Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Define yourself

I was told by my teacher this week that I need one hour lesson as I am no longer a beginner. I still think of myself as a beginer but she says I have passed three exams and going to take my 4th one next Summer. She says when you are Grade 4 level you are an intermediate not a beginner and intermediate piaists need one hour to cope with the work involved and then certainly for Grade above this level a half hour lesson will no longer be an option.

What does the thread title mean and what does it have to do with the post?

I guess the OP is now defining herself as an intermediate student. The title seems to indicate that she has some interest in how forum participants define ourselves.

I was interested to know from anyone here how they define themselves and at what stage do they move off the beginner stage? I feel I am still a beginner as

a) I am still not yet a fluent sight reader

b) I still have to try very hard to learn my pieces

c) I am not an expert in pedalling.

Passing a particular level of exam does not make you an intermediate. It simply means that you have parot fashioned studied a piece so much that you can use it to sit an exam. The real test comes when you can pick up any piece of muic at the level of your exam and play it with all the dynamics and phrasing without too much help from your teacher. That is when you go from beginner to intermediate

Ha! We can define ourselves, also delude ourselves! I`m a fun piano player. Never will make it as a pianist, too undisciplined. Don`t care either . . .but I`ve made some money out of it when I needed it most for which I`m grateful.n A good hobby indeed . . .

I'm not a great sight reader. And it takes me a long time to learn a piece. But, based on the level of piece I can learn given time, I would say I'm intermediate. I dare say I would have to be a heck of a lot better to be considered advanced.

How do we delude ourselves then? I am realistic. I am a hard worker and very disciplined but not a natural pianist. I get my exams beause I try very hard and it pays off.

What the heck is a "natural pianist"? It's a learned skill. Well, for most of us. I suppose there have been a few idiot savants who can just sit down an play. But, so what if you have to fight tooth and nail for every stride you make at the piano? Does that make you less skilled overall? At some point, the difficulty of the pieces you can learn begins to define your level of ability. And yes, test exams passed is an indication of learned skill too. I'm not familiar with what each level exam you have taken actually entails. But, trust your teacher. If she says you aren't a beginner anymore, believe her!!

I studied music at a university, and piano was my main instrument. So I don't consider myself a beginner.
About the grade exams: Before I visited this forum, I didn't even know they exist. But maybe they are an indicator of what one can do.

I consider myself an "advanced amateur".

About your questions: There is information missing.

"Not being a fluent sight reader": What level are we talking? Do you have trouble playing one note at the time; or do you have trouble playing both hands of a piano piece?
Because I have trouble with the latter as well, when the pieces are complex; but I'm not too bad at playing by ear.

"Trying very hard to learn your pieces": It doesn't matter how much time you need; what matters is that you eventually master the pieces without getting frustrated first. Everybody has to try very hard to learn pieces; but for beginners it might be Chopsticks, for professional pianists it might be Chopin Scherzos.

"Not being an expert in pedaling": What exactly do you mean? Do you have trouble pressing down the pedals? Or do you just not know when to release and press them? Because the latter is a matter of taste, so I guess everybody who knows how to press the pedals is an expert in pedaling.

I define myself as a relentless plodder. Nothing comes easily to me but I get there in the end.

I'd define myself (or at least think) more like a Renaissance man. Someone who has the ability to do everything.

I don't want to be the 'best' at anything other than to be at least good at whatever I choose to do. If other people can do something then why can't I do it? I realize that we all have our own limits and abilities but in no way should that deter you from at least becoming 'good' at something. And if you can become 'good' at something, then why not become 'good' at everything?, or at least the things you choose to participate in.

I don't want to be classified because it wouldn't be accurate. I am not just one thing.

If you did music at university then you are advanced. I need to learn to hear when to press and release the pedal as sometimes I do it too soon. I can play pieces with double notes but I have to go through the score first. A fluent sight reader would just pick up the score and immediately start playing just as I do when reading a book.

I consider myself intermediate, possibly even middle to late intermediate, but definitely not advanced. I am a very good reader and can easily sightread pieces *below* my level. With pieces at my level, I can generally sightread hands separate, and depending on the piece, often close to the desired tempo. I should add I have been playing for almost 15 years now (wow!)

But, interestingly enough, it's only been in the last year that I've become comfortable naming my playing level as intermediate.

Oh, and by the way, I have taken lessons almost continuously since beginning piano, and I only had 30 minute lessons in the first few years, for a long while now it's always been a 45-minute lesson. And I would prefer to do an hour if I could afford it, because I am always working on a few pieces at once and working on different aspects of playing.

My lessons are normally 45 minutes but they can stretch to 1 1/2 hrs! (Partly because it is a social visit as well.). But there is no way I could cover the material I am working on in only 1/2 hour. And I consider myself a beginner (maybe early intermediate). My lessons consist of a couple pages of mini "pieces" from the lesson books. Then we work on my "repertoire" pieces that I have chosen. I'm currently working on four pieces in various stages.

It sounds to me like your hard work is paying off and that with more personalized and focused instruction, you will advance faster.

My teacher actually told me i was weird once...in a good way. But she really did use the term to describe me. She said I should be playing real beginner songs but I'm able to play early intermediate level. I haven't taken any exams nor am I interested in grade levels. Piano is a hobby for me so I wouldn't really know how to define my level as a pianist. But I suppose based on what I've been playing, early intermediate would be it.

Well ha, if I were you, I’d insist on 1h and 5 min; if it cost the same. (does it?)
If it doesn’t, maybe suggest to your teach that you’ll do “A 1 hour” when you decide you need it…….
Then inform your teach that you define yourself, not her/him; (and especially, will not change for any man.) …..little joke there.
Besides,, it seems like you answered your own question, here:”
”
…..
Maybe those terms are meant more for the lesson than the person playing anyway.
Not to minimize the importance of your piano instructor, surely she’s right.
I’ve read in older books regarding piano technique, that advanced playing of piano has more to do with how a pianist plays a piece after it is learned, IE “perfects it to his own”.
So, in fact you can play one piece like a novice would, and another piece, very advanced.
The skills of knowing what the dynamics, pedal and how to use them, when, where and all that.
So if you’re learning skills to do that.....
A score that I really like leaves me not caring about being a beginner or advanced, but instead what I need to know to play it.

Ok judging from the time the teacher spends with me (more than an hour usually) I must be at least advanced . Also I'm always scheduled last in recitals. I guess that says something :-p

But I did not pass any exams (did not try either). I still have to drill in my pieces into memory before I can play them. My sight reading sucks. So by that, maybe I should feel beginner

Maybe you can tell me my level from the pieces I play(ed)

https://recitals.pianoworld.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Wouter79

I am most definitely still a beginner. It's not unlikely that in some areas (such as sight reading), I will always remain one. I'm fine with that, because "where I'm at" is not that important to me. Whenever I'm tempted to throw in the towel on this piano journey, I ask myself: are you still getting something of value out of this? As long as the answer to that question is yes, I will keep playing. Progress is (mostly) irrelevant to that.

But if your teacher says you probably need one-hour lessons now, I would go with that (assuming you can afford it). More lesson time can never hurt!

It is no surprise that most here self-identify with the word beginner. After all it is the Adult Beginners Forum.

I am definitely a beginner and a low level one. Because I am self-taught, mostly writing original music, my track, my status is more difficult to pigeon-hole than most.

A friend listened to a recording and told me, "you are not a beginner" [at piano]. I had to explain why I still believe I am a beginner and a low level one at that, so a lot of it is relative.

As for the sight reading, even though the original poster feels a certain way, my guess would be that they are top 25% in that skill for that grade level, exam level. What is often weak or absent for some with traditional piano teachers, is ear training, and improvisational skills. Even high level students sometimes report on the forum being most fearful of the sight reading portion of their exam. As a person goes up in level, the scores tend to get more complex.

Yes, studio musicians can sight read almost any popular piece of music, and play it ba-da-bing. However, that level of skill tends to be rare and a big reason studio musicians tend to get paid so well. A few amateurs have that kind of proficiency, but from my observations on the forum and in real life, not that many musicians can do it.

Because my piano studies have been so intermittent/interrupted, I keep finding myself working best with materials that calls themselves "Late Elementary" (whatever that mean).

But, on the bright side, I've become an *extremely* well rounded late elementary player. I've spent time exploring late elementary classical, blues, rock, ragtime... I haven't yet found satisfactory late elementary jazz curriculum (but if you have ideas, do PM me!)