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

Me too.

Beautifully written post from Orez Eno, which I heartily agree with.

Cheers,

Chris

I have mixed feelings about simplified versions of classic originals. There is no scarcity of relatively, or even very, simple pieces by the great composers (Beethoven's 'Russian Folk Song' comes to mind). On the other hand, sometimes a simplified piece is done so artfully that it teaches essential skills eventually needed to play the original. I first learned a simplified 'Musette in D' that taught me to play legato in one hand and staccato in the other. It was good preparation for playing the original piece. For an experienced pianist the Musette is already simple, but a beginner can learn some useful techniques from a well-done simpler edition. And maybe have some fun too!

Count me as another who agress with Orez Eno.

faucon,

Was that simplified Musette in the Schaum blue book? I played that one and then the real version and had the same experience as you describe. Though when I started the easier version I didn't know it was a simplification. I remember thinking, I can't believe Bach wrote something this easy! I must be awesome!

Alas.

I have no problem with simplifications, though I don't seek them out for my own playing. My feeling is that there is so much piano literature at every level that I have plenty to play without them.

Don't play watered-down arrangements of your favourite pieces.
These pieces are the rewards you get to experience after working up to them gradually over time.

The watered-down versions always suck compared to the real thing. They aren't nearly as beautiful.

Play real Chopin instead of some lame arrangement of the Raindrop prelude.
There are plenty of Chopin preludes which are well within reach of just about any serious beginner after a meager year of study.

Someone said "Don't let anyone tell you an arrangement of a Chopin piece isn't a real Chopin piece".
Let's call a spade a spade.
Watered down versions are NOT the real thing.
It doesn't matter HOW well-written Orez's post was.

When you play an easy arrangement of something by Chopin, Chopin is looking down at you from heaven saying
"Why are you butchering my beautiful music? You aren't ready for it yet. Please enjoy the music that is appropriate for your current level of playing."

Godowski didn't write improved Chopin.
He wrote studies on Chopin Etudes.

I don't mean to be a party-pooper. I started playing the piano 14 years ago. I worked my way up, according to tradition, through hundreds and hundreds of easy pieces. I played many of the easier Chopin preludes (and many other easy, beautiful, original works of other composers)within two or three years of studying.

Now I'm playing many of the greatest works in the repertoire-Rachmaninoff 2nd and 3rd concerti, Beethoven Sonatas, Chopin Ballades.
It takes time and hard work to reach the level of ability it takes to do these wonderful pieces of music justice.
To play dumbed-down arrangements of great works before you are ready for the real thing is showing disrespect to these composers. They worked hard to fill the world with beautiful music. So should you.

Wow, that's rough. I usually respect your posts, Mr_Kitty, not that I always understand them.

This is out of line. You have been playing for 14 years. Good for you. Someday, maybe I can approach your level, but at 60 with 2 years in, I doubt it. So, is the music I love beyond me forever? I think not. So, for now, I will pick the pieces I wish to play without disrespecting anyone. I love Bach and Chopin and I show that love by playing the versions I can reach today. As far as I know, Chopin did not publish versions of the Raindrop for beginners, so I will use what I can reach today, and maybe someday reach the original. I fail to see that as disrespect in any manner.

We disagree, sir.

Well, I'm not one to know whether Chopin is smiling or frowning down from heaven concerning watered down versions of his original works.

It brings up the question, Are you playing to please Chopin or for your own personal betterment, enjoyment, and the entertainment of others? I would assume the ladder.

Here's a real world example from my own personal experiences. I mastered a watered down version of the Canon in D that was at my skill level at the time. It did not take long because it was simplified. Nevertheless, I enjoyed playing it, and had fun. It's a few months later, and I am now at the skill level to take on one of the most beautiful arrangements of this song I have ever heard, and definitely not watered down. All that to say that if you have fun and enjoy the simplified rendition of anything, who is anyone to stand in your way?

For me personally, I do not spend time on simplified versions, but rather find other great compositions that are within my skill level until I reach the level necessary for that "real" piece. But I must confess also that I do have a pet project right now that is beyond my skill level that I spend a little time on here and there.

Anyway Kawai, remember why you play piano in the first place? The piano teacher you mention most likely has your best interests at heart, but nevertheless, it is you who pays her.

One more point, if I play the original version of a Chopin piece with some different accenting and expression from what was intended, am I also out of line? Are we MIDI computers, or individual human beings each one of us with different interpretations and styles that are exhibited everytime we sit before an instrument and perform.

Ultimately, it is about the music, and not the notes.

God bless

Hisalone

Good Gravy! I can understand being advised to NOT play pieces because they are just simply beyond one's current technical skills (too hard and would take too much time & energy to learn) - BUT, being advised NOT to play pieces because they are too easy (simplified versions of extended, demanding classical works)?!?

Why would anyone tell anyone else NOT to play a given piece of music - if they like it and they want to and they can?

Disrespecting the composer? Bull! These simplified versions are just "previews of coming attractions" - a hint of the great work that will eventually be possible (given time & hard work).

Play anything and everything you can and/or want to - and have fun doing it!

It's a big, wide, beautiful musical world out there - enjoy it completely & throughly!

It makes absolutely no sense at all that learning a simplifeid version now will cause you problems later when you're studying the original work. Why would it? How could it? Nonsense! If you've reached the point in your progress as a pianist (after years of practice & conquest of hunderds or thousands of works of increasing difficulty) where you're ready to attack a major classical work why would a simplified version of it that you learned years ago when you were first starting out have any effect at all - except maybe to INSPIRE you in your current quest!

It sounds like you might want to consider a different teacher - one who doesn't turn up his/her nose at these "easy classics" out of sheer arrogance because of their advanced pianistic abilities or petty snobbishness because such works are "beneath their dignity". There seems to be far too much of that going around in the wonderful world of the piano these days - and who wants or needs it?

Let the music play on ....

JF

When I want to play for enjoyment, then I take the easy versions of the classics. When I want to work, then I struggle with the harder versions knowing that to get better it does take work.
Hisalone, what version of the Cannon in D are you on now? I have outgrown a couple of easier versions and would like to continue working on a new version.
Thanks.

Wow, thanks everybody for such great food for thought. There is clearly a lot of experience here and passion!

EXACTLY.

Eighty8 asks:

Denes Agay's solo piano transcription. Perhaps not the most complex version ever, but beautiful nonetheless and within my level to learn. That can be found here.

http://www.presser.com/marketing/spotlite/pachelbel/pachelbel.htm

If you want to see how it looks let me know.

Thanks for asking.

Hisalone

I actually prefer some of the easier arrangements of the classical pieces anyway, sometimes they even sound better. I can still remember a Bach Aria that I played out of the Michael Aaron Book 3. Even though it was a simplified version of an Aria by Bach, it was BEAUTUFUL!

I say play which ever arrangement makes you feel good. After all most of us are playing for our own enjoyment anyway.

Remember sometimes the more simple things in life are more beautiful...................

It's perfectly fine to disagree.

I would like to reiterate that I was 2 years in once as well.
I wanted to play all sorts of things I wasn't ready for.
Instead I played original works that were well within my grasp.
I am not being snobbish or arrogant.
There is plenty of beautiful music available to the pianist at all levels of difficulty.
I see no reason to play simplified arrangements.
In my opinion, these arrangements are disrespectful to the composer.

I respect the opinion that these arrangements are "previews" of bigger things to come and that they give joy to people who are unable to play the originals.

My opinion happens to be very different.

If playing some crappy arrangement of the RachPag 18th variation makes you happy than by all means, go ahead and play it.

I see no need to play arrangements as there are so many beautiful pieces that you could play instead.

If they give you joy, then I am truly happy for you.

Although I enjoy nothing more than playing the piano, I play for very different reasons than my own enjoyment. I play to enrich the lives of others.
Serious audiences that pay money to hear pianists are not interested in arranged versions for beginners. You must understand that this is where I'm coming from.

I realize that adult beginners are playing largely for their own enjoyment and are not trying to become concert pianists.
As I have said several time-if it makes you happy, then by all means go right ahead and do it.

I was distraught when the first of these kinds of works came my way. There were recognizeable melodies, but they seemed "empty". I did not understand why I was given such music to play. Now I understand that it was to make me happy as an adult student. It seems that there are two distinct mindsets, and teachers must have a dickens of a time figuring out whom they are teaching to which purpose. I am in my 50's so I also don't have all the time in the world. Now I can understand the enjoyment in either view, but they are two different ways of enjoying (I think).

Well, I am very surprised at the amount of response to my simple post. I thank you all and I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed them all.

My first watered-down Chopin piece was from a set of home study lessons. It was only 16 measures called "Valse in A Minor" and it represented the beginning theme of what I know from listening to Chopin's works as "Waltz in A Minor Opus 34, No.2".

I can't tell you how profoundly that simple beginner rendition of a truly great piece affected me. And you should see the sheet music. You'd laugh. I mean it is completely watered down. The usual long trill is completely gone. You'll know the one I mean if you listen to it. It's right at the beginning. But the music still lashed out and grabbed my soul. And here is the important part. It was music that was being played by my own fingers. I was startled. I still find it hard to believe that so few simple notes could have such an affect. That's the true genius of Chopin. And even more importantly, it inspired me. It inspired me because I was actually playing a rendition of a truly great piece, a piece that I had heard many times in recordings and on the radio, a piece that I was proud I could recreate even if I did so only partially. Indeed, the experience gave me enthusiasm to practice and learn more.

Hisalone was very correct in pointing out that people like me really play for themselves. But, and now I really risk making a fool of myself, I do occasionally harbor thoughts of original composers looking down at me from behind a cloud in the sky as I play. I have statue/busts on my piano of Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin and I imagine them looking at me and passing judgment on my playing. And although I admit that Mr-Kitty may be correct in saying that I butcher their works, I prefer to think that they would still approve of my efforts. I know I approve, and so does my wife. Does anyone else really matter?

I can appreciate that for someone like Mr_Kitty, an accomplished pianist of 14 years experience, playing piano is so highly competitive that they must define for themselves very high standards. But I also wonder if it is prudent for pianists of 14 years experience to cast such harsh judgment on a beginner's efforts, especially, as gmm1 points out, I do not have enough years left on this earth to ever catch up to you. Indeed, from what I can guess about you, I could never catch up in a dozen lifetimes. I simply do not have your talent. Perhaps that is why I tend to romanticize my meager efforts. To some it may seem like a lot of silliness, but at the same time people like me often view the intense attitude of many accomplished pianists as even sillier. But I did enjoy your response. It certainly has taught me that there are many ways to look at piano playing. I only hope that I do not have nightmares tonight dreaming of Chopin looking down at me from behind dark storm clouds, showing the devil's horns, brandishing wolf's teeth, and firing lightning bolts at me for butchering his precious creations.

Thanks for permission to disagree.

It's obvious to even the most casual observer that there's a strong tendency in your posts here to exhibit a small degree of arrogance & snobbishness. Otherwise, why refer to simplified classical pieces as "dumbed-down" or "crappy"?

Why, yes there is plenty of music available to pianists of all levels of difficulty - INCLUDING simplified versions of more demanding & extended classical works.

The reasons you were seeking that these simplified versions should be played are: (1) they are there; (2) we like them and (3) because we want to.

How can one disrespect a composer by playing his works - even simplified versions? If you really wanted to look at this in the extreme, then if you don't play a certain piece exactly the same way as and just as good as the composer does (did) you too are disrespecting him! How demandingly goofy or extreme do you want to get about this immaterial point?

If you admit that playing these simplified pieces gives people enjoyment (as you do) then why aren't your encouraging them to do so instead of discouraging them from doing so?

Good gravy! You're actually right about one thing - audiences not paying to hear these simplified versions - but why is that something to be discussed here at all? Nobody ever said they would! This is totally irrelevant.

Why do I have this vague impression that you're "putting us on" (or at least hoping you are?

JF

Heres where I stand.. take it or leave it.

I am of the opinion that if you are playing easy pieces ,and you know there are easy pieces, and you are learning from the playing of those pieces.. you are not doing any disservice to yourself or the original composer. NONE.

Now, if those pieces are a crutch to your progression.. or if you get to the point where you can play a simplified piece in your sleep and aren't moving forward.. that's the point where you do yourself and the original composer the disservice.

There is nothing wrong with finding music at or a little above your level and using it to pull your skill up. Nothing. The flaw, in my book, comes with the stopping.

Thanks for being sarcastic, John Frank.
I'm actually right about one thing?
I've been training to become a concert pianist for 3/4 of my life, John. I know a thing or two.

I'm not putting you or anyone else on.
I merely stated an opinion. I'm sorry you took offense.
I don't think playing arrangements is the best way to learn. In fact, I find it's actually disrespectful to the original composer.
That said, however, the original composer has been dead for a long time.
If it makes you happy to play some lowly arrangement of a great work that does not do piece justice whatsoever, go ahead. It's in your home, for your enjoyment. Go nuts.
As an amateur, you have the luxury of playing simply for your own enjoyment.

As a professional, I am in a different position.
Being in this position changes one's opinion.
If you were me you would feel the same way.
If I were you I would agree with you entirely.
There's no need for anyone to take offense.

There is also no need for sarcasm.

i hate when i see in a book a simplified version of a tune. I want to learn the peices as they were intended to be heard. sure that might prevent me from playing some peices right now, but that's alright...it'll just be that much more rewarding when i get there

I hope some of the peices I've already started to learn are not dumbed down at all because I would be mad about that hehe :p

Duplicate post - sorry.

For the amateur, there's no right or wrong here. It's a matter of preference. Isn't the bottom line that amateurs should play the music that they enjoy playing? Or that their audience (presumably friends and family) want to hear?

If that's a simplified version of a difficult piece, there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply a choice that the pianist has made. IMO, it's better to play an easier piece well, than to stumble all over a harder piece.

But it's also perfectly reasonable for an amateur to not play the simplified versions, because they want to experience the original when they have sufficient skill. Much like not reading the abridged versions of novels. There's plenty of easier original pieces available in the literature.


Mary

I'm sorry you misconstrued my meaning & intention Mr-Kitty - I wasn't offended at all & I wasn't trying to be sarcastic - when I said you were right about one thing it was merely a factual statement - it didn't see any others in your post.

As far as being disrespectful to the composer, you keep saying that but you do not explain how or why - some details on your thoughts please. And you didn't respond to my extreme example to you about this.

Yes, it makes me happy to play some lowly (as you say) arrangement of a great work - yet another derisive adjective to go along with your dumbed-down and crappy - thank you.

You understand my position on this matter as an amateur, and I understand your position as a professional. What I don't understand - or more precisely what I can't accept - is your position as a professional TOWARDS us amateurs and the music we play (including lowly, dumbed-down, crappy versions of classical masterpieces). The term condescension keeps popping into my mind for some strange reason.

And finally, it simply boggles my mind how you know what I would think or feel about this if I were you. Long distance mind reading among your talents, sir?

JF

Mr_Kitty
I'm a little confused about why you, an accomplished professional, choose to negatively criticize amateur beginners for playing simplified versions of the music that you, as an advanced pianist, are able to play. Of course it is not surprising that you yourself aspire to a high standard. But to criticize beginners for not having the same standard, beginners who probably have no hope of ever reaching your level? To accuse them of being disrespectful to original composers? That's cruel.

You say you're a professional pianist. Let me remind you that a large percentage of your audience consists of amateurs like Kawai, HI, JohnFrank, and OREZ_ENO. These are people who are interested in playing piano themselves. These are people who might admire a person such as yourself who plays professionally. These are people who love the music that you are able to play. And these are people who can be easily hurt by the kind of accusations that you have rendered against them. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by personally insulting their efforts in music? It seems to me that after being subjected to your pompous, bigoted, and condescending attitude these people might be a lot less likely to pay good money to see you play, no matter how good you are. These are your customers. Why don't you respect them? Indeed, the next time I am in Toronto I will certainly be apprehensive about going to any recital out of fear that the pianist may be you.

Learn to get along with people, or you'll soon find yourself playing to an empty audience.

Oh, one last message to OREZ_ENO. I have visited heaven often during my many near death experiences and I have spoken to Frederic Chopin himself. He wants you to know that he approves very much of your rendition of Valse in A Minor. But he asks that you try to play it just a little faster.

I am wondering quietly to myself which is an insult, and which a compliment in opening the door a crack. However, I cannot find the words to express it more clearly. The perceptions are too disparate.

Iuapparc - MR_Kitty's main maladjustment could very well be his relative youth - not quite 21 apparently from his profile - and the attendant immaturity that often resides in one at that age - not that this is an acceptable excuse but it could go a long way in terms of explaining his need for an attitudinal adjustment concerning amateur pianists and the music he feels they should/should not play - there is an old Pennsylvania Dutch expression which covers this situation which goes something like:

"We grow to soon old and too late wise". (something like that anyway).

I get the distinct impression he's over here in the Adult Beginner Forum "slumming" and could be (and should be) spending his time much more productively in one of the Forums for advanced players, which he clearly is (and if you don't believe it just ask him!).

Anyway, enough about this. Somebody should slap me silly for attempting to reason with such unreasonable gentlemen. It's a fruitless and thankless task.

JF

I am more interested in what a person has to know and can offer of that knowledge, than that person's age, which is immaterial.

Hi, Matt H, I know what you mean! Actually it was an arrangement by Clifford Evans, a concert pianist--arranged more I believe to teach legato/staccato playing than to substitute for the original. Then I tried playing a slightly easier-than-original transposition in G, but had a little trouble and dropped it for a while. After learning a little more technique through other pieces, when I returned to the original 'Musette' it didn't seem so hard any more! I still think the abridged version helped me to get a feeling for staccato & legato playing. It didn't substitute for the original--more like a stepping stone.

A valid point. I will never give a concert, so it is not a consideration. Although, I do attend concerts, and attendees tend to be a little more lenient than you suggest.

For your kind consideration:

Liberace
Igudesman & Joo
Victor Borge
Katzenjammer
Wayland Pickard
Chico Marx
Morecambe and Wise
Les Dawson

And many many more. Absolute perfection reproducing the original score does not always seem to be required.

Not everyone of us who decide to learn piano want to become concert pianist, though I respect their skill, talent and dedication. I personally at 55 just want to play songs I like to listen to so they are enjoyable for anyone within ear shot of me.
I ride bikes and race but never aspired to be in the Tour de France. Learned to fly without needing to fly jets.
I think most in this forum are close to the same.
This isn't " The Adult Beginner Concert Pianist"
Forum after all.

Come on guys, Mr Kitty didn't say he was a pro and you should be arguing against what he wrote rather then referencing his age...

Edit: Ah, OK, yes he did say he was a pro... ignore me about that bit...

lol if you don't believe me watch my videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HFR5D70oyw

I know a large fraction of my audience is made up of amateurs.
I can assure you I'm not the unreasonable, maladjusted individual who gets his kicks out of putting down amateur pianists that you guys seem to think I am.

I once heard Andre Laplante (famous Canadian pianist) say everyone has 3 ages. A physical age, a psychological age, and an artistic age.

If composers intended for beginners to play easy arrangements of their greatest works they would have made such arrangements themselves.

I know so many dozens of amateur pianists who bravely tackle challenging repertoire and frequently perform great works very successfully.
There is a longstanding tradition that people learn easier pieces first, before graduating to more complex works. I have been immersed in this tradition since I was three years old and took up Suzuki violin.
Arrangements of great works for beginners are simply not part of this tradition. There are many reasons for this. You must learn to play simple pieces beautifully first. The problem with these arrangements is that they are NOT simple pieces. They are complex pieces that have been simplified (often but not always unskillfully). Desipite the simplification, the
melodies remain
full of richness and complexity which requires great subltety in order to do justice to these incredible composers. Beginning players simply lack the ability to play it should be played.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun playing easy arrangements in your own home. By all means, go nuts.

If you ask me, however, these arrangements are inappropriate for beginning students to learn. They should learn music which was composed for the perpose of teaching young students. Clementi and so many others composed delightful works which help to develop the skillsets you will need to take on more advanced pieces.
Easy arrangements of the Raindrop prelude, Rhapsody in Blue, and God knows what else DO NOT help the student develop the skills they will need later on. There is so much beautiful music out there that is appropriate for beginners to learn.
If you don't want to conform to tradition, I couldn't care less.
I have stated my reasons clearly.
This is just my opinion.
Take it or leave it.

Yes you have. At least 3 times now.
Can you accept that not everyone needs to reach your level?
That we don't share your feelings of insulting the composer.
If they were alive today they would love to have some mailbox money coming in from copyrights.

I understand that what Mr. Kitty is saying is not that there is a level to be reached, but that practicing is a vehicle toward the skills we need to play in a satisfactory manner. And that playing these pieces in that way will undermine the ability to acquire these skills.

It depends on goals. For those of us who wish to be able to play recognizeable tunes, and derive pleasure out of that, the advice is not necessary. For those of us who want to get some of those skills, it is a welcome caveat.

At that point choices are to be made, and I understand those choices will be respected. I'm an adult student myself, and unfortunately not a young one.

Mr_Kitty wrote:
I can assure you I'm not the unreasonable, maladjusted individual who gets his kicks out of putting down amateur pianists that you guys seem to think I am.

You have done a pretty good job of convincing me that you are.

When you play an easy arrangement of something by Chopin, Chopin is looking down at you from heaven saying
"Why are you butchering my beautiful music? You aren't ready for it yet. Please enjoy the music that is appropriate for your current level of playing."
---------------------------------------

I would have said the same, but it seems that Chopin sends different signals to Orez Eno and me..

I'd still say that had Chopin thought it sooo beautiful to have his melodies around in simplified versions, he would have done them himself, making also some not despicable money in the process.
Think of it, he could have labelled the series "My First Chopin", "My Intermediate Chopin" and "My Advanced Chopin", a bit like Steinway, Boston and Essex.. .

Again, I am not aware of Chopin or Beethoven etc. doing such things; allow myself to think that this was *not* a coincidence; and do not think that they would not have liked the money...

The day I go in greener pastures I will not fail to ask him, though...

Just because you don't intend to become a professional pianist doesn't mean you shouldn't always try your best to improve.

dvs cycles-
when in this thread did i EVER say ANYone had to reach my level. Do not put words in my mouth.
I said I know many amateur pianists who play at a very respectable level. Many of them started late in life.
No one has to reach any levels here.
I'm sorry some of you folks
don't seem to be interested in improvement.
If your pianist aspirations are to be able to play an arrangement of the Raindrop prelude then don't even bother to read my posts.
If you are interested in being able to perform a
Beethoven Sonata in front of your friends and family, then the best way to go about getting there does not involve playing beginner arrangements of advanced works.
There is no need for conflict, insults, or any incivility whatsoever.

Hi,

When I first read one of Mr_Kitty's many strongly opinionated posts I had exactly the same reaction.... who is this pompous twerp!?

But it's easy to get the wrong idea over the internet, so I checked out a few more of his posts. Firstly, I listened to some of his self promoting videos. After wincing part through a couple of them I realised that a) he was nowhere near as good as he was trying to make out and b) he was pretty much still a kid playing on Mum's piano.

OK, nothing wrong with any of that.... he still plays better than I do, and also undoubtedly knows plenty of things about piano that I don't yet. So I still might learn something from him.

After reading one of his diatribes about certain aspects of digital pianos, I also realised that he didn't always know what he was talking about either. But (like many of us... ) he wasn't going to let a little thing like not knowing all the facts stand in the way of a good rave...

So that changed my view a bit. If he doesn't mind some of the posters here thinking of him as a somewhat mouthy kid who rather overdoes the self promotion of himself as an 'expert', then that's OK. Compared to guitar forums, the level of unthinking rudeness about others is generally very low here. I rather like the fact that the posters here aren't all the same as me - they have different ages, different skill levels, different characters, varied opinions etc. I don't have to agree with everybody, or even like them much - it's just all part of the rich tapestry of the Internet, to be taken with a grain of salt.... make that a handful of salt...

I'm not always going to agree with Mr_K, or anybody else here, and I sometimes wish that certain posters would think more about the reactions of other members before posting. But on the other hand, I'd rather have a few other posters whose style and opinions I strongly disagree with, than a bland homogenous mix that never raised my eyebrows.

Cheers,

Chris

lol Late Beginner
which ones did you wince through?

Geez.... you're asking an old guy like me to remember[/b] details like that....

All that I can recall was that you had attached some covering remarks about being disappointed with the sound quality of both the recording device, and your Mum's piano.

I (smugly) agreed with what you said, but was also pleased (in an entirely self serving and small-minded way of course...) to discover that you weren't quite Horowitz yet either. It almost, but not quite, offset my slight feeling of irritation at what you could do that I can't yet...

Please feel free to direct me towards more masterful renditions. I have to go out for a few hours right now, but I'm always willing to have my opinions revised upwards.

Cheers,

Chris

Lol I don't ever recall claiming to be Horowitz
Everything you need to be able to play exactly like me is in the posts I have made all over this forum.
I guarantee that.
It's all there.

Welcome to the forum, luapparc! With posts like that, I hope you hang around for a long, long while.

I've come to the stark realization that what I suggested in one of my previous posts above is absolutely true: MR_Kitty is "puting us on".

He's playing little adolescent mind-games with us. He's simply engaged in the tedious and rather silly scheme of deliberately aggitating - of trying to provoke negative reactions and stir up the proverbial hornets nest with all sorts of inane comments, pretentious assertions and outrageous opinions - all for the"sport" of it.

He's not serious at all - he simply couldn't be. It's more than obvious that he doesn't really believe anything he says, and couldn't care less what anyone here thinks or says about him or the comments in his posts.

Actually when you read back thru his posts, nobody really could think the way he does or really believe the things he says. To do so you would have to be an incredibly egotistical clown, and I would hate to think that of anyone here. Nobody could possibly be this immature or unencumbered by the thought-process.

Hence, the only alternative is my above stated conclusion about his real motives & intensions.

Maybe if we ignore him he'll just take his boring and childish games somewhere else. I think most of us would prefer to keep the discussion in the forums on a more pleasant, mature & rational level.

MR_Kitty - don't go away mad, but please just go away. Come back in 20-25 years when you've grown up and wised up.

Thanks, JF

:rolleyes:

John Frank, with all due respect - this forum is for all of us. I would like to choose whose posts I read, and whose posts I don't read. You are free to do the same. Do not take it upon yourself to decide on behalf on everyone here who is welcome to stay and who should leave.

I understand that the rules of netiquette dictate that arguments are to be made on ideas which are addressed according to the actual ideas; value judgements on ideas are somewhat tolerated; adjectives describing people are not acceptable.

Hi everyone

I'm new to playing the piano and have had two lessons.

I've seen some of the beginning songs in the Alfred book and they are good songs but not the songs I want to be able to play when I'm 'good'.

I said as much to my piano teacher and he said I could practice some simpler versions of the songs I do like. Furthermore he got me started on learning some basic chord progressions.

So hopefully next lesson I can start on learning some Mariah Carey songs etc.

It may not sound as good as what the song was supposed to be like but I'll just be happy playing something that sounds like the songs I like haha. Also, in time I intend to get better and better at playing those songs I like so it's not like an end but rather just the starting point.

It's great to see different opinions on this though and I respect everyones point of view

Mr. Kitty wrote:

I think some of the responders are in danger of making Mr. Kitty appear to be the most reasonable participant in this thread.

While the tone of this discussion has gotten a little warm, I don't find any of the arguments put forth to be unreasonable. (Except maybe those about Chopin in heaven.) There are good reasons on both sides, and I don't see any need to settle the issue. People will do what they want anyway. At least we have learned why they make the choices they do.

Mr_Kitty wrote:
There is no need for conflict, insults, or any incivility whatsoever.

However…

Mr_Kitty wrote:
The watered-down versions always suck compared to the real thing.

Mr_Kitty wrote:
When you play an easy arrangement of something by Chopin, Chopin is looking down at you from heaven saying, "Why are you butchering my beautiful music?"

Mr_Kitty wrote:
To play dumbed-down arrangements of great works before you are ready for the real thing is showing disrespect to these composers.


Such statements are insulting and uncivil, and anyone could have predicted that they would lead to a conflict.

Well said.

JF, thank you for the response. Mine was not a reprimand. My concern is that when one member tells another to go away, and the other does, then those who were interested in hearing what the other had to say no longer have a chance to hear it. Thus if you say go away, you are depriving me of hearing what will no longer be said, and in this way have in a sense imposed your choice upon me. Of course the "other" can choose to go or not to go.

Personally I would never tell someone to go or stay, unless I were acting in my role as moderator in consultation with fellow mods - a role I don't have here - because it gives the appearance of speaking on behalf of the collective. You, of course, are free to choose your own actions according to your own values, and have a right to do so.

keystring - you're absolutely right again - I should not have used the phrase "go away" - I readily acknowledge that this was impolite and discourteous - it's just the old expression "Don't go away mad, just go away" which has been used for generations and always in a more-or-less light-hearted, good humored way - I can understand how it might be misconstrued and give offense, but somehow I have this rather vague impression that MR_Kitty was not about to heed that advice (or any other I offered), so you have no real fears in that regard - and I certainly wouldn't be presumptuous enough to "speak on behalf of the collective" (as you say) - like all of us I speak only for myself - and thanks again for your very diplomatic, non-reprimanding reprimands! You're obviously a class-act.

JF

Thanks, JF. And obviously I need to develop a sense of humour. Would a Scherzo be in order?

KStr

Of course, keystring - would that order be "straight up" or "on the rocks"? Sorry. Maybe you will honor us with a Scherzo on the next recital! I eagarly await your performance (even if it's a "simplified" version of a classic masterpiece!).

JF

Mr_Kitty wrote:
Godowski didn't write improved Chopin.
He wrote studies on Chopin Etudes. [/b]

Well, I guess an arranger could write "Beginner Pieces on Chopin Melodies" couldn't he? Or are you only allowed to make things harder, not easier?

I personally don't care for most of these simplified versions, but it's usually because they're not very well-written, not because I think any residents of heaven will be insulted. I don't choose them for my students, but if someone really wants to play something, why should I squash them? I sometimes write my own arrangements for them. Everybody, play what you like and don't feel you're guilty of sacrilege by playing a tune in an arrangement not sanctioned by the composer. Oh, and while you're at it, feel free to go to a performance of Shakespeare where a scene has been cut out. Or enjoy the movie version of Pride and Prejudice where they changed some of the dialogue.

(Disclaimer: I have been playing the piano for 50 years, teaching for 40, and I too play professionally)(not that this has much to do with my argument, I just thought I'd stick it in )

I'm a bit curious why someone would come into the "Adult Beginner's Forum" and lecture us about playing complex music in its "purest" form.

We're beginners. The goal here should be to learn. I'd agree if you thought we were representing ourselves as playing the full arrangement or something different, but we don't. When we say we played Pachabel's Canon in D from the back of our method book, do people really think we're representing ourselves as playing the actual version?

So I'm curious as to the "basis" for the complaints. Every great composer stands on the shoulders of others, and every great artist has learned by mastering the masters before them.. but to start that mastery requires the outline of the artwork before filling it in.

Look at Schumann and Liszt and Scriabin, and how they used melodies that Chopin explored to develop their own works. Some would argue as they progressed down the creation of their own works that they were performing "easy" arrangements of a great master, but time has turned that into "Influenced by" instead of "taken from."

Now, by no means are we Chopin or Liszt or Schumann or Scriabin.. but, when you tell us that copying or refining or even simplifying their pieces for our education and improvement is somehow cheap, be aware that the greats did the very same things as they learned.

If I read the posts right, there was also a suggestion that such a practice was injurious to growth in pianism. I'm not for or against the idea since I don't know enough - just stating my impression.

In general, I can't see anything in this argument. In a specific case it might be that an arrangement was close enough to the original for the player to find it confusing, or for them to have to unlearn certain figurations etc. But in general I don't think this would be so.

How about transcriptions? I've always wanted to play Tchaikovsky's "Sleeping Beauty Waltz" but couldn't find a good piano arrangement of it, so I finally just made up my own. Just my 2 cents, but I think as long as you don't mangle the melody too much, the composers wouldn't be too offended by different transcriptions and arrangements of his/her compositions.

(Please excuse sound quality - playing/recording on a little portable here). :rolleyes:

http://www.box.net/shared/6khtx86ecc

Anyway, I think most composers were first and foremost creative people who were open-minded to "new sounds". Tchaikovsky was the first composer to make use of the celesta (most notably in "Sugar Plum Fairy") in a symphonic work, for which he was roundly booed by the initial critics, but now it's a "classic" sound in classical music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celesta

By all means. Personally I wouldn't want to, anymore than I would want a reproduction of Monet's Water Lillies hanging on my wall with a black splodge where the odd lily should be.

I'm a beginner with no burning desire to play any one particular piece. Each piece I play I have to work at. If I learn a simplified version of a master piece I would imagine that by the time I had developed the expertise {one can dream} to tackle that masterpiece as originally written, I would have sufficient expertise to not be influenced by the earlier learning.

The idea of tackling simple original pieces appeals to me. Already I have found 3 pieces in a method book that are close to the original. I learnt those pieces from the method book, presented in a different key, with a few notes changed. Presumably the author felt these adjustments were more suitable to the teaching method than including the originals. However, in now tackling the originals, because I am a beginner, I have to 'unlearn' the influence of the method versions. I have found it mildly annoying.

Concerning the current highly interesting trend of discussion in this thread about the effect that playing a simplified version of a more extended, demanding classical piece would have (or not have) on ultimately tackling & conquering it, let me quote myself (from my first post way back somewhere on pg. 2, I think). Hey, that was stimulating & satisfying! (quoting myself, that is).

But, think about it. You study a nice, little 16-32 measure piece in your beginner's method which is just some quaint, old tune that may or may not be familiar to you.

You notice that some famous composer's name is at the top right - maybe you know it and maybe not. You do fairly well with this little ditty, then after a little while move on, completely forgetting about it & possibly never playing it again as you move onward & upward to ever-increasingly lengthy & complex works of many different types of music from many different composers.

You grind these out one by one over the course of the next 2, 3, 4 or more years, mastering many, many of them, including a number of rather difficult works.

All of a sudden in your studies you come across this piece that you think just might have the same title and be by the same composer as one you played somewhere back in your distant past when you were a beginning piano student & as you initially attempt to play it the work even sounds vaguely the same.

Now, after all you've been thru, after all the years and works of increasing complexity that you've put under your belt and after all the advanced technique that you've painstakingly aquired, after all this - why or how would it ever be concievably possible that a little, simple tune that you learned easily and in passing years ago effect you in any way now as you approach & attempt to master just the next piece in a very long line of such complex, demanding works at this advanced stage in your growing development as an accomplished pianist?

Any thoughts on where this scenario might be flawed?

Thanks, JF

JF thank you for that.
Perfectly stated and I wish it was the last post on this subject.

You mean the Canon in D at the end of Alfred book two that has taken me weeks to get from 17 mins to 6 mins isn't the original!!

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark,

Sorry, but if you really want to there is another Alfred's edition you can work on:

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/store/smp_...ts+Item-_-Title

This one is about twice as long. One advantage is that you would be able to use what you have already learned. This version just adds a bunch more variations on the one in the Alfred's method books.

Rich

Thanks Rich, the first page is the same as in my version in book two. Also by Palmer. I will go to this piece at a later date. I'm really trying to get book 3 done this year...

This argument is getting ridiculous. This entire discussion is an unwinable Ford vs Chevy debate. BOTH sides have valid points.

I guess there is no right or wrong way to play a tune as long as you are being true to yourself.

Performing, (or at least trying too) play a piece that is way above your abilites just to please someone else is wrong. If your true goal is to someday work up to the original, then that should be your goal to pursue over time.

In the meantime, rather than just getting discouraged by not being able to perform the original, why not learn a score compatibly written for your curent abilities?...[A third grader does'nt take algebra or physics because that is not combatible with their current abilites. Instead a student learns step by step using the previous steps as a foundation to work from.]

If an *easier*/more compatible version of raindrops is available, then that is the most *compatible* version to learn...[Addition/subtraction for a first grader, NOT calculus!].

After this re-arranged score is mastered, the only logical choice to to undertake a slightly more challenging one only to eventually reach the original.

This just seems so pathetically obvious to me!.

Call me slow or stupid but I've found that step by step learning is the most effective way of obtaining the best comprehension and retention of information.

Just it should be mentioned that, to put it as nicely as possible, it is somewhat disingenuous to put forward the position that this is the ABF and therefore nobody more advanced than a beginner should be commenting. I recently listened to the Chopin Mazurkathon and the Chopin preludes recital that originated out of this forum, and it is clear that it is complete and total nonsense that this forum is limited to beginners. And an e-recital of the Chopin etudes is planned, which is about as far from beginner material as can be imagined. So the "we're all just beginners here" stance just doesn't wash.

I'm an amateur myself, but have played for over 50 years, and so I'm hardly a beginner. But Piano World doesn't have a forum for the likes of me, so I jump around depending on what is interesting. And this thread is pretty interesting.

In my opinion, there actually isn't such a thing as a "simplified version" of a Chopin Prelude. Calling it a "simplified version" is purely a marketing gimmick. Chopin created works of musical art, and they are what they are as he wrote them. They can't be changed without becoming something else, and they certainly can't be "simplified" and still be Chopin. A "simplified version" is in truth really a new composition that is based on Chopin's original, an arrangement.

If I had any realistic hope of learning the real thing, I would never, ever mess with one of these arrangements, if for no other reason than it would give me a malformed idea of the piece that I'd then have to try to unlearn. And that simplified arrangement could haunt and affect perception of the real thing in ways hard to imagine, because music goes really deep.

Actually, even if I didn't think I'd ever tackle the real thing, I doubt I'd go for one of these dumbed-down arrangements, just because they strike me as really condescending, and as ripoffs of the composer. I just wouldn't feel good about it. But that's just me. Clearly, others feel differently about it.

My 2 cents. I play what I am able to and enjoy. I would love to play the originals but since I have only been taking piano lessons since this summer they are a bit out of my reach. In the meantime why not play "easy" music that sounds good? At least after the week or so it takes me to get there.

My 2 cents. I play what I am able to and enjoy. I would love to play the originals but since I have only been taking piano lessons since this summer they are a bit out of my reach. In the meantime why not play "easy" music that sounds good? At least after the week or so it takes me to get there.

eek sorry for the double post.

Beginner or no beginner, if you are taking piano lessons and you want the teacher to help you on a certain piece, the piece needs to be approved by the teacher. If you want to work on it on your own, that's fine but don't mention it to your teacher.

If you are self taught like me, play what you like and you don't have to play what you don't like.

For people that are leaning toward classical music, if you spend the time to learn the simplified (50% or more notes are left out) version of a piece, then you hear someone else plays the original piece which sound nothing like what you play, would you still be happy with the simplified version?

Melissa, you are absolutely correct in your thinking.

While many members have frowned upon playing an arrangement that is compatible[/b] for ones curent abilities...(makes NO sense!),, what makes even LESS sense to me is trying to play an original score when it is not within your abilities thereby getting frustrated and ultimitely giving up altogether.

Any good teacher will tell you that positive reinforcement is crucial to the success and longevity of any activity.

Using myself as an example, several months ago I posted up a simplified version of Claire de Lune. I thought it sounded very nice and was perfectly compatible with my playing abilities at that time.

Since then, I have dabbled in an intermediate (as opposed to beginer) version of this piece and that will be my next goal to achieve.

I will continue to learn arrangements of this piece that are within my abilities until the point at which I am able to perform the original.

1st grade..second grade....third and so on. NOT[/b] 1st grade, 8th, then grad school!!!....Get my point.

It really bugs the crap out of me when people say that playing a simplified (compatible) version of say Chopin is being disrespectful like he was a deity or something!.

What the real shame would be is if trying to play all these original scores ends up just making students frustrated and ultimitely quitting playing piano altogether.

Little leaguers start off playing T-ball in which the batter hits the ball from a T. This is NOT considered being disrespectful to Babe Ruth and other baseball legends as the Babe himself would not want his young child getting beaned in the mellon because someone wanted a real pitcher like in the pros.

Once the kids mature and their skills improve, they will slowly start adding in more complex tasks like a real live pitcher.

Over the years, the real pitching speeds get faster and the batters adjust and get better.

In time, the little leagers turn into Babe Ruth leagues which turns into high school leagues, college and possibly even pros some day.

Asking an 8 year old little leaguer with snot dripping down his nose chewing on a wad of bubble gum to take a 95 mph fastball (like the pros...or an original composition!) is absurd.

Why can't people just play what they are capable of and enjoy which also gives them positive reinforcement and further inscentive to continue forward?.

Nobody said that they will not continue to strive for one day playing the original score as written, it's just that everything takes time and students really need to learn how to play the basics correctly before tackling something above their abilities.

I would even venture to say that Chopin himself would much rather see a student performing a simplified version of one of his works and observing the students steady progress over the years as opposed to watching the student become frustrated and quit. Heck, he may even feel honored that these new students love his music so much that they have chosen his scores to learn from.

If I were Chopin, I would much rather have my music be part of the tools used to becoming a profficient pianist, knowing that I had contributed to this outcome rather than having my music contribute to the ultimate demise of the student.

Rome was'nt built in a day, neither are pianists!. Rome still WAS built however, just one step at a time.

Amen to that! Geeeeez, it's about enjoyment. Nobody is getting hurt, or dying. Play what you enjoy. If the teacher doesn't like it, play it on the side, she doesn't have to hear it. I don't listen to classical music, so when I hear the dumbed down version, it's pretty to me.

I recently purchased a book of Bach minuets. In the notes it said that Bach simplified his own works when teaching his children. Even Bach recognized the instructional value of simplified versions of difficult music! I'm sure other composers must have done the same thing. If it's good enough for Bach, its good enough for me.

One of the reasons for T-ball is that the young children involved literally don't yet possess the hand-eye coordination to hit a thrown ball---even one thrown slowly. As you wisely note, this limitation doesn't mean they can't enjoy ball in an easier form, and gradually work up to the 'real thing'.

Just my opinion, but I think it'd be more disrespectful of a composer to butcher one of his pieces, rather than doing a good job of playing a simplified version of it.


Mary

I'm with you on that one Mr S-H. I've never understood the rationale of that approach.

The folks doing the simple arrangements of Chopin et al sure ain't Bach, and it sure isn't their own music they are arranging. The only published simplified arrangement of classical music by its own composer that I can think of is Brahms' alternate version of his Waltzes. And he thought that music was just fluff anyhow; he didn't do simplified arrangements of his serious stuff.

And if you want to use Bach as an example, besides the fact that it was his own writing he was tinkering with, you need to keep in mind that in the Bach's day, the whole concept of notated music was a lot more fluid than it was by the time Chopin was writing, and the composer's attitude toward their work was somewhat different.

If you believe other composers did the same with their music for teaching, you need to provide examples, because if they did, I'm sure we'd see them published, and I haven't seen anything like that. What I have seen is easy original music by the likes of Schumann, Prokofiev, and Bartok. I think if composers had made easy versions of their more difficult pieces and were proud of them, they would have published them.

Liszt wrote easier version of his transcendental etudes and easier version of the transcription of Paganini etudes.

You're right - but they weren't "simplified for beginners" in any sense. Actually, the TEs started relatively simple, and then got immensely difficult, and then got just a tiny bit simpler (and I'm not sure "simpler" would even be the right word for that last version - "leaner" might be better).

Funny, I was thinking that it's not really very realistic to think that all composers would have the same attitude about this issue, and Liszt came to mind as one who'd probably be more relaxed than others, in most cases. I have the feeling that Dvorak would maybe have been pretty easy-going about it, too, just because he was Dvorak. And of course, Baroque composers in general would have a somewhat different attitude, since they didn't really even have the expectation that their music would be set in concrete for all time, like later composers did. Back then, most composed music people heard was new and the older stuff was just discarded, believe it or not.

I agree with Mr_Kitty , HOWEVER, that's just our opinion, which as you all know are just different. I'm not going to put someone down or bust their chops because all their sheet music has "Easy Piano" on the cover. At the same time I'm not going to tell someone they ought to stick to playing music that's realistic for their level. Play and let play.

It's working for me that's all. I'm almost done memorizing the 2nd page of Moonlight and my reading has got to be improving because I'm cuttin through the piece at a pretty good clip.

Dave

Of course it would seem that way, because if you're playing an easy arrangement, you weren't the one who did the butchering, it was the arranger, and you aren't actually playing the work of the real composer of the piece, but of the butcher.

That's not the reason. The reason is that he, and many other composers, created works of musical art in which every single note was carefully considered, and if you change any of it enough to "simplify" it, you no longer have the work of art that they made. So, it's not about the composer, even if it gets stated that way (it's one convenient way to point to a whole group of works of art at once, by using the composer's name).

And the idea that people learn advanced music by starting with easier versions of a piece and progressing to more difficult ones until finally reaching the original composition is contradicted by only a few hundred years of classical music activity. If it really worked that way, there's no doubt there would be that kind of step-ladder-style versions of all the masterworks, and teachers and students would be all using them - but that is not remotely the learning process for most people. It seems to me the main reason it doesn't work that way lies in what the hands have to actually do - a simplified version of something doesn't train the hands in the actual movements required by the real thing, and in the end, that's what it takes, the hands have to be trained in the actual movements the real music requires, and that's at a level of what is going on in small fractions of a second.

If it really worked that way, there's no doubt there would be that kind of step-ladder-style versions of all the masterworks, and teachers and students would be all using them - but that is not remotely the learning process for most people. It seems to me the main reason it doesn't work that way lies in what the hands have to actually do - a simplified version of something doesn't train the hands in the actual movements required by the real thing, and in the end, that's what it takes, the hands have to be trained in the actual movements the real music requires, and that's at a level of what is going on in small fractions of a second.[/b][end quote]

That's certainly true. Students of piano have to acquire a multitude of different skills progressively and gradually over many years. A 'simplified' version of a masterwork won't teach a student to play the original version, but if really well done it *might* teach some of the technique eventually needed to play the original. Would it be the best way to learn these techniques? Perhaps only if extremely well done, and even then it would necessarily be limited. But I remember reading that a pianist who became very advanced became entranced as a young student by a certain Beethoven sonata. He wanted more than anything to play it. His teacher found him an 'easy' version, which he loved learning. He said that had his teacher told him the truth---'It will be years before you'll be able to play that'---he would have been very disappointed and lost motivation. Learning the 'easy' version gave him enjoyment, and didn't hurt him as he went on to become a professional musician.

I have three versions of "Canon in D" by Pachelbel, neither of them "easy" to me. The latest one is marked "Intermediate" and arranged by Willard.A.Palmer, should I dump this in the bin and look for a real uncut version.....where does one look for the original version, maybe the original one wasn't written for piano, so it doesn't exist?

Hi Crusader,

I think the Canon in D is a different case because it wasn't written for the piano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel\'s_Canon

I heard Stephen McNeff's arrangement of Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu for vibraphone this morning on BBC radio 3 - it was great!

Has anybody asked any piano composers who are alive what they feel about simplified piano arrangements of their music?

One thing that crossed my mind is that if such an arrangement was heard by a lot of people for some reason - and they didn't realise it was an arrangement - and it didn't go down too well - the composer may well be a bit unhappy about it - but it's quite a convoluted scenario...

You make a good point. I guess for the purists you would have to learn to play the instrument the music was originally written for also. Vivaldi must be rolling over in his grave to hear Elliot Fisk play The Four Seasons on guitar.

Like I said above, Bach simplified his music for his children because he valued the educational value of simplified pieces. It's pointless to ask me to provide evidence that other composers did the same thing for their children (whether it be their works or works by others). If they did it is unlikely that they published them. Like someone else said above, if you like it, play it. If Chopin or some other composer is smiling or frowning it is really irrelevant.

Well, of course, doing a single simple arrangement of a big advanced work as a kid isn't going to prevent a person from becoming a professional - I doubt anyone who doesn't like those arrangements would suggest such a thing. And, who knows, this pianist may be one of the many I think aren't such hot musicians, even if they are good pianists.

Did Bach value the educational value of simplified pieces because they were simplified pieces, or because it was convenient for him to recycle stuff he'd already written (and recycling music was something he and most other composers of his era frequently did anyway)?

And, it is hardly pointless to ask you to provide evidence when you make a totally baseless assertion about composers turning out material for their kids, apparently extrapolating from the Bach anecdote, as if Bach were some sort of norm. The problem there is that most composers whose music is being pillaged in these arrangements are not at all like Bach, and don't have a household the size of a small factory, mainly devoted to churning out disposable music to meet demand.

And exactly why would simplified pieces composers made for their kids not be published, if there actually was some? Most composers were constantly looking for a way to make money via publishing, and that kind of material would be relatively easy to prepare for publication. And, further, since various composers have published easy original music intended for beginners anyway, why would they hesitate to publish such arrangements, and especially if it was of their own works, if they thought they were an good?

Anyway, many composers didn't have progeny, or if they did, they weren't necessarily musical kids taking lessons, and further, if they were, you can't assume the composer parent was their teacher. Considering the scholarly interest in everything having to do with the major composers, with every last scrap and fragment being unearthed and written about, it's actually far less likely that any such kiddie material has not been published, if it ever existed, than that it is unknown.

But I agree with one thing you say - if you like something, play it. At least, don't let some bizarre Twilight Zone fantasy of a dead composer disapproving be the thing that stops you. If you going to stopped, it should be by something a little more worthwhile, such as the sense that you are working on a hand-me-down most likely arranged by a mercenary hack, instead of working on first-rate original material from the best composers out there. The people who have qualms about easy arrangements aren't going to be doing them, anyway, and the teachers who don't want to use them as teaching material, won't.

Well, if we're still on topic here, as you may know from another thread I'm working on a watered down version of Georgia on My Mind. For myself I know that this is a watered down version but at my level this is all I can play. With that said this is a huge challenge for me and I'm learning things left and right. One of these days the chords, fingerings etc... that I'm learning with this watered down versions are only going to help me jump to the next level. I mean look at it like this, once I get this under my belt there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to approach a more difficult version. I would consider it a no-no if you were to play the watered down version and just stick to that, but if you're using it as a stepping stone to something bigger then go for it.
MULLY

I guess when all is said and done we do agree albeit, perhaps, for different reasons.

You never know! Actually, temperamentally I'm kind of a purist in a way, in that I really believe that you're either playing a piece or you're not. At the same time, I believe that 'easier' versions can be enjoyable for students at times and for those who aren't going to progress to playing very difficult originals. As long as you don't misrepresent things by saying 'Oh, I can play the Moonlight Sonata' when it is an arrangement you can play and not the original. For some students though, playing even the easier arrangement can be a real accomplishment for someone at their level. I can see arrangements being used sparingly by teachers as motivation, allowing students to hear themselves playing versions of music they love but are not ready to tackle in the original form. The student may be all the more motivated to keep practicing, in the hope of one day mastering the real piece.

Just for the record, everything I play is a half arsed version of the original .

I AM having lots of fun however and am still VERY motivated to continue playing. For never taking a single lesson, I don't think my music sounds too bad all things considered.

This thread should NOT be about performing an oringinal score as written but rather being true to yourself and your own personal goals.

My goal is to have fun while learning something new in a NON STRESSFUL enviroment.

While I may never be able to play an original classical composition as written, it really does'nt matter as that is NOT my goal.

I am very happy playing my own versions of various tunes and other people seem to like my playing of them..(not everyone however! ).

Why would you want to take that away from me?.

Bottom line:

Play whatever makes you happy if that is your goal. The irony here is that all the hardcore *purists* out there who simply MUST play a piece exactly as written may be the ones who are falling short of their goals!.

How many of these purists have met their goal of becoming a performing concert pianist?. How many have become utterly frustrated in the process?

All I'm saying is that both camps have differrent goals. The people who play for enjoyment seem to be meeting their goals of learning a new skill while having fun and creating enjoyable beautiful music. NO problems....NO stress!..

There is no right or wrong method other than if you are NOT meeting your set out intended goals, the path of your musical journey may not be the right one.

Had I set out only to play original classical works, I would have become frustrated years ago and quit because I am looking for an enjoyable relaxing hobby, not more work.

I DO realize that some others vary their opinions on this subject from mine and consider that to be a healthy difference of opinion.

Other members may have different goals and objectives than me and if they did not follow THEIR goals then they would not be true to themselves.

Once again, different strokes!. Variety really is the spice of life.

As MR_SUPER_CHUNKY I'll second just about everything MR_SUPER_HUNKY said and, in addition, I'll do what I like doing best in these threads - quote myself (see above).

But I wonder if Kawai, HI (was that her name?) who originally started this thread didn't bail out a long time ago after getting so much intensely conflicting advice - but that will teach her to ask an innocent question!

JF

Why? It seems to me that the OP was asking us about whether we thought it was alright to play easy arrangements instead of waiting to develop the chops to play the real thing (and playing the real thing seemed like the expected goal eventually). And that, reasonably enough, launched a discussion about the relative merits of arrangements vs. originals. To me, that discussion is pretty responsive to the OP, a few sidetrips notwithstanding.

wr - you can continue to press this issue all you want (it's your right to do so which, of course, we'll defend) but at this point it's pretty much like beating the proverbial dead horse.

After 5 pages and all that's been said by so many it appears that all aspects of the question have been throughly addressed (perhaps some multiple times) without a single, definite, firm resolution. There probably never will be. There doesn't have to be.

There really doesn't appear to be anything new or different to be said on the topic - just a lot of replaying and rehashing of what's been said before.

The facts of reality are that many beginning piano students will play simplified arrangements of the "classics"; they always have and probably always will; they will mostly enjoy doing so; will move onward & upward with their studies; may someday attempt to play the "real deal"; may succeed or may not; one way or the other will be better players (and people) for having tried; nobody will be hurt or offended in the process; no dead composer will be "dissed"; the world will have another musician and more music.

Hey, life is good.

JF

"we" will?

He means "WE" as in "Ford"!

I must admit, I was surprised at the number of responses. I do appreciate everyone's passion and advice tho. It seems a decision or preference made early on in the process, like a stick vs an automatic. Next time I'll stick to something nice like religion or politics

Kawai, HI - it's all your fault & don't let it happen again!

Actually, I'm now hoping to hear you on either the monthly or quarterly recitals - preferably playing a "killer" rendition of a simplified version of some classic masterpiece - maybe that would finally be the last word on this matter, making all further discussion irrelevant (or maybe not). One can only hope.

JF

Sure you would - and wr would return the favor - that's one of the many things that makes America great!

JF

What? Me? Championing for the "easy" classics?
(as she dramatically collapses to the floor she mumbles "I've Always Depended On The Kindness Of Strangers.")

Originally posted by Kawai, HI:
What? Me? Championing for the "easy" classics?

Sure - why not? Who better?

Just call yourself PianoWorldGirl (BatGirl & SuperGirl are already taken), sit at your piano in your leotards with cape, and proclaim yourself the defender of Truth and Justice and the Champion of the American AND "Easy Classics" way as you begin to play a simplified version of, oh, lets say maybe a piano transcription of Beethoven's 9th Symphony! We will need a video please. Don't scoff - it has possibilities!

BTW - recieving kindness from strangers often eliminates them them from that status.

JF

And your reason for deciding that I'm the one beating the dead horse, rather than those taking the other side, would be...?

Page 5.

For newer members, who are perplexed by the confusing intercourse between our learned colleagues in this thread, and wish to pursue the easier examples of original, uncut, versions of classical music, I commend to you the "Classics to Moderns" series by Denes Agay.

Yes, great collections of pieces!

On this subject of Easy vs Original, it is fairly easy to spot a heavily simplified arrangement of an original work, but how can you spot "the original" that many of you go on about?

There must be ocassions where there are different arrangements to pieces which are just or nearly as hard as the "original".

How can you spot the original amongst all the alternatives?

Easy. They are they ones that aren't arranged, and so there won't be an arranger's name attached.

If there is an alternate arrangement of a piano piece other than a simplification, it's most likely going to fall into the category of some sort of virtuoso embellishment, and will have some sort of title that indicates that is what was done to the piece. For example, Godowsky did a bunch of arrangements of Chopin etudes, but they are called "Studies on Chopin Etudes" by Godowsky (plus, they don't sound like the originals, either). But as a matter of fact, for the vast majority of original piano pieces, there are not any arrangements at all of that are in the same range of difficulty as the original (I'm thinking of pieces such as the Chopin Ballades or the Beethoven sonatas); the arrangements that exist are all pretty much of the "easy" type.

However, you reminded me of an interesting point, and that is that in some old, out-of-print editions, you might see "arranged by so-and-so" under the composer's name, when in fact, it was not arranged, but just edited. I think the reason this was done was to try to ensure copyright; I haven't seen this in any modern editions.

Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to look out for that.

Because you're the one standing over the horse with a raised whip in your hand? Sorry - I couldn't resist.

Seriously, I had the somewhat vague impression that the trend of the thread was getting to the advanced stage where some very fine points were more or less being "nit-picked" for the primary purpose of mere argumentation rather than enlightenment, and that this tendency was occurring in some of the exchanges where you were involved to a significant extent - but I could be wrong about this, and if so, I apologize for picking on you rather than someone on the "other side" (but, after all, I had already mildly "admonished" Kawai, HI for starting this bruhaha by asking the original seemingly innocent question in the first place!). Just trying to be fair & balanced.

BTW - you might want to reread the last paragraph in my post from which you quoted just in case you missed it the first time. Not that this is necessarily the final word on this topic, but it probably should be.

JF

LOL

I think all the capes are currently in use between Super Hunky and Super Monica.

"Because you're the one standing over the horse with a raised whip in your hand?"

Maybe time to call the ASPCA on this thread?
I have a real soft spot for animals.
People, not so much.

New rule:

From now on, once a point has been made more than three consecutive times, we are to set all the horses free and just start whipping each other senseless! :p