skills.

Yul Brynner Piano Skills

With piano - even though I mentioned the word 'ultimate' and it's based on my opinion --- I can and will also even say that ultimate and special is simply to hop onto any piano - regardless of 'level' and regardless of what piano - and just getting in there to play and learn and develop and enjoy the (I know it's cliche) 'ride/journey'. And keep going.

This other vid here below is a good one - for glimpses of what can be achieved by some in terms of playing piano 'in their way' --- and obviously these people have certain special extra features such as absolute/perfect pitch. But does at least provide a point of reference.

REFERENCE

ranjit

HeartKeys In contrast to that, I've recently felt Lang Lang's rendition of some Disney songs [I recently listened to them out of curiosity, not because I like Disney songs] are very... vomitable.

I feel like certain pianists are either very narrow, or they don't have that much real musicality which becomes apparent when they have to play something simple they aren't really familiar with.

The technical ability to produce all sorts of different colors and touches and moods does kind of generalize, and needs to be worked on. It doesn't just happen on a whim or out of thin air. There are a few pianists who seem to be able to understand many different kinds of music and really do them justice -- Zimerman comes to mind, to some degree.

But, classical training combined with excellent sensitivity for a style is what seems to produce the best performers in that style.

This performance comes to mind. I just don't see someone without classical training pull this kind of thing off.

PianoMonk

HeartKeys I don't care for Lang Lang. But as a performer he is also "in the business". So, maybe his agent worked the Disney deal, because it will make money, and Lang sat down and played. Show business is funny stuff on the surface, and even funnier, or weird, bizarre even, behind the scenes.

JohnCW

ranjit To each is own, I actually didn't at all like the Harry Potter performance. Vastly overplayed and like motorcars "the speed that thrill (some) is the speed that kills".

SouthPark

ranjit This performance comes to mind. I just don't see someone without classical training pull this kind of thing off.

Just adding the vid here --- LINK - Harry Potter
And I know what they mean --- as in - when somebody turns the piece into fast finger exercises (eg. scales and things like that), and getting away from 'the music', then ... yep. I know what they mean.

Bellyman

ranjit I just don't see someone without classical training pull this kind of thing off.

Generally correct, with very few exceptions. Outliers might include the likes of Art Tatum or Errol Garner, both of which were amazing players with little classical training.

PianoMonk

thepianoplayer416 My point, exactly.

« Previous Page Next Page »