Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin Major Works

But "learning how to perform them" is not the same as copying. Of course, it's possible that someone might listen to a performance with the idea of trying to copy it, but this certainly does not have to be the case.

When studying with a teacher, most of lesson is spent "learning how to perform" a piece. Listening to performances can help one learn how to perform a piece the same way a lesson can.

It's all a question of degree, isn't it?

Some hear a recording/performance of a piece and decide to work on it on the basis of that hearing.

Some hear a piece, work on it, then listen to recordings to get ideas of how others may play it and how those ideas may inform their own.

Others, perhaps more inherently lazy than anything else, say that they simply have to listen to a piece to "hear how it goes." They can't figure out "how it goes" - or don't want to - by working from the score.

It's these last individuals that I have a serious issue with.

Regards,

I certainly agree it's a question of degree but the only thing I have an issue with would be those that listen to a score with the intention of copying much of what's in it and perhaps not even thinking about why they like something another pianist does.

I think it helps to have an idea "how it goes" and this can significantly increase the speed one can learn a piece. I think of listening to see how it goes is similar to using an edited score to help with fingering. I might be able to figure out the best fingering for me with lots of time but using fingered editions to get suggestions usually greatly decreases the time I spend on this aspect of learning a piece.

And I often think, despite my long experience, that I would never have come up with some ingenious fingering some editor suggests. If I didn't sometimes use fingered editions I would never have the opportunity to learn something about fingering that I might find useful in another piece. It's kind of like trying to learn calculus without a textbook.

Sometimes the pieces I learn do not come in any fingered edition, and it can take a long time for me to decide on and find a fingering that seems to be best. I think any speed in finding my own fingerings I might gain by always trying to find fingerings totally independently(actually hard to do since most editions have some fingerings) would be counterbalanced by never experiencing editor's excellent fingering to learn from.

Although I think knowing how it goes is helpful, I usually decide to learn piece because I've already heard it and liked it. So in this sense knowing how it goes is usually a given for me. But for those who are assigned pieces, I think listening to see how it goes is not so bad. In fact, there is a big Youtube project, the University of Iowa Piano Pedagogy Project, that posts video by piano professors of typical student pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

I completely understand why you would feel this way, but I would like to say (in the nicest possible terms) that I'm very sure you're wrong

Since you've only had a teacher for a few months of your life, you naturally would not understand that a good (or even basically competent) teacher makes the difference between blindly and randomly hacking around in the endless dense thicket of musical skill improvement for only the smallest advances, and a relatively easy and well-marked super highway of advancement.

I know this, because even though I did start out (and stayed with) piano lessons from a teacher as a kid, my first two teachers weren't very good. I didn't even understand that there was a thing called 'technique' which was the *way* to do things on piano (like play fast passages, play evenly, play very softly) and that it could be taught! Prior to this blinding revelation (which happened in *college*, mind you), I thought that either you could do these things or you couldn't. And that was that.

Nope. These things can and should be taught. In fact, they are taught as a matter of course every single day to thousands of piano students who are fortunate to have competent or better teachers. In fact I know understand that what took me 6 years of less-than-competent teachers (and still I had massive gaps) is covered by a good teacher to that level in at most a couple of years.

In my lifetime I've had probably 20 years of piano lessons, on and off, and I'm still amazed at how quickly my teacher (I'm now studying with someone who has an MA in piano pedagogy and DMA in performance) can help me to improve.

Get yourself a good teacher. It will amaze you.

No need for "nicest possible terms". If Stores can't offend me, no one can!

But seriously, I would love to believe that I am wrong. But at my age (62), one learns to pick and choose those activities most likely to bear fruit, and taking piano lessons never seemed to fall in the "fruitful" category.

But ironically, my next door neighbor, who is an experienced piano teacher, recently offered to work with me. She has studied with a well-known pianist here in Michigan for many years, and seems very accomplished, so I assume she is competent. She said she would like someone to listen to pieces she is working on (test marketing?), and, in exchange offered me free lessons. Of course, I nixed the "free" part, but I did leave the door open to her generous offer. (And it would be nice to play one of her large grands instead of my Roland, for a change.) But I also want to be sure I'm not wasting her time.

So, thank you, PP, (and Stores), for your advice about getting a teacher. Who knows, I may just surprise myself and do it.

I think you might want to send me a message, Old Man.

Another work that doesn't get mentioned in your list but perhaps you might want to look into is the berceuse in D flat. It's beautiful, challenging, but shorter than the rest of the list.

Yes the Berceuse is lovely, but more of a piece to do on the side of one of the pieces I listed.. I have decided to start with either Fantasie Op 49 or Barcarolle Op 60... Which of these to pieces do you think would be the best one to start with, and why?

If you don't know after all we've said, I don't think we can tell you any better.


The answer is either the Barcarolle or neither.

I suggest you start with the Fantasie Op 49 then. It's easier than the ballades(except perhaps the third) and if you think you can manage a major work by Chopin, this one is an okay one to start with.

Completely disagree -- unless you're not counting the "hard parts," of which there are many.


Completely disagree, except to the extent that we might feel like going easy and saying that anything is okay to start with.

And why would you say the fantasie is "harder" than any of Ballades No 1, 2 and 4? It has not got any passage that is nearly as difficult as the coda of the 4th ballade. Nor does it have any passages that are harder than the first's and second's codas. If you say that it contains "many more technical challenges" than I say that so does the Barcarolle. As for interpretational difficulties, the barcarolle is no easier than the fantasie..

Very subjective of course, but I say, not only does it have passages that are as hard, but its hard passages are SCARIER.

IMO there's nothing in the 4th ballade that is any harder -- and nothing that is as 'scary' -- as those contrary motion octave passages in the Fantaisie.
Unless they're played timidly (which they often are).

Likewise those jagged triplet passages following what I call the "butterfly" lyrical phrases.

And for that matter, how often have you heard those 'butterfly lyrical' phrases really played lyrically, comfortably, and accurately?

I could name other passages too, but I'll leave it at that.

When I'm preparing for a recital where I'm playing a bunch of these pieces (as I did the other day), the Fantaisie is the one that I always feel I need to 'prep' the most (like with tryouts in front of people). The other pieces are hard, and of course the 4th Ballade is considered by most to be the hardest of all, but the Fantaisie has more tricky acrobatics than any of them.

Unless it's played timidly.

The idea of recommending the piece to a beginner or intermediate player as their first major Chopin piece seems way off the mark to me.

And for something to be hard does it only have to be technically demanding?

If one is technically prepared(now we don't know if the OP is) to play a first major work by Chopin, one certainly cannot be called a "beginner or intermediate player". In my opinion, double note passages and bringing out the top voice in thick chords, which are the main technical problems in the Barcarolle, is just as difficult, if not more, than anything in the Fantasie. The coda in double notes in the 4th Ballade scare me 45x more than anything in the fantasie. I would say that out of all the works that the OP listed, Fantasie Op 49 is one of the more suitable, IF the OP is musically mature enough, because that is where the real difficulty lies when it comes to the Fantasie. The only pieces that might be more suitable than the Fantasie IMO are the first three Scherzos, Op 48 No 1 and PERHAPS the third Ballade.

I would also strongly advise against playing the fantaisie as the first major work, and would definitely not recommend starting with any of the large-scale works (e.g. fantaisie, polonaise-fantaisie, and the sonatas). I think that from the ones listed, op. 48 no. 1 would be the most suitable. If it needs to be a scherzo or a ballade, I would recommend numbers 2 and 3, respectively.

How about the op. 26 polonaises? They are excellent music while being more accessible than most of the pieces in the original list.

Lisztvsthalbergg, you mean Ballade 2 or 3, or Scherzo 2 or 3? Ballade number 2 is arguably the most difficult of all the works listed after the 4th ballade, and definately harder than the fantasie from a technical point of view. The others are fine. Op 48 No 1 is the easiest because of its length, but the last two pages are just as hard as anything in the 2nd and 3rd Scherzos and the 3rd Ballade. The Op 26 Polonaises are great pieces and I would also recommend playing them, although, they are easier than all the pieces listed.

I meant scherzo no. 2 and ballade no. 3 (and definitely not the other way around).

I know that the op. 26 polonaises are easier, but think that they can be great stepping stones towards the more difficult works while sounding quite impressive when played well. In fact, Op. 26 no. 1 was the first "bigger" Chopin piece I played and I'm glad that I didn't jump straight into the more difficult ones.

Don't you think that Op 48 could be considered a good "stepping stone" for him then? Op 48 No 1 is not actually a "major work" although it is just as great as most of his major works, and has the character of being one. I would argue for that anyone who is able to play the Op 48 No 1 well, is ready for his first major work by Chopin.

Yes, I think that op. 48/1 would be by far the best choice out of the suggested pieces (given sufficiently good octave technique), with op. 26 nos. 1/2 as possible aternatives.