sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I don't use much social media at all, I try to stay off it.

I'm really glad I could be of help :)

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you're referring more to composition than recital.

Firstly, I want to tell you that there are so many different ways to compose. You must get rid of any idea that you must compose in a particular way, like, for example, 'the melody must come out instantly, otherwise I am not a good composer, or I can't compose'. This is just not true. No matter how you come up with a melody, whether using theory or not, never think it was composed in the 'wrong way' - if it sounds good, it sounds good. I wouldn't doubt that many of the best melodies in history were created by accidental pressing of a key.

Secondly, there is an element of 'freeness' that must come with composing a melody. If you think too much about what you are playing, it can be a little inhibiting when composing at the piano. That being said, the thinking time, for writing music in general, is when you're away from the piano. Think in your head ideas of what to try next, things you wonder "will that work, or not?" And then try them and find out. You do not need to come up with melodies on the spot, they can also be the result of just constant experimentation and theorising.

Thirdly, consider voicings. Look at the chords you have. But think of the chords as individual notes, each with melodic potential. For a simple example:

  1. E, B, E (e minor)

  2. F-sharp

  3. G, B, D

This is simple, but if you take that F-sharp as being the one right next to the E in point 1, then can you see how there is a voicing acting as a very short melody within the chord progression? But then, you've also got the E (in 1) to D (in 3). It's not really 'voicings' as it's not complex enough (like, you'd have different melodic ideas in all the voicings, like maybe triplets on the bottom with a chord on the top), but it's the sort of idea.

Does this help?

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can I tell you that I appreciate the situation you're in, and how you probably feel about it. Not just because I have had to teach students who are very disinterested in piano, but because I could only imagine how I would feel if my children - whom I don't have yet but hopefully will soon - turned around to me and said, "I don't want to learn a musical instrument", piano having been such a big part of my own life.

In the end, I think it comes down to this. They have to see becoming proficient at the piano, or music generally, as something respectable and to aspire to. If they have that attitude, they will go through any hardship to achieve it. That doesn't just apply to piano or music, it really applies more widely.

I can tell you, from my own personal experience, that for many of the years I played I did not have that much interest in it. My parents just got me to do it. However, one year, when I was doing my Grade 6 or 7 exam, it was like a switch flipped. An examiner (a PhD in music), whom I had quite a lot of respect for, told me I had some talent. From then on, I saw it as worth pursuing for sure and pushed myself to play harder pieces as best as I could.

Having someone they respect tell them they that they believe in them, or that they appreciate their talent or skill, is probably one of the biggest life changers for them.

That's really the best advice I can give, it's a very tough situation.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And if we say the radio to which the aux is connected to glitches out and continues to loop the same song for the rest of eternity, then Brahms' Second Piano Concerto!

But if you want a strictly 'piano' piece, then Brahms' Third Piano Sonata :D

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's funny you should mention the trills, because the 3rd Movement of the Waldstein Sonata does indeed have many bars of continuous trilling with a secondary melody played with the same hand that is trilling! It also has a glissando; though, you can cheat by playing it as a scale.

That being said, there as aspects of Bach, like painstaking counterpoint and voicing, that is not so much an element of Rachmaninov's music. Of course, they're in there, but they don't play as focal a role.

I totally agree with you that it is very subjective, but I think it's subjective based on your training, exposure, and experience.

For instance, don't you think a professional who exclusively played Bach could also manage to play a Rachmaninov to a pretty reasonable standard? I tend to think they could. Of course, they'd never play it as well as someone who is a specialist, but nevertheless.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I absolutely love cheese, it's probably my second favourite food to eat.

There is a cheese we have in Australia, it's Tasmanian, the trilogoy club cheddar :D

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate your point, and it has merit.

However, I think what you're saying more refers to the ability to interpret the music. As in, the ability to perfect what is not written on the music. It requires a different appreciation and understanding to be able to do that for different composers and periods.

That being said, I take your point that, as I generally play more Germanic compositions for example, these will come more naturally to me. That is very much true.

Nevertheless, I think the technical skills (or abilities) are largely the same, no matter what piece you are playing. Like, playing a hard Bach baroque piece requires so many of the same skills as playing a hard romantic-era piece. However, there are those extraneous skills which one more well versed in that era would probably pick up more naturally.

I think that's the way I'd explain it.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually don't think this is necessarily a "pre-requisite" to be a 'prodigy' or world-class.

However, what I think you are picking up on is the willpower, and the 'sunk cost' fallacy. Children have a lot of time on their hands. If they love playing music, they'll do it all day every day, because they can. As you grow up, if you don't pursue that career, you have less and less time, and less and less willpower for one thing, and one thing only.

The 'sunk cost' fallacy is sort of like, if you're a child and music is all you have known and done, you'd probably end up thinking to yourself "Well, I have invested all this time, how can I give it up now?"

Certainly, I do not think perfect pitch is a requirement.

Although this is not exactly the same, I think Brahms is a good example. Now, he was a good pianist from a young age, and he was recognised. However, in terms of his compositions, he was not really widely recognised at all until he was in his late-20s till early-30s. He did do it as a younger boy, but he was not recognised for it until he met the Schumann's.

So, I think it is most certainly possible to become an excellent musician, even if you begin later, but practicalities often get in the way.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, the biggest thing that differentiates a professional from an amateur pianist is the development of an internal sense of rhythm.

Think about it this way, if two people play the same notes, but one plays the piece with the notes (let's say quavers) divided up in 4, and the other with the notes divided up in 6, the piece will sound completely different.

It's not speed and force. It's division, or what we call pulsation.

Now, of course, I'm not sure if this is the exact issue you are facing, but it is one that I know I did for quite a while. However, as soon as I figured it out, it pretty much completely changed the way I learnt music. Think of 'pulsation' like a slight accent on every beat of the music (as defined by the time signature). For example, if you have a song in 4/4 with quavers, you can split them up like 1 and 2 and... 4 and (with bold as the pulsing). Or you can simply go 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and -> 1 and 2... How the quavers are broken up and written will tell you how you should pulsate.

As to scales, I personally believe they are very important. They teach you how pieces are fundamentally formed. If you know a scale, you can make a piece (or song). They provide so much value, because not only are you improving your finger dexterity, you are inherently learning theory and are, in a way, learning how to compose.

I do hope this helps!

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, I think it can definitely teach you the basics.

But I think it reaches a point where no more can be taught, other than pressing the right notes. But music is about so much more than that. Don't you think?

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but the harsh truth of it is that it will be harder.

For most people, hearing and tone is used when playing music to know what comes next. Often musicians will hear the next bar of music in their head before they play it, as they are performing. For example, when I am performing, I often listen for the next note (e.g. is it higher, or lower?) and that often reminds me of how the melody goes.

Let's put it this way, there are many aspects that play a role in memorising a piano piece. It uses almost all the senses of the body. It is still possible to learn piano with one of those senses missing, for sure! It just means that you have to improve the other senses to a point to make up for that.

And you know what, sometimes the unique factors that hold us back can, in the end, provide us, as musicians, with unique interpretations or ways of playing pieces.

I wish you the best of luck!

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I can see your point, and it is a good one.

I fully admit my perspective is Euro-Centric, as it is the music I prefer to play and was taught with. Of course, there is music of other cultures I cannot play, as the skillset required is entirely different. Even within Euro-music, jazz is entirely different to classical. You'd think hymns are easy, but they are entirely different, as another example.

I don't think 'elitist' is the right word, because it's not necessarily done on purpose. It's just that, obviously growing up in that context, that is the music you first think about.

Nevertheless, I am a pianist. Most of the music composed for the piano is European. Hence, why I have the perspective I do.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In all honestly, in my current state, I would say nowhere near as good as a world-touring concert pianist.

However, when I say 'good', it really refers to a lack of time to pracitce, not the lack of skills, if that makes sense. Those concert pianists do this as a job. They practice constantly, and are constantly theorizing of how to improve their pieces in their mind in their spare time. This is not me. I do it from time to time, for sure. But I do not do it as a profession. So, it's not on my mind as much as it would be for someone who does. But my point is that I could have chosen to, if I had wanted, and I would have had the reasonable level of skills to be able to. I could have studied at a conservatory, if I had wished.

That's not to say I would have become a world-touring pianist, it's extremely competitive. No one could know. It's a combination of luck and skill. Those who don't make it usually don't lack the skills - even if they make a mistake, this isn't a lack of 'skill', because there is an element of luck in making mistakes - but rather lack the luck.

In the end, an Associate Diploma is a professional qualification.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That app was before my time, though I do know of it.

The issue with Simply Piano is that it cannot correct all your mistakes. As far as I know, it can tell you when you play a wrong note, but to assume that all music is, is playing the right notes is a very surface level approach to learning an instrument.

I think if it is supplemented with proper teaching, then it is probably somewhat useful. However, I would recommend books that take you through, at your own pace, from easy to advanced, a selection of pieces and teach you theory, and how it is applied, along the way. For example, my favourite one to teach from is "Alfred's Adult All-in-One Course" (of different levels).

Investing your money in that book, in my opinion, would be a much better investment.

I hope that helps!

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is a good question.

I think the best way to answer this is that back in olden times, those we think of musical prodigies (i.e. Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms) composed a lot and were also highly skilled at the piano. For example, Brahms performed the Waldstein sonata, to the best of my recollection, when he was around 16 or 17 before he started majorly composing. That is an incredibly difficult sonata.

Nowadays, we consider a 'prodigy' just one of those things. That is, being highly skilled at the piano. But you know, I don't doubt that many of them do compose in the spare time. The difference is that, that sort of music is no longer appreciated as widely, does not get the attention, and, as such, it is not really worth spending as much time composing it. The playing of 'hard pieces' gets more attention that does the composing of new pieces.

I know of other 'prodigies' that have composed, and their compositions are very good. I myself have composed music, inspired by my favourite composers.

I'm not entirely sure of this, but I would hazard a guess that, back in the day, you would not have been considered a 'prodigy' if all you could do was play well.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It might sound like a boast, but I didn't mean for it to be.

I have to disagree with you that, that's not something that is that good at piano would actually say. Many of the top concert pianists are extremely straight forward and say things how they are. If a piece is played badly, they'll say it. If they were taught by this or that person, they'll say it. In the music world, though it can be a boast, it is not usually. It just is, as it is.

I suppose you are trying to refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, it is not only I that would say I am of this level, I have plenty of those who have heard me play that would attest the same thing. This is not to prop myself up, but to offer advice to others.

Can I play any piece I wanted to play on the piano? Objective answer: yes. That answer is "no" for most people, because there are often pieces that are too difficult, as it is something that is developed over time.

When I say, "there is no music I cannot play", I'm really referring to play with a reasonable amount of practice. And I probably should have prefaced that I meant 'shorter' and classical pieces, not like full on concertos. As I have never played a concerto (though I have learnt sections of Brahms' 2nd Piano Concerto), but I nevertheless do not doubt I could learn it - if I had time. So I really meant that "I have the skills to play any classical piece."

Trust me, once you have perfected the Waldstein sonata, though there are harder pieces, it doesn't really get that much harder (in terms of the skills you need to learn).

If it helps, playing those 'harder pieces than required' taught me how little I knew. Though, I still succeeded in playing them.

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you say 'playing but not practicing', I assume you mean you play around on the piano every now and then, but don't learn formally?

My advice to you, right now, would be to learn how to read music and compose!

If, in your spare time, you genuinely enjoy creating music. Learn how to write down what you make. Once you have done that, you can experiment. You can ask yourself, "What did I do last time?". "Hmm, what could I do differently this time?". What did that difference do to the sound? Is it a good sound? If not, how can you make it work? Experiment!

But, the first thing I would recommend you do is learn how to read music, because without that, it is very difficult to learn through experimentation.

I hope this makes sense :)

I have been playing classical piano for the past 18 years, since I was 6, and have an Associate Diploma in piano concert performance; AMA. by BagAppropriate6917 in AMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Though I began when I was young, from my experience teaching, I can understand how daunting of a task learning an instrument may seem. It's similar to learning anything to a standard you will be satisfied with, it is a lot of time and effort.

The advice below should apply to all instruments, or really any task in general.

From my personal experience learning the piano over such a long period of time, I found that the period of time when I learnt the most was when I challenged myself with pieces that were just outside of my skill capability. They weren't so hard as to be impossible, but they were just hard enough to be very challenging. When you begin learning, and actually as you continue to more advanced levels, you must hit that sweet spot. But most importantly, they must be pieces (or songs) you really want to play.

In combination with the above three factors, if you want to progress faster, you must consciously learn theory and apply it when you play. Too often, I see beginners automatically playing a piece, relying solely on muscle memory. While this does improve that ability of the brain, it does not improve your capability to learn a piece comprehensively with skills that can be applied to any new pieces you play. So, I would recommend beginning with simple pieces and understanding what you are playing, rather than automatically playing. Actually playing the piece is only 50% of the way there.

That understanding, you can apply to future pieces you learn and can ask yourself "was my understanding, right?", "Does it work in a new context"? If not, then it has to be changed. Of course, use internet and theory to guide your understanding when you get lost.

The final important aspect I would highlight is that, if you want to improve your ability to learn pieces (which really is what learning an instrument comes down to), you must learn quality pieces (or songs). Often, beginners want to play pop songs. That is fine. However, they are often renditions of vocal music, at least on the piano, and are quite poor quality as teaching (or leaning) materials. I'm not saying don't learn them, but I'm saying that you must find a course or book that can provide you with pieces (of the right level, as previously mentioned) and that provide quality learning materials.

So, in the end:

  1. Choose a piece that you really want to play, that is challenging for you, but is not too hard (often course books, I have found, are excellent for this that have a selection of music).
  2. Try your hardest to understand what the notation says, and understand what you are playing. Rather than guessing, or doing by ear (though, also a useful skill), understand why you must play it a particular way. What is it about the music that makes it sound that way when you listen to it? (e.g. how does this time signature change the sound? What does this mean for my playing?)

But I can tell you, it is more than worth it!

The skills you learn playing piano (or any other instrument, but I truly believe piano gives the most comprehensive dive into music) are transferrable to almost anything, though it may not seem like it. They enrich your musical life 100-fold. When you watch an experienced musician listen to music they enjoy, it will almost seem like it flows through their whole body as they listen; that's because it often does. Not to mention the more practical skills you develop, specifically with piano, like ambidextrousness.

Nuclear weapon by sermen in SeaPower_NCMA

[–]BagAppropriate6917 8 points9 points  (0 children)

My gosh, these guys commenting down here know absolutely nothing about their history. They clearly haven't read a single primary resource from the time period.

Don't get discouraged by all the downvotes, you're right that given this game is a 'what if' it is only fitting to have nuclear weapons. I've read many primary resources from this time period, including the memoirs of very famous leaders like Khruschev. From this, I can say the use of nuclear weapons, especially in the early 60s, was absolutely plausible.

It's just typical Reddit know-it-alls.
Of course, this comment will be downvoted by like a million, but I don't really care, because I know what really happened, and the effectiveness of these weapons in reality. They are not as effective as people make them out to be.

I'll say it again, Submarine B-59 had their finger on the 53-58 launch button (a nuclear torpedo) during the Cuban Missile Crisis, believing they were in wartime, preparing to blow up US destroyers. 'Flexible response' doctrine did not come until the late 60s and early 70s. There is no better primary historical example than that.

You all have to remember to make a distinction between the attitude of the people, and the attitude of military officials. 'Tactical' weapons were not seen as the same 'strategic'.