........for a concert pianist to learn a new piece of music?

I've often wondered how long it takes an accomplished concert pianist to learn a new piece of music to the point where he/she can play through it relatively smoothly (i.e. how long to simply "get the notes right").

For example, I've been working on Liszt's Liebestraum No. 3 for a couple of weeks now (only have about 1-2 hrs of free time to play about 4-5 days/week). I can play through the first two pages fairly well at this point, but the rest is still a bit rocky. It will take me at least a couple of months to learn it to the best of my ability (again, practicing 1-2 hrs per day, 4-5 days per week, at the most). This, of course, is not the only piece of music I'm working on right now either.

How long would it take a gifted concert pianist to learn this same piece perhaps not to perfection, but to the point where at least most of the notes would be correct? Hours, days, more, less?

I know this is a silly question without a definite answer, but I don't know any concert pianists personally so I've never been able to ask this question.

A friend of mine, a concert pianist graduated from Moscow Conservatory and Juilliard. He won several International competitions. He can sight play Beethoven Pathetique, and play at pretty up to the speed. Of course, he had heard that piece many times, but has never studied that piece.

But he told me that it took him 15 years to master Chopin Etude Op.10 No.2.

For Liebestraum, I really believe he can master that piece within a day.

Ahhh, wouldn't that be nice.

It's nice and ridiculous.

Brent, I'm curious if there's a reason for describing your own experience with this piece, and how that relates to the question you asked. Are you really just seeking speculation about the learning curve for concert pianists, or are you looking for observations about your own progress as well?

Steven

I watched a man learn (up to a standard that I would be most happy and grateful to play in concert) the most difficult three lines or so of the last Etude-tableau of Rachmaninoff. It took him well under ten minutes.

Learning longer works and remembering them completely, takes quite different skills from learning three lines though.

I think that the speed to learn pieces would vary for concert level pianists but in general they would learn works far more quickly than lower level pianists.

Just one example I've mentioned a few times before. At an Irina Morozova master class the student played a complex piece by Szymanowski(much, much harder than Liebestraum). Morozova followed the score and said she had never heard the piece before but liked it very much. She said she had played other works by Szymanowski.

Then when the lesson part of the class began, Morozova played entire pages of the piece at sight to illustrate the musical points she was making.

I have little doubt that most pianists of the level that teach at good conservatories or concertize regularly could learn a piece like Liebestraum from a technical standpoint and to a fairly high musical level in a 5-6 hour day.

It would be interesting to hear about this from PW members who concertize regularly or who have taken lessons from the type of pianists I have described above.

I think overall difficulty and scale plays a role; the pieces we amateurs might take on as a larger project — e.g. a Chopin nocturne or perhaps an étude — are the accomplished concert pianist's bread-and-butter. I would venture to guess that working a large Romantic piano concerto up to performance standard would take some time even for a virtuoso.

[edit] That's not to say there weren't some freak talents who can sight read the most difficult music, or even play something after having only heard it (attributed to Hoffman, IIRC).

Ha, good question. Actually, no, I wasn't looking for comments on my own progress, but in re-reading my original post, i see why you asked the question.

I guess I'm not really sure why I gave my own example. Perhaps because it was while practicing the Liebestraum last night that I was thinking about this particular topic.

Thanks for your input.

When gifted sightreaders play through Szymanowski (or even pieces on the level of Liebestraum) a few times, or even for a few hours, are they learning the music?

If they are, that's inconsistent with the idea that learning takes place overnight (or at least between practice sessions) because it takes time for the brain to consolidate and assimilate new information (i.e., "post-practice syndrome" or whatever terms it's known by).

If this is a central precept of the human learning process (and I'm not saying it is; for all I know, it's just a theory), are "experts" exempt from it? Or is what passes for "learning" really just very high-level reading?

What does "learning" mean, anyway?

Steven

Good points! I like the way you think

Liszt played one of his pieces to a group of musicians, and afterwards someone pushed Bizet up to the piano, and he played it back for Liszt. Abilities vary.

Along with reference to Steven's post, I have two answers to your initial question :

1. It depends.

2. How long is a piece of string?

Regards,

double

I basically already explained I was using "learn" to mean playing the piece technically well and musically at a good level(both by professional standards). There is not much point in debating the definition of every verb or adverb that can be quantified...you yourself used "learning, consolidate, assimilate, pass" in your post. But it would seem silly if I asked you meant by each of those words.

Because of their general technical skill, musical knowledge, sigthreading skill, experience etc., I think your idea of overnight learning being necessary for Liebestraum would be like someone saying you needed overnight learning to master Mary Had a Little Lamb.

Also, this thread is about the amount of time needed to learn a piece. Whether it's 6 hours during one day or 3 hours for two days is not the point.

As an amateur I like the long process of getting to know a piece. If I could just sight-read everything perfectly I would probably take up another instrument.

Ones nightmare is another's dream...

Apparently we have very different ideas of whether clarification about "learning" is appropriate, and very different understandings of what this discussion is about. You write as though you started this thread and your definition of learning should be taken for granted, but I wasn't responding to your comments except to the extent that you happened to mention Szymanowski.

To me, learning implies acquisition of muscle memory. I think that that process of acquisition differs greatly depending on whether one spreads six hours of practice out over six days or crams it into one single session.

The OP liked the points I raised, and said he likes the way I think. Perhaps you should work on containing your own feelings about the way I think, and let the OP speak for what this thread is about. If, on the other hand, you want to let your attitude threaten to turn this into yet another unseemly brawl, declare your intentions and I'll alert Ken Knapp and BB Player right now.

Steven

whoa, easy now. let's stick to the light-hearted discussion if possible

The definition of learning aside, I think that one should not necessarily approach the subject in a binary either/or format. If Irina M can learn a piece in 5-6 hours up to a decent technical and musical level today, I bet she would play it even better tomorrow, after the -may be theoretical but empirically noticeable by many pianists- overnight effect.

You responded to my post where I implied what learning meant to me. I explained it again in my next post. I didn't wirte as though my definition for learning should be taken for granted, but I did say (and gave reasons unanswered by you) that I thought the being concerned about the definition of learning was not really important.

If the OP likes the way you think, this means I have to agree??

I gave two reasons why I thought "overnite learning" was not relevant(and that's assuming it's even a valid concept).

The OP's original post certainly didn't mention overnite learning. All he said was "How long does it take?"

You use the smiley in a sarcastic way and then threaten me and accuse me of being unseemly because I disagree with you?

plover, sotto.......

I think you're both talking about totally different things and neither of you is wrong.

I really just wanted to know how long it takes for a world-class pianist to achieve technical proficiency on a piece of moderate difficulty such as the Liebestraum.

Sotto.....you just took the question to the next level, which I appreciate.

I like the points that both of you make.

And sotto.....don't abuse the smiley!!!

I don't know about muscle memory, but it isn't all important.

On the other hand, as someone with very rare memory capabilities, from reading a chapter of my textbook once, I can recall almost every important piece of information correctly, and score higher than my peers who study a few times through. It seems different for everyone, but I think that a talented pianist can probably play without muscle memory if necessary.

Brent, you needn't attempt to be a mediator here. Considering that you're new in these parts and probably lack the perspective of longevity and the awareness of members' posting histories, I would advise you that some circumspection is warranted.

Steven

Steven,

With all due respect, thanks for the advice, but I disagree.

I was not trying to mediate. I was simply trying to keep the thread that I started from completely derailing.

Awareness of another member's posting history is irrelevant in this situation.

I will circumspect (I know, not really a verb) where circumspection is due.

Is that a true story?

That kind of genious astonishes me.

Though I'm not sure if it inspires me or makes me feel completely inadequate.....perhaps a bit of both

At a major conservatory, there are many students who could "get the notes right" on a Beethoven sonata within a week. Obviously, abilities vary, and background plays an important role (if you've played a dozen Beethoven sonatas, the next one isn't going to be nearly as difficult as it would be if you hadn't familiarized yourself with his style.)

The same goes for pretty much any composer and any style. I haven't played much Liszt, for example, so if someone asked me to learn Waldesrauchen by next Tuesday, I'd be in trouble. But I have played a fair amount of Prokofiev, so I could probably have a couple movements of the 2nd sonata (which I haven't played) by Tuesday if necessary. (Not memorized, but the notes in the fingers close to tempo at least...)

I also agree that it depends on what you mean by "learned." Since I do a lot of freelance accompanying, I tend to define "learned" as "good enough to be able to support the soloist at tempo and rehearse details of phrasing, articulation, tone, and dynamics." In other words - not polished or mature enough for performance, but playable.

In a sense, it's a bit like sports. You can "learn" basketball well enough to know the rules and play a pick up game at the gym. You can "learn" basketball well enough to join a team, knowing the playbook and how the different players work together. And then there are NBA players who are still "learning" the game - finding the zone in the playoffs and bringing your 'A' game to the court every night.

Defining "learned" is certainly a major obstacle to getting a solid reliable answer.

So is the fact that different great pianists have different strengths. Some are great in this particular area, others in other areas.

But the stories are out there of living, breathing, apparently-non-alien-from-outer-space pianists memorizing (and of course proceeding to play) monstrous amounts of music in very short time frames. It seems unlikely to me that all the various seemingly-incredible stories would ALL be false - though of course that's no guarantee. And if it's been done even once, that would prove that such things are at least possible.

Therefore, in officially hijacking this thread, I declare that the original question has been beaten to death, and propose that somebody take a stab at explaining how any one or more of those incredible feats was done, or else try to prove that somebody cheated or whatever.

And (quite seriously) whether use of drugs or possession of unique mental structures or functions might have anything to do with it.

I'm sure there are pianists who can sightread extremely well, or read and learn amazingly fast... but how do they deal with hard passages with tricky finger works or big chord jumps etc.
For example, even the Rach Prelude 3/2... I can't imagine how anyone could play the final part correctly and at considerable speed without having it totally imprinted in muscle memory...and that is what I don't see happening in a very short time, like in 1 day.

It's hard for me to believe that a person can calculate the square roots of six-digit numbers in his head in a few seconds. And yet I know of people who can do that, and other bizarre feats of arithmetic.

My gut feeling is that what going on inside the head of a person who does that is nothing at all like the process that an ordinary person would follow. The square-root man isn't just doing the same calculation that I would do, but faster -- he is doing something entirely different.

I suspect this is true of at least some of the amazing feats of piano virtuosity I've seen. Many great pianists achieve their skills using processes that most of us would use (if we had the time and stamina) -- long, long hours of study and practice. But some seem not to need much of this, if any. Glenn Gould, apparently, read music before he read words, played at a professional standard by about the age of twelve, and claimed that he `hardly ever practiced'. I suspect that this kind of precocity is as different from `ordinary' pianistic skill as calculating six-digit square roots in your head is from ordinary arithmetic.

Everything is relative. What's tricky finger work or difficult jumps for one person can be very easy for someone else. I think the Rach Prelude is easier than Liebestraum and for me, the chords on the last two pages are neither complicated notewise nor do they require fast jumps(and I am nowhere near the level of a professional pianist being discussed in this thread).

This is not to say learning the Prelude quickly wouldn't seem difficult for you, but just to point out what's difficult for one person can be relatively easy for another. I don't think I could ever play the Szymanowski piece I mentioned in my first post on this thread no matter how long I practiced it, but Morozova played it at sight. But I'm sure there are plenty of pianists who can learn a piece much faster than her also.

A concert pianist once told me the chords in Messiaen's 10th Regard were not so complex. For me they seem incredibly complex and I could never learn this piece no matter how much time I spent, but he was operating from a far different technical level and understanding of harmony than I do.

I remember seeing Ursula Oppens Carnegie Hall debut. She played some extremely difficult contemporary work containing endless horrendous jumps. She played it using the score and her eyes seemed glued on the score. It seemed as if she wasn't even using her peripheral vision at all. I guess for her the jumps weren't really horrendous.

Concert level pianists are working with a different tool bag.