Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The most incredible progress you have witnessed in your life

There are so many beginners thinking they can master something like Chopin etudes in 1 year of playing.. I was wondering has anyone actually met someone who was able to do something like that?

Do you guys know anyone that went from a complete beginner to playing very difficult music within 1-2 years of playing? If so 1)what were they playing, 2)how much did they practice, 3)do they have explanation for how they did it?

To me playing chopin in 1 year is like dramatically losing a lot of weight in very short period of time.. it sounds like a myth, and you usually find discrepancies/flaws the people that claim to do it.. and it usually has very negative consequences. I know people who went to very good schools with scholarship&playing professionally right now, but none of them had that kind of talent.

My high school friend went from RCM grade 1 to ARCT in a little more than 11 months. He scored a 74 on the practical exam, which is 4 more points than the passing mark.

Did he first touch a piano at 11 months? or just never went through the RCM process but played for years before?

Chopin's pieces, like any other composer, will vary significantly in difficulty. People claim they can play Chopin but I doubt they mean they can play a ballade or scherzo after a year. Or did you mean an etude?

Rui725,

I was citing the etudes as an example, but I was thinking about difficult pieces in general.. I guess pieces like the Winter Wind Etude, Chopin Ballades, Waldstein Sonata would be considered advance repertoire... the Black Key etude or Fantaise Impormptu are not considered to be the most demanding chopin pieces, but they are not that easy either& it seems very unlikely that someone can play them well in 1 year.


I am curious as to just how fast someone can progress realistically, and whether there are people out there that were able to accomplish what most beginners dream of. For me playing the Bach Invention in your 1st year would be a realistic goal, and there is a huge difference between that and the pieces I mentioned above.

imperfection,

Do you know what pieces he was playing for the exam?

Don't you need to finish grade 10 first before doing your ARCT?

Yup..

I'm not saying that this is impossible; though I highly doubt this is true. Several reasons:
- You need to pass at least FIVE theory examinations. which before RCM even allows you to attempt the ARCT practical examination. Achieving this within 11 months is unlikely, but is possible. (Assuming that his/her friend never took any RCM theoy exams)
- Technical tests is a component of the grade 10 practical examination. It is also many piano candidates' nemesis. It is unlikely for a person who has never touched a piano in his/her life to semi-master these requirements. (Scales, arpeggios (V7, vii7, and 4-note tonic chords), and chords (4 note chords broken, solid, or alternate-note pattern (It is something that RCM invented I believe to accommodate candidates with small hands who can not play the solid 4-note chords) And separated by a 3rd, 6th, 10th scales in some scales. There are speed requirements as well for each discipline.
- You must take the Grade 10 practical examination and achieve 75% overall or 70% in each section, before attempting the ARCT practical exam. This means that his/her friend managed to master 11 repertoire pieces (and 2 studies for grade 10). Not to mention that he/she has to prepare for the ear tests and sight reading.

In conclusion, achieving the ARCT performer's diploma in 11 short months is almost impossible. Unless of course, that he/she has finished all the theory pre-requisites before then, and that he/she has had piano-playing experience for several years before taking RCM examinations.

When I was in college I was told of a teacher (in Portland, OR) who had a student who had gone from zero to 53 (the Waldstein) in 4 years. My teacher had one student who played the Beethoven Op. 78 after four years, not as impressive as Op. 53, but still nothing to sneeze at, unless you're allergic to F#.

It really depends on what is the background of the student before starting to learn piano. I have a student who is preparing to take grade 5 ABRSM this mid-year and she has only started learning piano half year from middle C. HOWEVER, she has already acquired a high grade level in a Chinese instrument. The benefit is obvious when she played the piano, rhythm is accurate and finger dexterity is non-issue. In contrast, students without prior musical knowledge will definitely take a much slower progress.

I think it is possible to take ARCT performance in piano in 11 months if the student's other instrument is a keyboard type. An organist or harpsichordist should be able to do it easily.

And from my own experience, I could play the entire Chopin 3rd Ballade after 2 years of learning piano without prior knowledge. But it would be best not to remember how it sounded . It was a tempting thought of conquering insurmountable difficulties when we are younger, but time will wise us as we grow older.

I actually do. The problem is that I was actually learning things by ear and not reading, so I went astray. Of course it gave me a little preview of what I can do. 1) I was playing really difficult music when I had a year and a half of playing the piano. I learned three Rachmaninoff Preludes: G minor, B flat major, and C sharp minor. The revolutionary etude by Chopin, and also the "Octaves" etude. Then I learned the Heroic Polonaise and a little nocturne. The most difficult thing I learned was the cadenza of the Rach 3 (don't ask me why I only learned the cadenza). By Liszt, the TE No.10, La campanella, and incredibly the Mazeppa.

And because of this, I didn't learn any Beethoven, Mozart, or Haydn.
Well, this was pretty much for 3 years. Learning in a bad way, but I was able to. Now I have around 4 years practicing the piano, and I had to start from zero due to that situation.

2) 4-5 hours a day.
3) I don't know, haha. Talent I suppose. Anyway, it was a waste of talent to learn by ear. Now I have a really good teacher that teaches me the way to do things right.

This guy played Chopin's Minute Waltz after studying for six months.

my teacher was able to play pieces like the jeux de eau and the black key etude after 6 years of playing, and graduated with performance degree in piano. I think he had about 2 years of playing in high school and he was playing Bach invention back then.. He was practicing around 5 hrs a day and he had a good teacher in college. But he did say that those pieces were a little bit out of reach for him back then.

I guess the kind of progress he made would be somewhat realistic. There are so many threads about how someone wants to master the revolutionary etudes, fantasie impromptu in 1-2 years, which is ridiculous.. so It made me wonder whether there is actually anyone was able to accomplish such task.

I did make the same mistake of learning very difficult pieces early on. I remember learning 3rd mvt of Moonlight Soanata, Brahm's rhapsody #1. I remember things being very incosistent..there are parts of the piece I was able to play well, but there were other parts I struggled with no matter how much I practiced, because I didn't developed the technique to play them at performance tempo.

I can only speak for my experience, but people who claim to be able to play big pieces in very short time usually have major flaws/inconsistencies in their playing...and their playing is usually not at a performance-level. And there is usually significant amount of slow-downs on the harder sections.

I had a friend when we were teenagers who learned Prokofiev's Toccata after about a year or so of piano study. But he was already quite advanced on a wind instrument, so, 1.) he knew how to read music, and 2.) was used to long and demanding daily practice.

I think he wanted to prove it was possible, for some reason which I never really understood. And so he did. It was like some kind of mania with him. The funny thing is that he gave up playing piano after doing that.

I find it almost offensive when these relative beginners take on big, difficult pieces so early. Sure, we all find them interesting and impressive. But it is kind of an insult to those of us who have spent many years working up to these pieces.
I guess there is no law against it, but they are doing themselves a disservice, with their time being better spent working their way up the ladder.
The novice risks becoming a "one trick pony" and can play the hard piece (usually not well) and can play little else. Also thereafter, the "easier" pieces are of little interest to them.

Stanza,

I wouldn't be so harsh on them.. after all, they are motivated by desire to learn music, which is better than having no desire/passion at all. And you have to understand that beginners usually don't know just how hard it is to accomplish such a feat. We do live in a society where we see things mostly in short term, and it's hard for some people to understand why certain accomplishments take very long time.

I think ya'll shouldn't be too concerned about "what" is played but "how" it is played.

You're on to something there.

I once attended a recital of a local piano teacher's students (I was in high school at the time, and was invited as the "date" of a friend of one of the students.) Now, I had *just* given the first semi-serious performance of my life - Fantasie Impromptu, Revolutionary Etude, Pathetique Sonata, a Bach Prelude, and one of Ginastera's Danzas Argentinas. Not the most advanced repertoire, and my performance was only average, even speaking charitably, but still. The teenage heart swelled with pride, etc. I was considerably more advanced than any of my own teacher's other students.

Well, I get to this recital, and look at the program, and there I see 2 people playing chopin ballades, someone else playing La Campanella, someone else playing the heroic polonaise, and on and on it went. For about 10 minutes as I waited for proceedings to begin, I earnestly wondered whether I was studying with the wrong teacher, seeing all of these people my own age playing such advanced stuff.

Then the program began.

Not a single performance was adequate. Not a single one would have been permitted to perform the pieces they did if they had been studying with my teacher. It wasn't that there were too many mistakes - though there were - it was that they didn't know their music. Every performance was a wincing, stuttering, awkward affair. In short, every performance sounded like a bad practice session.

I still clench my teeth when I think about it. But why does it make me angry? It's not like they set out to play those pieces with any intent to offend. They were just doing the best they could with some very, very difficult music. Sure, their teacher probably should have enforced a higher standard for public performance, but that's not the students' fault. I feel like I should be above that, but I'm not. I think it's just my own insecurity and the fact that they can say, "Oh, yeah, I played Chopin's Ballade No. 3," when I so desperately wish I could.

Certainly I don't mean to be harsh, but it is why we started reading Dick and Jane instead of Shakespeare. I guess I perceive it as arrogant, sort of implied:

"unlike most, I am special and will go directly to the pinnacle of piano literature right away and I am able to accomplish this through my will and powers of intense concentration..."

It is like the novice golfer that insists on playing from the pro tees, on a tough course, and can't break 120, then asks for some tips on the finer points of the game.

Or, like someone saying, I just got some oil paints and really love the Mona Lisa and I am trying to copy it but can't seem to get it right....

If someone wants to slog through a tough piece for the challenge of it, it is their life, but I don't think it is very much fun.

Let's take Chopin Etudes for example.

One without proper lessons can play one of Chopin Etudes pieces well, 1 year of heck practice.
I think they call that butchering a piece? i guess

So I am wondering, if you have a student who is really ambitious, what's the most realistic goal that you can set for the student without breaking his/her heart? I think the Bach Invention may be doable in 1-2 year and some of the Chopin etudes may be possible if you practice hard for 6 years.

There are so many people who are ambitious enough to take on those big pieces as a beginner.. I was really hoping that there was at least one person in the world who can prove everyone else was wrong...but i guess its like losing a lot of weight in very short time.. most of the time it's a myth, and even if they are able to do it, there are some serious flaws and problems in it.

Some of these "big" pieces have wonderful chords and modulations. Even if you can't play them at the right speed they are still beautiful and if you slow down time in your mind you still feel the mood of the music. I don't see a reason to wait playing them.

But if you are just playing them to say "I can play it" then you're on the wrong track IMHO

+1

I hear people say " Oh yeah, I can play the Waldstein" but when you actually listen to them dismember and desecrate it....well, it's not what I would define as playing.

The OP is clearly discouraged at the slog ... to reach a semblance of piano proficiency ... the grind of 2 hours daily practice over a period of two years is a daunting price to pay ... especially if there is little light in the tunnel to date ... and all because the system of notation does not provide a prima vista read.

Chopin Minute Waltz Opus 64, no. 1 ... by 6-year old ... the aghast takes by the motley should be read in context ... the uncluttered mind of a 6-year old is like blotting paper ... when directed at the highly repetitive Chopin waltz ... would have been a matter of the supportive copying a phrase and repeating until aural and muscle memory took over ... thereby eliminating the need for sight-reading ... but memory has capacity limits ( as we all discover) ... what happens when sight-reading becomes critical to further progress?

Sadly, back to the slog.

if you speak of repetitiveness, then to commit an etude to memory is an even easier task. Fluency in musical notation permits one's ability to learn a piece faster, but the matters of execution are another matter. Technical aspects, I believe, can be grinded and developed before complete fluency in "sight-reading". And I believe most pianist, professional or amateur, have fluent technicality but would not be able to sight read through the Waldstein sonata.

Of all aspects of music production, sight reading is the slowest to develop. Memory does not have capacity limits, maybe for the mere mortal, but savants and genius's out there prove us otherwise.

Back to the 6 year old. It's easy to see that the boy can easily enjoy his time up there, the minute waltz is a up and lively piece, something a child would easily be entertained by, but its not a matter of sight reading when at that early stage in life but a matter of enjoyment and discovery. This point is actually not limited to children and to adults as well. Basically, if viewing the progress of piano development is a slog, really need to stop comparing yourself to the small percentage of population that achieve such high standards at such a young age. Not only does it kill your self esteem, but it sucks the enjoyment out of practicing. Grab a beer, relax, and enjoy the music. Not everyone is born into high society, and most definitely not everyone was raised to be a pianist.

Study the mind of an anorexic, you'll find low self esteem and strong determination is a potent mixture to achieve what most people can only dream of. Look at the percentage over-eaters compared to under-eaters in this society. It's a matter of taking control, and it applies to every aspect of life. Imagine extending that will to self-starvation for a year into a year of concentrated piano practice. Problem with this is the possibly of burning out, but if you're fueled by your own personal obsession and passion, how do you burn out? Burning out would mean losing meaning to life in itself for the individual.

Two opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. your are extremely talented and find bliss in anything piano related. (you are just naturally skinny)

2. you compare yourself to those that are deemed talented, look at yourself in disgust and keep practicing to strive for excellence. (you need to starve to be thin)

One practices for fun while another practices in order to improve, which one is more effective?

I think that the Bach invention ... I suppose that you're talking about the invention in C-major ... is in no way too difficult for a beginner. To the contrary, it is an excellent place to begin, the very best place to begin.

I think that it is unfortunate that this music is viewed as difficult music that requires a long preparation. This point of view puts up obstacles to progress: people are taught that it is difficult, and it becomes so.

Beginning students, old and young, are taken away from Bach instead of taken to he who is the best pedagogue by far.

Older students I can understand why, as baroque music lacks the emotional depth of later music, but piano teachers, especially those that teach young children, almost start off by introducing music in a chronological matter. Taking him/her through baroque, classical, romantic, etc. Adults would easily lose interest because there needs to be a connection to the music, if not, then whats the point.

I think people who are more the logical and structured type may well appreciate Bach over people who come from the introverted and emotional side of the spectrum and feel drawn towards Chopin.

Personally, logic and structure, compared to emotion and expression, are two polar opposites. Kind of like, men vs. women.

Baroque music lacks the depth of later music? That's news to me!

I don't get that either.

it was in response to:

My point is that not all adults are drawn only towards Romantic music. Some of us might delight very much in learning Bach over Chopin.

Hi Etcetra,
Sorry about the slog ... you said (mythfully)

"I was really hoping that there was at least one person in the world who can prove everyone else was wrong"

Strangely there is a way to play any keyboard masterpiece prima vista ... once you learn the MIDI format (takes 3 months) ... here’s a sample of what the first 32 measures of the Chopin Etude Opus 10, no. 1 look like in MIDI mode ... the advantage of an exact representation of pitch (vertical) and note duration (horizontal) lies in a prima vista notation.

You will notice that the 10-1 Etude is no more than a succession of arpeggios rising and falling over four octaves (founded on a 2-note LH chord base) ... m1-2 is like a symmetrical Manhattan skyline, as is m3-4 and m5-6 ... from m7-22 Chopin varies the downward profile before returning to symmetry for m23-24.



However, in conjuring a dream, we aren’t out of the woods ... IMHO, it proves impossible (once bitten) to give up on the universal notation format ... and spend 3 months learning the MIDI notation format ... with the inevitable conclusion ... back to the slog.

PS The MIDI profile of Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata is breathtaking ... Theme in m1-4 ... repeated in identical profile 2 semitones lower in m5-8 ... before a racy resolution to cascade down m11-12 ... and start a Variation of the opening Theme one octave higher at m14.

3 months!!!!! Shoot, I can teach a child to read standard notation in 3 hours.

Ah, dear prof,

But can you then play any keyboard masterpiece prima vista?

Have you listened to Glen Gould's Goldberg Variations? I can't think of music with more emotional depth than that. Baroque and early classical music have a restrained type of emotion that is extremely profound. Being able to appreciate this emotional depth is akin to reading the emotions from the eyes of someone who is very reserved.

I don't think it's correct to say that most piano teachers take their students through the music in a chronological order. I've always done a smattering of baroque, classical, romantic, and 20th century at every level. There's a lot of non-baroque music that is written for beginners, and teachers make ample use of it.

** I say this not to gloat but to comment on the OP question based on first hand experience**

The first piano piece I learned, never playing the piano before, was a chopin nocturn self taught in 3 months. I was called a prodigy and called "level 9000" at the music studio I first went to and played it for them. I never played any of the basic new beginner things, went straight into the Chopin waltzes and then Prokofiev Visons Fugitives anf Chopin Grand Polonaise.

I then started taking composition and theory classes and did well with those too, but I think my quick success was also my down fall. I tended to skip things thinking I already knew that and didnt really "dig" into the subject matter to look at the nuances.

I stopped playing and now I play again. I dont consider myself a prodigy from having seen real prodigies on Youtube etc. but the speed of learnign you mentioend I think I qualified for.

If I could go back in time I would tell myself to pace myslef and stop and smell the roses on the path to progression and its not always about the next hard piece you can play.

What I can say is that while these individuals excel in an area or areas,they could also be lacking in another areas.

PS. I would imagine that lots of people on PW are very gifted people that could also meet the requirements of your question.

I have witnessed learning at an incredible pace. In high school, I always had an interest in piano as did a good friend of mine. Unfortunately, I did not take lessons but during our junior year, my friend began lessons. He had not done more than a little tinkering on the piano before that. Within a few months, he was playing advanced classical pieces (it is many years ago so I can't remember many of the pieces but I believe he was playing Flight of the Bumblebee quite well and rapidly within the first six months of lessons). He learned at such an incredible rate that he sent a tape to colleges of his playing and was accepted at Duke. He then majored in music and subsequently finished a Ph.D. in music at Columbia University. He is a professional pianist/composer now (I only know because I recently looked him up on the internet). His name is Ramin Arjomand (in case anyone wanted to look for his website or credentials). Obviously he found his calling through those lessons that he began during his teens but my God was he good at it. Personally, I have only begun lesson this year (my work doesn't allow much time for music) but I am enjoying improving my skills and learning some fairly advanced classical works but not at his pace.

Why did you stop playing if you were making such incredible progress?

btb, I'm biting my cheek here and giving you a chance to explain. How in the world does using a different form of notation miraculously give one the ability to play everything prima vista?

1) doesn't standard notation also provide "an exact represenation of pitch and note duration?"

2) isn't the real challenge getting your hands, during a prima vista reading, to execute the information conveyed by the notation, whatever form that notation might take? How does using a different form of notation speed that process up in any way?

Highly skeptical, but open to hearing your explanation.

That's not notation, it's graphs. No way anyone would learn to read that, ever. Notation system is there because it's the best that the last 300 hundreds came up with.

My music teacher wanted me to focus a huge amount of time on my abilities and I did as well as anyone could when they live in a home with constant physical abuse. Step dad would beat my mother and she went insane (I think she was also a paranoid Schozophrenic, after the divorce she called the police 50 times in a year about people stalking her) and would abuse us kids verbally and physically too.

I spent 3-4 hours a day practicing; music was my life I loved classical music more than anything, because it understood me. It helped me experience a range of emotions I wasn't allowed to feel or wasn't able to feel because of the home situation.

I love my teacher because I think he gave me some lessons for free at my house because my parents wouldnt take me to his house and after a while I stopped seeing my mother giving him checks but didnt think anything at the time.

I got out and performed for my church; I won a school talent show competition; was asked to perform for the High School Graduation, which I did.

The more I learned the more I realised how far away from my goal I actually was. I was intimidated by the amount of space I needed to cover in the musical universe to be caught up with people who were my age, 16, and who were also wanting to be concert pianists. My repetoire only consisted of like 5 pieces at the time.

I moved to California to be with the grand parents and started taking from a professor at Stanford and we were working on an audition tape and at that time I went on a religious mission for two years which my teacher warned me that if I did I probably wouldnt do music and when I came back I did economics instead.

But it is still my dream to be a concert pianist some day. I just put it on hiatus for a couple of years is all and I still play 2-3hrs a day.

Hmmmmm..this thread has caught my attention, and I normally only "lurk" here. As a regular on ABF, I don't know many beginners at all who take on difficult Chopin Etudes. Most of the absolute beginners that I know of are working off method books and/or working with a teacher, so I'm not sure where you get "many beginners."

From the adult beginners I know who are not working off method books (myself included) and taking on intermediate material, most of us had a prior musical background whether in piano or several years with a different instrument.

Of these folks, I know of no on who aspires to play, or has succeeded in playing difficult grade 10 pieces like Chopin etudes.

I know some teachers who regularly turn out child prodigies. They do it by throwing a piece way above the students level each time and getting them to learn it by sheer force of repetition (at least 3 hours of practice per day). Then rinse, lather and repeat with each piece getting progressively more difficult.

I had one such teacher in the past and he pushed me from grade 6 RCM to grade 10 RCM in one and a half years. He had one student who went from nothing to grade 10 in 2 years. However, I felt like I was a trained monkey and didn't really learn music. In fact, I really hated piano during that time and wanted to quit.

When I switched teachers, I was moved down to grade 9 so I could catch up on the foundations and moved at a much more sedate pace. I don't think it's really possible to progress at such a speed without such a teacher because you need someone to nit-pick at everything to be successful at moving so fast.

d4v3&Cebukid&Frozenicicles

Thanks for sharing your stories.. its interesting how in most cases one has to pay some kind of price for the rapid progress.

I do think that real progress in music takes time and there really is no way around it. And for me, I think that gives me all the more reason to do music, because you can spend lifetime getting better at it, and what you get out of it will be much more worthwhile then something you can attain in few weeks.

I wonder.. we live in such a fasted-paced society and think so much in short term, and maybe it's harder for us to think in terms of 5-10 years from now and measure progress that way..as far as I know, any kind of skill, whether it's playing an instrument or martial arts or learning chess just requires that kind of effort.

CebuKid,

I guess every once in a while I meet people who are beginner and they tell you that they want to play the Fantasie Impromptu or Chopin etudes in 1 year"..I've seen it in forums here and other places.. and I've also met people like that in real life. I am sure they are not majority of piano students out there, but I've met enough people like that. so it made me wonder if anyone was actually able to do it.

Just to clarify, I think most people who say that don't really know what they are talking about. its wishful thinking, and it's not much different than someone saying they want to be a millionare in one year... but I haven't completely ruled out possibility 100%

Thanks LeagleBeagle,
Must give a respectful answer to your questions in spite of

"btb, I'm biting my cheek here and giving you a chance to explain."

1. You might think that standard notation gives an exact representation of pitch and note duration ... when in fact, the antiquated stave was designed for only the 7 white notes ... requiring the unfortunate invention of sharps and flats to squeeze in the poor cousin additional 5 black notes ... but create a visually distorted pitch image.

Similarly, note duration illogically takes up MORE space the shorter the note
( ie. A 4-flag note sequence spreads MUCH more than a single quarter note ...
which in mathematical circles is daft)

Once learnt, the exact MIDI format provides instant prima vista playing ... whether the Waldstein Sonata or a Chopin Etude ... over the years a repertoire of plus one thousand keyboard masterpieces has been completed ... sounds fanciful ... but then I’m not on a sell.

2. Regarding the hands finding the right notes

We humans rely on an exact image to manoeuver ... otherwise, in carrying out an inebriated attempt to park the car (automobile) , we run the risk of a visit to the panel-beater.

Once you get off the bottle and convert to a visually accurate graphic representation of
note pitch (taking in all 12 basic notes) and note duration ... reading the MIDI notation is a breeze.

Sometimes I think you chaps look at the mighty JS Bach through a circus mirror.

No point in debating over this load

I mean the MIDI stuff

Just as well... because I think it would be rather a hard sell!!

Re standard notation not making mathematical sense - not all mathematical notation makes logical sense either - and relies on rather illogical historical rules. However - it's knowing how to read and understand the notation that makes the difference. Mathematics is a language that crosses cultures - just as musical notation does - whether the notation is logical or not.

Where do I have to sign up to learn reading the MIDI format? I've always been interested in alternative music notations and I really want to give that a try.

Also, I hate situations like this:

Person A has experienced X and Y.
Person B has experienced X.
Person A claims Y>X, person B disagrees.

These "B people" are and have always been the main slowing factor for the evolution of science. Please be respectful and don't comment on something you know little or nothing about!



That sentence is so contradictory it makes me smile. You realize graphs exist for the sole purpose of helping humans visualize abstract information, right?

Edward Tufte would like to have a word with you (http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi)

That's incorrect. The consensus on math notation is ruled by the scientific method, while musical language is not.

Specific mathemathical notations exist either because they are the best, or because the benefits of switching to a new one wouldn't outweight the downsides of changing them. Nevertheless, if the change suggested is attractive enough, the community will accept it.

Music notation in the other hand is affected by traditionalism. You've grown learning a music notation to the point you're so accustomed to it, it isn't worth it to learn another. However, there are CLEAR reasons why the standard music notation is far from optimal as an abstract data display format (yet again, Edward Tufte would explain it much better). Change would be very welcome but, as it's been clearly mirrored in this thread, answers range from skeptic to outright negative.

Claiming traditional musical notation is "the best" and that there will never be a replacement is nonsensical. The evolution of electronics is going to make paper obsolete (and borderline barbaric once we realize how damaging it is to the environment) so the sheets of the future will be electronic. Will they be on the same format we have today? Maybe, due to our natural resistance to change, but that would be a sad conclusion as we would be working very inefficiently.

Thanks, btb. You did indeed give a respectful answer and because of that, I shall respect it (and you). I was pleased that you were able to articulate specific reasons why you think this notation is better. If it works for you (and others), I say more power to you. It doesn't seem like something I'd go out of my way to pursue, but I won't judge without trying it... maybe I'm just a stick in the mud. If the chance ever presents itself to try it, I'll do so with an open mind.

In response to a kind PM from Nikorasu ... showing interest in the MIDI format ... here, as promised, is a copy of the repeating 6-line stave (much enlarged) and the note indicator which needs to be notched over the black notes at the rear of the keyboard.

Not to get into a huge argument over maths... but much of the notation is ruled by convention - not scientific method. Mathematics itself is ruled by scientific method - but the notation is not. Often the notation is NOT the best... as in the same symbol can mean different things depending on the context - but that's the convention so that's what's done.

I'm not suggesting that the current musical notation is the 'best' or the 'only'... I'm only saying that because there is a long history and tradition - it's like you've said about mathematics... the benefits of switching to a new one wouldn't outweight the downsides of changing them.

I'm not negative or antagonistic about the MIDI format... in fact I love new technology and new ways of thinking - I'm just suggesting that to change a musical language that has existed for hundreds of years... it's a hard sell!

I began piano at age 11. In one year I was playing Mozart sonatas and Chopin polonaise. Then, in my freshman year of Conservatory, when I got a teacher who really understood technique, I made another huge leap forward.

So yeah, huge leaps are possible.

pianocubano,

so what is about the teacher at the conservatory that helped you make the quick leap? How was that person different from other teacher you had in your life? What did he/she make you work on, and did other people experience the same kind of progress?

It's interesting, because when I was in university, I met many classical piano students..I realized that while most of the students struggled, there were 4-5 pianist who studied from the same teacher and they all excelled quickly. They actually went on to grad school with full scholarship in pretty big schools. On the other hand I met people who were struggling with injury and couldn't make a desirable progress..

There's a guy at my school who has only been playing piano for 2 years and taught himself for 1.5 of those. He played trombone for 6 years before switching. He auditioned (for general music BA, not performance) for primary instrument piano for his major with Brahms' Intermezzo op 118 #2 and I think a Bach Prelude/Fugue plus something else.

He has a beautiful sound and plays well in studio. I don't think he's older than 18 or 19.

Does that count?

I've only been playing for about 2 years of lessons too, but I did teach myself and played on and off for several years. I can't manage the finesse he plays his pieces with, but somehow I'm taking piano at university... (non major, but the class we're both in includes piano performance students too)

I think it's possible for everyone, it just takes a lot of hard work. And it depends on your definition of "progress": I can "play" much harder pieces than I can *perform well*, but I don't consider that great progress -- not until I get two thumbs up at studio for it anyway. Butchering masterpiece works is not my thing

How could any math notation doesn't make logical sense?

Do you have an example to ilustrate?

I went from nothing to a Distinction in ABRSM Grade 5 saxophone in six months. I already knew how to read music, though.

Without sounding egotistical, that is the best I've witnessed because I haven't witnessed anything else. :\

It is very much possible to get grade 5 ABRSM in 6 months to one year, however it very much depends on the instrument. A vocal teacher that I accompany said that if a fresh vocal beginner could not get grade 5 ABRSM in one year, he/she is pretty much hopeless. However, for piano it's different because of the motor skill involved, I myself managed to get Merit from beginner to grade 5 ABRSM piano practical in one year and one of my students managed to get a pass in grade 4 practical in 9 months. However, I would not recommend this fast track method unless one is really short of cash and willing to practice real hard because the pressure is intense.

You mean you didn't play any wind instrument before?

If so then it sounds really amazing.

Yes, but graphs are graphs, notation is language. Why use letters and not draw lines showing how the tongue moves, or read the music by the wave chart you get in the audio programs. My strong belief is no one will learn reading music that way, past twinkle twinkle complexity level.
By the way, how would a score for a Bruckner symphony would look like. My father was a conductor, so I know what I'm talking about. Glad to make you smile, thou.

That last post was for Nikorasu. Don't ridicule the mistakes I made in english, it was only because I wrote fast, and didn't check afterwards:)

WHAT!!!! Nonsense! I don't agree at all.

I met a girl at a party once who'd been taking lessons for three months. Then she sat down and played L'isle Joyeuse.

...

Now. To be clear. She grew up in a house with two grand pianos, so she was swimming in music from age zero. She was used to picking out melodies etc. etc. , but she only began playing seriously age 16.

I cried a little.

Then I proposed.

She said no.

Although I hate to revive half dying threads, I can't help but be interested in the basis because of my own experiences. I've probably been playing for about 4 years. I spent the first year playing pop music and movie themes. Then a year later I started playing classical music. I soon switched to a rater serious teacher who worked out many kincks in my playing.

My first public performances were pretty much forced by my mother and my teacher. I never felt I was ready for any of them, but yet I've progressed rather rapidly to the point when at the moment I'm putting the finishing touches on Chopin's 1st ballade and I'm a little past the half way point in the 13 Chopin-Godowsky etude, but I spent for the past 3years almost all of my time on technique(scales,arpeggios,double thirds, Czerny, Hanon) so my repertoire is limited to say the least for someone who's studied for the period I have.

Then again the things that are in my repertoire are rather difficult(Jeux D'eau, Liszt Etudes, Chopin Nouctunes, Etudes, Waltzes). So, I guess I've progressed at a rather high rate thanks to 11hour practice days, but in comparison to what I go up against if I went to Julliard or Curtis I still fell I have a long way to go.

Then again I'm 15 so I still have time to get it together.