You seem to have really knotted yourself up. What could you possibly mean by:-
rules come from practice which in turn sets a standard.
Do you mean rules are derived
from practice? Surely rules precede
Can you cite just one example of a rule which 'comes' from practice?
Standards, of course, can be broken. But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it?
As I hinted earlier, I leave it to others to argue the claim “I can play this”.
There's a difference of opinion? Who cares?
It’s an idle discussion and doesn’t interest me.
More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.
You're begging the question by inventing a trap which doesn't exist.
Today I (hypothetical) want to play my Chopin for beginners, but that's just a snapshot. I intend to improve over the passage of time. After a few years I'll have a crack at the real thing.
Do you see how that works?
And you bring up simplifications as if that's the point - that just sounds thick-headed to me. You can play something simplified badly just as you could with anything difficult. We're talking about what's on the page.
I was addressing Morodiene’s point, not yours - you've evidently failed to comprehend that too.
But here is the crux, where you gaily toss out this threadbare cliché:-
"First learn the rules. Then break them."
I told you that it was an idea I rejected. I think it's a myth and in the unlikely event that you and I have any worthwhile discourse in the future I’ll explain why.
By the way, you sound like a troll.
Funny you should say that. I was curious about your history so I took a look at some of your other posts and quickly noticed you’re given to making snide remarks, and that in only a few short weeks. Now that is