Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Advice on difference between merely playing and playing well

This is probably a very broad subject but something that's made me quite frustrated lately. I feel I can play through a few pieces of music I learnt recently with few errors and at the correct speed, but I struggle to play them well. At least I think so, it's hard to judge how well you play yourself.

For example, consider the switch in time signature / rythm in this video at 00:50 (https://youtu.be/9X1w2ZWxV7s?t=40). To me it sounds pretty amazing, but I have trouble identifying with words exactly what is it about it that makes it sound great.

How does he achieve that smoothness in the left hand? What kind of technique could you practice to achieve that?

In general, how would you structure your practice to improve a piece you already can play? It's so hard to improve when you can't put the finger on what you need to change to make it sounder better. Is this something that simply comes with experience? With repetition?

I think the point at which I can play at ease with no error is when I can sufficiently play something well. I can play Jesus Loves Me This I Know and Skip to my Lou smoothly, sometimes adding an extra few notes at the end to end smoothly. Brahm's lullaby is a different story. I know how to play it, but my success rate is like 50/50. Sometimes, I get it right. Sometimes, I mess up. I'll just keep on practicing, because I don't think I'd meet with a piano teacher any time soon. Maybe in May or June, I may make an appointment with a local teacher and learn a few techniques.

Without knowing exactly how you are currently playing, it is impossible to judge what you can do to improve. Why not submit something to one of the recitals or the piano bar and ask for feedback and improvement suggestions. Surely that will get you better information than a bunch of us stabbing in the dark at an unknown.

Without some video, no way to tell. But I guess it mostly has to do with phrasing and articulation. The piece may sound correct but doesn't sound musical. It helps if you have a teacher to point it out. Otherwise, make some video, there are tons of advance, pro and teachers in here can help.

the early beginner may sound wooden or lifeless because they have no experience of using dynamics, the light and shade that gives music character and keeps the listeners concentration. There is also the prudent use of the pedal and rubato to consider in certain genres.

The flowing, almost effortless playing you see some players achieve results in years and years of practice and learning. There appears to be no short cut to this but I am still investigating

To improve pieces that are already in my repertoire I find that experimenting helps a lot. Just try different volumes, different accents, different legato/staccato, and use my ears to find what I like. Maybe 2 or 3 different ways that I like that I can use on repeats, etc.

As for the specific change in rhythm - well, I don't play Einaudi, but I can say that I tap my foot a lot But notice that he makes a very slight ritard and then a little space before he starts the new part - a breath, if you will. That helps give the transition some life.

Yes, and another thing that happens with beginners is that their tempo is unconsciously impacted by the difficulty of figuring out what to do next....

Uh-oh, here comes that big hairy chord -- a little hesitation figuring out where all the fingers go -- then the chord sounds.

Recording yourself and playing it back will reveal if you have that problem.

I believe that sort of confident playing comes with repetition and time spent at the keyboard.

When I want to play a piece with a lot of expression I will often play the melody in the right hand and just the bass note of the chord of the moment in the left hand. Then I do not have to think about my left hand and am free to play the melody just like I might sing it. That works for jazz music. Maybe not so well if the chords are not shown on the notation.

I think playing really beautifully requires the ability to be automatic with mechanics and not too conscious of details. To get there is a long process (and seems to be too long for many people). Most of the physicality must become automatic, but one still has to be consciouss of what one is doing and how it affects the sound of one's playing and have the ability to react and adjust. It's a fine balance between being in a musical flow and not get too lost in the music and end up messing up.

Often one may be able to play the piece, but when one tries let go of the concentration on playing the notes and actively recalling the details one crashes. A beginning pianist can practice a piece endlessly but still not ever sound like a pro because he just hasn't developed that level of understanding and comfort with the instrument and his own playing system. So to try to sound like a seasoned pianist will just lead into severe frustrations.

How to improve a piece one already can play? I find it most effective to let it rest properly and then get back to it. Relearning is easier than learning the piece first time and it's easier to concentrate on the sound of one's playing and music. One hears new things and it always sounds better than the first time.

There exists a huge difference between managing to complete a piece without making any mechanical error (robotic; programmed), and playing a piece correctly with EMOTION (the human element; feelings).

This perceived and performed emotional response to a collection of notes represented on the musical staff doesn't come in a box that you can buy at a music store or online at Amazon, or absorb from a YouTube video or quick self teaching guide. It's a learned ability gleaned from years of experience that, only after they've become comfortable with their abilities, does the player begin to feel and be associated with, after all the prerequisites have been learned and mastered prior. And by prerequisites I mean complete and easy note identification, the ability to easily process note information and notation on the fly, and ultimately the ability to transform that visually interpreted information from eyes to mind to fingertips effortlessly, while replicating the composers intentions repeatedly and as closely as possible.

If one is so concerned, overwhelmed, and therefore so completely preoccupied with playing the correct notes of music in a piece, how could they possibly be able to recognize, concentrate on, and lastly produce the emotions that are to be expressed while playing it? They can't because they don't yet have the ability, and that's why emotion is absent from most beginners and even some intermediate players performances.

Once a player knows where everything is, recognizes notation, and can do so with little effort, can they then begin to feel comfortable and confident enough in their abilities to free up some resources and be able to recognize, work on, and ultimately correctly perform the necessary type of emotion in their pieces where it's required to be.

To some people these things comes quite naturally and effortlessly, but to some it will never become a reality no matter how much time is spent learning and practicing, how good the instruction is that they receive, or how good the instrument is they play upon. Many will reach a point of deminishing return and bail out due to frustration and anger, with most of them being adult beginners.

Some may consider this to be a bleak outlook, but it's not; it's simply the reality of the matter. To think all is possible for everyone is unfortunately an illusion pontificated by those with self serving and/or purely monetary interests.

Regards,
Andy

It is a broad subject. The original post is mostly about improving technique and almost all can do that with enough time, effort and instruction. That said, there are many more levels. At the higher levels, a musician gets the ability to connect with their audience. The great musicians can connect on a deep emotional level.

In part. I agree with reply above from Andy, that there is such thing as the X factor. Some folks just seem to have it or are seem to acquire it rather easily. Then there are some that seem to spend most of their lives chasing it, and perhaps get a few glimpses of it, or a sniff.

I like to quote John Coltrane: "you can play a shoestring if you are sincere."

As for more directly answering the questions, if a person doesn't have "it," he/she can still get closer to the sincerity, that Coltrane talks about. One road is mental practice, along with more physical repetitions and more traditonal methods. I like to think in terms of getting closer to a piece of music. By living, breathing, sleeping, that music, it becomes part of a person. There is still a great need for traditional methods and time, effort and instruction, to learn skills, technique, and pieces, but there is another side too.

There are many levels of mental practice, and only a few seem capable of full mental practice. A person that has never tried it, might try things such as reading the score and audiating the music in your head. Or listening to recordings and humming along, or trying to sketch out the sheet music as you listen. These activities engage different parts of the brain, and gets a person closer to the music. I like to be able to separate play with the eyes closed, the sound off, and be able to audiate the piece away from the piano.

Kenny Werner wrote a book "Effortless Mastery," that touches on some of these topics. For those that don't do books, there are some videos of Werner talking about the subject on Youtube.

Another John Coltrane quote sums up the highest levels:
"To be a musician is really something. It goes very, very deep. My music is the spiritual expression of what I am - my faith, my knowledge, my being."

Again, many of us will be lucky to get a sniff of that level of mastery, that power to communicate, that sense of connection with the universe.

I think we tend to forget there's good, solid meaningful music in simple forms as well. There's music in Marry had a Little Lamb. There's music in Short'n Bread. Nobody wants to be a "small ball" player. Home on the Range played well trumps some Opus played poorly. I'm the king of two and three chord songs. There's enough of them, I won't live to play them all.
A challenge is a fine thing, but I let myself enjoy music more often than I challenge myself.
Again, as other's have said, we don't know the precise problem. But up to now, nobody has mentioned a metronome. One hears a lot of groans when mentioning nomes. But I'm telling you, learn to be friends with a nome. You won't defeat nor win an argument with one. I've had people tell me they've never heard a nome that kept good time, and they were serious. Half of music is rhythm. For the rest of us, don't be the one that can't keep good time.

FarmerJones,
I liked your post a lot. I think a lot of times the people here (myself included), while trying to be helpful, sometimes forget that not everyone has the same resources or goals that they have. In the end, playing piano has to be joyful or what's the point? Yes, it can be frustrating, challenging, and require an order of magnitude more hard work than most hobbies might ask of you. Still at the end of the day, when you get something down there are few things in life as much fun and rewarding as making music.

As for there being great music in those old simple tunes, I agree with you. Apparently Mozart did too:

To look for that elusive thread of communication with the universe.

I would find a teacher, play the piece, and ask:

. . . "How can I improve on that?"

"Experience" and "repetition" are useless, unless you have some kind of feedback loop, telling you what you can improve, and how to improve it.

After enough experience, you _do_ get an internal sense of what works, and what doesn't work. But that's beyond most beginners.

Without a teacher, you might record your own playing, and listen to it critically:

. . . Are your tempi OK? Is your timing good?
. . . Are your legato sections legato, and your staccato sections
. . . staccato?
. . . Do your dynamics march up with what's written in the score,
. . . or implied by the words or melody lines?

None of this is easy, because you have to overcome your bias (which we all have) that your playing is basically OK.

There's nothing wrong with copying someone else's performance, IMHO. If you find a recording that you like, of a piece you know, see if you can match it:

. . . you'll learn a lot, doing that.

I don't think one should aim to fully overcome that though. I cannot recall ever being satisfied with my playing of a piece, maybe because I made the mistake of starting to record from day one. Self-critisism may be an asset to some extend but it can also become an obstacle.

Yup.



Ok. I bet you can get that with some time.



A teach can point out what they're hearing.

A teach can give tips on how to reproduce it. These are things that have worked for teach. They're pretty time-honored things in piano study, so I wouldn't discount them out of hand.

As someone who has a teach, then the real dialog isn't so much words. It's more how you take the feedback, try to work with it, show it back to your teach, and then adapt to each other. Note: you do not necessarily become Horowitz this way. Your fault, but you should try nonetheless.

Words can be useful. Usually not. Sometimes you have to say unuseful words. As long as you can admit that and don't make it crutch, it can be ok.

Repetition. Boy, I've done a lot of that. Can't say I'd recommend it.

You want snappy answers. Ask Dear Abby.