Today during my lesson, after showing her an easier version of the Raindrop Prelude, my teacher told me she doesn't really like books like Chopin-Schaum combo . She thinks it's better to learn easier, original pieces v.s. watered down versions of harder ones. My problem is I'm long way off from the REAL Raindrop Prelude. So here's the basic question... is it better to wait until I can play the real version or play the easier one?

Hi HI

For me, the answer is simple: wait.

I also want desperately to learn the Raindrop from Chopin. But I can't imagine watering it down. My teacher told me to be patient a year or two or three

I'll wait until ready.

Then again, we all have our own view on things and someone else can be content with an easy version. I couldn't.

I know it probably be of little help but in the end, You will have to choose.

Good luck.

I agree with your teacher. I made the mistake many years ago of learning a simplified version of Chopin's Military Polonaise and, having done that, had the devil's own time learning the "real" version. I'd work on original pieces that are designed to build technique so that, when you are ready, you can learn the "real" Raindrop.

Ed

Hi Kawai..

Is that like a triple entendre with your nick (Kauai (island), kawaii (japanese for cute), Kawai (piano))? Pretty clever.

I'm of the opinion that one should avoid trying to play pieces far beyond their abilities in the early stages. I made this mistake and to tell you the truth, it only resulted in frustration. My fingers weren't ready. My technique was not ready. My experience level was not ready. Through sheer brute force and determination, I was finally able to play the piece, but it did not sound very good (for the above reasons). I realize now, I wasted a lot of time trying to force something that wasn't meant to be -- valuable time I could have otherwise spent learning good solid fundamentals. That was 20 years ago, during my first year of lessons. I quit playing for 20 years and just recently started taking lessons again. To this day, it still doesn't sound right, although I'd play once in a blue moon over the past 20 years.

To me, these easier versions of the 'real deal' are the only option to gradually building the necessary skills to that will eventually enable you to play the harder versions. I'm puzzled with your teacher's approach. What else would he/she have you practice on and how would that be any different from the watered down version of what you want to play? Sounds a bit odd. You might want to discuss it at your next lesson. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

Aloha.

Wait until you can play the real version. There are many easy and nice original pieces that you can learn before the Prelude 28/15.

Hi All,

I'll jump in here with the other side. I have been playing the piano for 2 months now and jumped right into Fur Elise and Moolight, not the easy piano version, the real stuff. I've memorized the first page of each and play both well enough to raise my wife's eyebrows (tough order sometimes ) Here's my logic:

I'm not going through the beginner piano books as a student to learn how to be able to be a sight reader and play like that. I'm going through the basics to learn how to play the piano, to be able to read good enough to play what I want to play.

Granted I have many years of guitar and classical guitar behind me, but that's the way I did it there also. Before I quit playing classical guitar I had a repertoire of 7 songs including two 5 minute + classical pieces.

At 51 years now, if I waited for that two or three years of piano playing lessons etc time, I might not get down what I want to get commited to memory and be able to play with excellence.

Just my angle. Bottom line, if you can and are agressive, go for it, if your not agressive and need someone looking after you, that's OK also AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FUN!

Dave

Thanks all for the great comments

You got it! Except for the cute part, as long as no one calls me "Kowaii"

I guess that is some of my confusion. All of the lesson books have easier versions of harder pieces.

I suspect if I want a specific piece I should learn the REAL version. Oh well, note to self, need new piece for May's recital...

Kawai, I agree with your teacher.
A simplified version of an original piece is in my eyes something that will never satisfy you, because you will never be able to tell, even to yourself, that you can play that piece, so if you just want to hear the sound you can as well put on a CD I'd say... besides, this will motivate you to stay focused in order to to be in a position, one day, to play the real version...

I would say that in the almost infinite choice of original pieces out there there must, there *must* be something that you like very much and is at your level (better: allows you to get at its own level).

As far as the "too difficult pieces" are concerned, I'd be careful. everyone is made his Eown way but here is my experience.

I started "Le onde", a piece for which I *know* I am not ready, a bit for the fun of it but without knowing whether I really could tackle it.
Then it took me, and I started spending a lot (really a lot) of time over it.
I felt (and feel) that it is all good because the piece helps me to improve; but progress was slow and one wondered, a couple of times, if easier things would not have been learned with more satisfaction, with a little repertoire being available sooner etc. If I put much work in it and very little comes out, I start questioning the wisdom of the investment...

Then, yesterday I heard "Le Onde" in original version again after a couple of weeks and to my big surprise it had become noticeably slower and the part which I have learned started to have a clear resemblance to what I play myself...
So, since yesterday I know that I will be able to master it within a halfway reasonable time, with much much practice and patience.

But it was a close call, and I could have noticed that I had not entirely wasted, but certainly badly employed, say, 20 or 30 or 50 hours of playing before giving up, which is a lot if you want to learn and improve.

I learned my lesson and in future - apart from said piece - I will be very careful not to ask too much. If I put work in, I want to see music coming out...

I've come across 'easy' original pieces. Perhaps not easy for somebody just setting forth but by no means could they be considered hard. True, they don't have Chopin's signature appended to them. Easy originals by Bach, Kabalevsky, Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Beethoven, Bartok are included in my book.......... I am more than happy to tackle these pieces which are at a level I am comfortable with. Why compose such easy pieces? For the beginner perhaps to learn some specific technique, to have a piece of musical music rather than a specific etude that can be played relatively early? Perhaps these early easy pieces were designed as etudes? I am rambling as I imbibe my morning cuppa.

I've never felt any attraction to sweat at something that is beyond my mental,emotional and physical techniques. For me to try threatens greater potential for frustration than achievement. I would rather play several simple pieces well and lay good foundations for harder stuff.

I would also rather play originals than watered down versions of the real deal, but I'm ok with the latter if I enjoy the result. I appreciate though how that could have a subsequent negative impact on learning the real deal later.

Hi,

Interesting question. I rather think that this comes up mostly with so called "classical" music, which tends to be much more focused on specific versions of a score.

For most musicians working across a wider range of genres and styles it would probably be considered quite limiting - odd almost - to be expected to only ever stick to a single version of something. It's routine to re-arrange the music to suit the available instruments, the preferred style, the skills of the particular musicians, and any other requirement that may come with the 'gig' or context that the music will be used in.

I'm not sure whether it's just the elements of time and history that have seemed to 'fossilise' classical music in this way, but I would have thought that in their own day the composers would have been quite used to providing alternative re-arrangements to suit their patrons wishes, the skills of their family members, the range and composition of their in-house musicians, etc. If the Duc De Moneybags wanted your charming violin piece re-scored for easy banjo and bagpipes - because that's what he and his mistress played - then you got out your quill and parchment and gave him what he wanted. Even genius gotta pay the bills...


Cheers,

Chris

3 cups of tea and a school run later.

What underlies the creation of any artist? Whether in music, words, paint. Not the bread and butter stuff, but creations in a loved medium that express or seek to communicate with others what lies within the artist? I am too early on to be able to appreciate the difference in specific pieces, but isn't learning to play also about finding the inner communications, the emotions, the story, the poetry and also using those creations to personally express ourself?

If I read a classic novel, I want to read the original. Not a watered down version produced by a third party. I would be dependant on another's interpretation of what is significant, their choice of words and construction, and so much of the author's style and intent would be lost. Can one successfully reconstruct a poem or a painting, presenting it at an easy level whilst losing nothing of the original that speaks to the inner person? Musical composition has many classifications and approaches, but when it comes to improvisation, do we, and this is a genuine question because I currently have no improvisation skills, improvise better when we have a deeper understanding of what underlies the original?

Late Beginner,

whilst it is well known that some pieces were composed having a person in mind who was not excellently skilled and should not have been put in a position to disgrace himself (Beethoven's concerto triplo comes to mind, I am sure there are many more) it is not known to me that Beethoven, or others, made easier arrangements of their music for commercial reasons.

More in general, I do not see classical music as anything similar to a fossil at all. Classical music is just different from Jazz and I do not think is wise to look at one type of music with the meter of the others.

Chopin did not make concerts with endless variations of his pieces; would never have conceived of making a medley with his own variations of the "standards" of his time; in general, he was a classical and not a jazz composer and amen to that.

I like jazz very much and love to see the same standard looked at it in a different way from any different author; I also love to see jazz versions of classical music, if well done (Benny Goodman's excellent "Bach comes to town" comes to mind), but it's because when I am hearing it I know that I am listening to something which lives of a different way of understanding music, than this is the case in classical music.

I'd say that classical music is about the quest for a beauty that stays forever. It's like a painting: when its' finished, it's finished and noone thinks it's "fossilized".

In Jazz the beauty is more in what you do with things, rather than with the things itself; that's why the same standards have been used for decades without anyone having a problem at all.

Gerschwin, very near to jazz music, did not treat his composition as jazz. I think that's because he knew he was not making jazz (although a lot of jazz has subsequently been made out of him), noy because he wanted to be fossilized...

I cannot stand watered down versions. They seem a shell holding recognizable tunes but have lost their substance. Since playing classical music to me consists of drawing out what that music contains, it is a disappointing experience.

Once you get the essentials down: right notes at the right tempo, the nuances of the piece come into play. Those nuances require nuanced technique which means superb control for gentle legatos and pianissimos, being able to hold the note "just so", and agility and a certain strength for other types of passages. They also require an understanding of the language of music which I may or may not have.

If I don't have those skills, then with a real version, I'll be playing a watered down or fuzzy interpretation of the real piece, which is also not satisfactory. So "being ready" for a piece makes sense to me. At that point there are two possibilities. It may be possible to learn the particular technical skills needed for the piece while working on it - practicing these on the side - or practicing these in particular for the piece, before the piece. Or one can wait until those skills are mastered to some degree in the normal development during lessons which should be happening, because imho that should be the goal.

I have to agree with your teacher. My teacher is the same way she doesn't like arranged pieces.

Pick something else that is your level. You'll be surprised at how quickly you progress when you tackle original pieces versus arrangements.

FWIW, if I wait until I am "ready", I may never get to touch some of the stuff I want to play. If you are headed for a stage, then maybe wait for your skills. Otherwise, I see no reason not to learn some easier versions now, to enjoy now.

I suffer no illusions. I just might surprise myself, but why chance never making the melodies I love? If I can play it now, why not? You just might be in your last year to play. Life has a way of changing your prioritites, and health, family, other interests, whatever, could make adjustments that will end or restrict a playing career.

I will agree that I have learned "easier" arrangements that I am leaving behind because I can now play better and want to upgrade the pieces to my new abilities, but I have played them all this time, and enjoyed my accomplishments.

Ever notice almost every piece of music, from classical to hill-billy to rock, have many versions, from very easy to almost impossible? From fake books to full orchestrations, it's all there.

Pick one you can handle.

Hi Innominato,

I'm not trying to dump on Classical music in general. My "fossil" comment comes from a long association with that kind of music. I guess that I just find that some fans tend to treat anything from certain eras more in the manner of "sacred texts" than I think is warranted. Many of the composers that we now regard as Masters were perfectly happy to borrow themes from previous works or be inspired by them in some way (indeed, it's said that the set of 24 preludes from which the one in question is taken was inspired by Bach's Well Tempered Clavier). I also believe that it's highly unlikely that they themselves always played exactly the same version, or were averse to a bit of re-arrangement, improvement, etc.

I'm not much of an expert on Chopin in particular, but I've been listening to Classical music for some 60 years and I used to own a shop that specialised in selling it, so I've had a fair bit of exposure. I didn't think I had all that much Chopin compared to some other composers, but at a quick count I seem to have over 90 of his pieces on CD, plus whatever else might be on compilation albums. So (as it's been a while...) I'm listening to the preludes, including the so called "Raindrop", as I type this.

Some enjoyable listening too, but I just can't see them all as some sort of untouchable artefacts that can't ever be changed or revisited afresh in any way.

Now I am NOT talking about liking muzak versions of great works, or ring tones for phones, etc. I'll help man the machine guns pointed at those without hesitation... But I do believe that, in some quarters, classical music has become somewhat fossilised. Incidentally, I think that (bizarrely enough) early signs are appearing that the same thing might be starting to happen to some jazz, with classic pieces being analysed to death ready to be preserved note by note in formaldehyde by some devotees.

So, I'd have no problem in playing a different arrangement of a classical (or any other) piece - provided I liked the arrangement and thought that something about it was worth learning in its own right as it were. If it sounded too limp or half-baked then I would be unlikely to bother. But I'm clearly not as fussy as some - if it's making a nice noise then I'm all for it....

My only yardstick for music is "am I enjoying this?". But if others feel differently, then that's fine too.

Cheers,

Chris

"but I just can't see them all as some sort of untouchable artefacts that can't ever be changed or revisited afresh in any way".

Well, any interpretation is different, isn't it?
Otherwise, tough luck I'd say

"I'd have no problem in playing a different arrangement of a classical (or any other) piece - provided I liked the arrangement and thought that something about it was worth learning in its own right as it were"

Very interesting opinion, though different from the obvious one of the componists mentioned above....; and you are not the only one, tyhere being a market for such, ehem, products outside (which shows that the world of classical music is perhaps far less fossilized than feared, perhaps?) ;

but it's a big world and one can accommodate even the strange arrangements, together with the tone rings (I had one with the 3rd brandenburg concerto, the best I ever had...) and the arrangements like "my first chopin" and "Beethoven in the disco" (Bee Gees anyone?).

I am glad yoo restricted your remark of "fossilization" to how clasical music "appears in some quarters" rather than "has become" as in your first post;
I understand it in the sense that it is not wrong to want to keep what is, but it is wrong to slavishly feel obliged to a certain tone or nuance or "accepted" way of playing something, and I'm all with you.....

----------------------------------

To make a parallel example: there's (or more probably there was ) a chap out there (name forgotten) who made a very decent living by "re-playing" Charlie Parker as known to us through his recordings. The man made, as far as I know, jonly that, as a living: hearing and hearing and playing exactly like that, every detail.

You could have gone to the place, closed your eyes and heard exactly the same notes etc. you would have heard from Bird; but Parker was creating and improvising and he did it all the time, whilst this chap was only recreating sounds. Whilst I understand the rational behind it and the need of some of being able to close your eyes and have the exact feeling as if Bird was there, I even wonder if this is "making music" instead of "reproducing noises" and fully agree with your concerns on that...

Is it possible:

Jazz begins with a skeletal melody as box of coloured building blocks to be created and recreated in a myriad way. The jazz musician, however, must be an expert in certain areas of music. He must know his harmonies, his modes, and know them so thoroughly that he can move from one to the other with ease. It is internalized and immediately available.

Classical music is about drawing out what is in the piece. A certain amount of knowledge and skills are needed for this. Instead of creating the music out of the skeleton, you discover and draw out what is already there.

However: Bach was a jazz musician. He improvised in that church or cathedral, having a play-off with the other organist. The early music, for spinnet for example which could not sustain sound, was skeletal, with raw progressions that had to be "filled in" by the musician.

Bach, the early musicians, had to understand music inside-out and upside down, and in fact, were able to create a theme that was inside-out and upside-down. They had to have a certain mastery which was detailed, internal, thorough, and conducive to creativity while staying within the rules. Do we have that kind of mastery now? Have these skills become lost? When we play the music of that era, are we truly playing it with the mentality that they had? Should the classical musician borrow a leaf from the jazz musician, and is there something in common historicaly in that sense?

I understand that music became more rigid as it became more complex. A complicated musical work requires a precise coordination between conductor and the ensemble of instruments, hence the military allusions we often hear about classical musical discipline and relationships.

Just random thoughts.

Kawai, HI wrote, "I suspect if I want a specific piece I should learn the REAL version. Oh well, note to self, need new piece for May's recital..."

I would tend to invest my time learning the "real" pieces also. I recently bought Alfred's CD Edition of "Chopin - 14 of his Easiest Piano Selections". These relatively easy (and original) pieces are fairly short.

If I were smitten by a difficult piece that I really wanted to play, I might attempt to learn a small part of it. This would at least contribute to learning the whole piece at some time.

Hello Keystring,

the fact that Bach was able to improvise does in my eyes not even begin to make a Jazz musician of him. I'm sure Mozart was able to improvise too, but I wouldn't define him a jazz musician for that....

My question is rather: did Bach want that you improvise with his music keeping only the skeleton as a "standard"? Would he be upset at seeing that his music is played as he has left it instead of asking why are not countless, say, new Orleans, Dixieland, Swing or Bebop variations of it are heard in the concert halls? Would he consider the use of other instruments then those indicated by him or of a completely different rhythms with only the skeleton of a theme of him to be the institutional use of his music? Would he consider the Benny Goodman version of his Brandenburg concerto #3 an execution of his music?

Yes, composers have often stolen from themselves (which is not theft in my eyes, look at Mahler) or from others (Tcaikovski, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, the very same Mahler have all amply taken inspiration from other's people music or even made "citations" with it), but they were, nonetheless, very clear about what their listeners were supposed to be hearing at any time and their approach is very "classical" in that: there is music, you play it.

Mind, I really like Benny Goodman's "interpretation" of Bach.
But that's Benny Goodman making jazz, not Bach....

No, Bach was not a jazz musician. However something existed in Bach's time that we have lost.

Dave_E.. now that's what Im talkin' 'bout

I agree completely. And my teacher has no problems with me tackling "easy" versions of some of the stuff I want to play. The way I look at it is that I am learning to play for myself, not anyone else. If someone wants to hear what I can play, fine. If not, that's fine, too. I'm not very good- I probably never will be. And if playing stuff out of my "Easiest Classical Piano" book (which has a lot of stuff that I like, made easier for a beginner to tackle. And in a lot of cases, it's basically transposing the piece to an easier key, or leaving out some ornametation or some such editing) makes me happy, then I'm gonna do it. If, at some point, I can tackle the Raindrop in it's full version, I may. Or I may just decide I'm happy with the "easy" version I have. It just takes me too long to get anything, however "easy" some may call it, to a playable form. I'd end up spending the rest of my life on 2 or 3 pieces.

Some easy versions are actually pretty good. Others are not. If the easy piece you want to play sounds good then go for it. Why hold off on playing a song you like to hear just because your fingers are not ready. I play an easier version of Born Free. It sounds great. I could never get my fingers around Roger Williams "real" version. Sometimes I will make my own easier version by playing fewer notes or playing a cord with the left hand instead of a run up a scale or leaving out a turn. As my playing of the piece gets better I add the more difficult parts back in.

As you mentioned, the method books are full of easy versions of classical pieces. My son's first recital piece was Beethoven's Ode to Joy--right hand only. He was thrilled. On another occasion, my daughter and I performed a simplified duet of Jeremiah Clarke's Trumpet Voluntary at a piano party. We had a blast, and nobody seemed to mind.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I just picked up a transcription of Beethoven's 7th Symphony for piano so I could play the beautiful haunting Allegretto (2nd movement). So, I'm not an orchestra...who cares?

Don't know about Bach but Chopin, the Improvisor's Improvisor, had major issues with it. Just ask Liszt.

I respond accepting the risk of making a fool of myself.

I say, get rid of that teacher and get one who is willing to help you play the music that you love, and to do it as quickly as possible, thus feeding rather than stifling your enthusiasm.

I believe the penalty of learning more complex arrangements of a particular piece after having learned simplified versions is being grossly exaggerated here. Perhaps if some of you are having trouble doing so you are not really ready for that more complex arrangement. Don't worry. Keep working on skill building pieces and exercises. Do some Clementi. You'll improve in time, and eventually you will be able to play that "REAL" arrangement, as you like to call it. But I'll bet that by learning an easier arrangement first you will conquer that "REAL" one sooner than you otherwise would. Indeed, if you don't learn the music that you love by first trying simplified arrangements that are within your capabilities, you risk never learning it.

I have played several simplified, student pieces and over time, as my skills improved as a result of playing a variety of the usual skill building pieces, I suddenly found myself at a new level able to take on complex versions of the original piece. And, I would do so enthusiastically. And, what a wonderful feeling of pride it was.

I also think the value of the "official-written-by-the-original-composer" version is being grossly exaggerated here. The essence of Chopin is not in the appoggiaturas, trills, and other embellishments, but in the character of the melody. It is the melody that is the musical poetry that Chopin is famous for. Ever hum or whistle a Chopin piece? I do it all the time. But I can't hum the embellishments. I'm not physically able to. My tongue can't do trills. But by humming or whistling the piece I still enjoy its unique character. I enjoy the music. And isn't that what we are all trying to do, enjoy the music? Well, I don't know about you, but that's what I'm trying to do.

I do admit that a full, original version of a Chopin piece is wonderful. Of course! But a simplified version is not bad either. I suggest that if you don't think so, perhaps you are missing the true essence of the piece. I suggest you stop listening to the trills and mordents and concentrate on the melody. And, I can go a step further. Don't think that a Chopin piece cannot be improved upon. Remember Leopold Godowsky? But even with a Godowsky improved version, the value, the beauty, the essence of the piece is always in its underlying character. Strip away the embellishments, and there it is for all to hear.

I say if you want to play nice sounding music, go ahead. Enjoy yourself. And don't listen to anyone who tells you that you are doing anything wrong. And don't let anyone tell you that a simplified Chopin piece is not a "REAL" Chopin piece. Whenever I play a student rendition of a Chopin piece I think of how at that moment Chopin is looking down at me from heaven and smiling because he sees me enjoying the musical poetry that he created, undeterred by my relative lack of skill.

I'm the poster boy for "easy"

A beautiful point, Orez Eno, beautifully written.

I agree with you completely.

So do I...bravo Orez