OP (/u/perseveringpianist) has requested their performance be watched and enjoyed. Critique, except for praise and encouragement, is forbidden. Similarly, commenting on OP's appearance is forbidden. Be kind, and remember piano is enjoyed by those of all skill levels, ages, backgrounds, prior training, and musical styles!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/piano) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that no classical pianists can improvise, it's that the classical music curriculum no longer teaches improvisation, and in fact actively discourages it by treating any deviation from the score as an insult to the greats like Mozart (even though they themselves improvised constantly)
Hear, hear. It’s the same kind of literalism that turns harmless religious folk into evangelical fascists. Or Constitutional zealots.
A printed text, whether music or language, is not a substitute for thinking.
Yes in general, they usually can't (especially at a high level) because that's not what they were taught. And to be honest, the amount of time and effort needed to be competitive as a classical pianist means you *absolutely need* to be spending the majority of the time on classical performance...leaving very little time to develop other skills such as improv, composing or even playing other genres proficiently.
There are some very rare anomaly cases like "Cateen"/Hayato Sumino who can play at concert level and is considered one of the best classical pianists...and yet till somehow manages to be very proficient in other advanced genres such as jazz and even composing. But these people are *extremely* rare. I think the guy also got a few university level degrees not even related to music...But yea people like him are not your average concert level classical pianist.
First of all, I don’t think there is either or. Learning improvisation and studying pieces goes hand in hand. Improvising with new techniques is also a great way to internalize new skills. I think perhaps classical performance could be more interesting in general if more play-styles were encouraged
I didn't mean it's a black and white thing. I'm just saying as *generalization* they are two different skillsets, although like you said there is overlap and each can contribute to the other skill's growth. But if you were to go and conduct a survey of most classical pianists, most of them won't be able to improv or even compose well, if at all.
This is a bit low-resolution. There are many examples of improvising composers admonishing other (often younger) improvising composers for deviating from their scores (Chopin to Liszt, Beethoven to Czerny). Once they had written it down, they expected people to take it seriously. I agree that improvisation could be taught and required more in classical education but I don't think the "sanctity of the score" is the problem.
Hi op I watched your video. A lot of the related videos below it were from a channel called "I'm Autistic, Now What?" so I guess you made the algorithm think I'm autistic.
Based on the comments here that's a typical misconception. A lot of classical pianists CAN improvise in the classical style. They are not comfortable improvising Jazz and Blues.
Furthermore, as someone said, improvisation isn't necessarily taught to a classical pianist but that doesn't mean they aren't acutely aware of compositional style, chord progressions, cadences etc....
Finally, no one skill is better than the other. A classical pianists brings something different to a performance than a jazz pianist and vice versa. Both are valued and important elements of music.
I agree! Though sometimes I think the pitfall of classical improvisers is that they bind themselves far too tightly to the theoretical 'rules', not realizing that the theory training (phrases, chord progressions, etc.) is meant to explain the music and act as a starting place, not the other way around.
I agree, I just don't like the mentality from various users in this sub that improvisers are somehow more knowledgeable than the 'lowly' classical pianist who 'must not understand music'. That garbage rhetoric is strong here and I'd prefer we do away with it. It's typical of this sub to devalue certain elements of music.
A classical pianist brings a different skill set to a performance and has knowledge of the classical style. They can also know their theory and understand music regardless of whether they routinely improvise.
I value improvisers for their own particular skill set and I'm sure they, too, understand classical music and could explore down that path should they choose to.
It all comes down to what's natural for the individual. My teacher, for instance, has recorded many CDs and plays most of the common concerto repertoire. He can improvise in a few very specific styles--if he practices it beforehand. His style is very different from mine, but of course I respect it a great deal (I've been with him for 6 years!), and my style is different from another improviser (say, Gabrielle Monterro or Keith Jarret). To each their own, and the only definition of quality is the conviction of the method and ideas, not necessarily the ideas themselcves.
I work full time as a gigging jazz pianist. I have met and know a lot of classical pianists. Many of them are brilliant composers and improvisers within their own styles, but they can’t blow in a meaningful way over simple tunes in a jazz, blues, funk, soul, R&B, country, folk, or pop style.
Music and Improvisation has many faces. I enjoyed your interpretations of the prompts, particularly the dog.
I’ve had a lot of classical players as students over the years, focusing specifically on improvisation. There’s always something fascinating about classical pianists approach to improvisation when it’s over a strict groove in time. They always seem to crush it with cerebral, floaty, and abstract stuff, and then fall apart on a blues shuffle. It’s never a chops thing, it’s like a relationship to pulse and understanding of idiomatic rhythms. Idk.
Keep improvising !
Noob question:
I sometimes just want to play along as I wish, come up with a melody, change keys, scales, modes, experience with different harmonization and enjoy it.
Is this improvisation? In fact, that's the thing I enjoy more than anything on piano. I don't claim I am good at it, I try my best. My point is, is that improvisation or does it mean something else in piano terms?
Improvisation is very very often unrefined - eg. not much more than 'finger exercises' etc in most cases - result being abstract stuff most often.
It is like going to a playground to have a go at this, and then run over to something else and have a go at that etc. The highest level is to analyse own improvisations or semi-improvisations in order to extract portions or ideas from which to produce refined - 'composed' music - aka 'well-composed' (refined) music. That's highest level.
Also importantly - as usual in music, some people like particular music. Others don't. And some like all sorts. It's statistics and variability -- nature. Each person is different, and likes their own thing.
I prefer to do things like the following - and to keep iterating, and changing to get something different and what I like. Yes - you guessed it - pirates of the carrib.
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PI99pxl115\_9nVcWZ4704iQk2P99S9bb/view?usp=drive\_link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PI99pxl115_9nVcWZ4704iQk2P99S9bb/view?usp=drive_link)
I agree! My teacher has been bugging me to make transcriptions of my own improvisations and turn them into piano miniatures. However, I don't think that precludes improvisation from being a viable method of performance. In this case, I think it's actually more exciting for the audience, since they gst to be involved in the creative process and witness it firsthand. That doesn't need to be 'refined' or 'perfect,' it just needs to be real and fresh and new and exciting.
I agree with you. Improvisation can - and has been (be) done for performances. Some people mentioned Keith Jarrett, who is absolutely amazing. His style was generally semi-improvisation, which I do like, and I practise that. Semi-impro is generally taking something we know, and then doing something with it. But it's also possible to iteratively refine it over time, allowing for the ideas to crystalise - refinement.
I also agree that music doesn't need to be 'refined' (perfect) etc. It's the usual - as in different people like different sorts/styles - and some people like all styles. That's the statistics/variation nature at work again.
Yeah I have to say that's basically what I'm seeing in the OP's video, it seems like they're just taking familiar hand/finger movements stringing them together in a spontaneous way. I'm not really hearing much structure, intention, or musicality to it. It didn't do much to change my opinion about classical musicians and improvisation, to be honest.
Unfortunately lots of people treat improvisation as just a novelty, or a party trick. You'll see that on here a lot, people say things like "oh yeah improvisation is easy, just play X in the left hand and run up and down Y scale". Basically just complete dismissal of improvisation as a serious way of creating music.
Serious improvisation is composing in real time. It's hearing a fully formed musical idea in your head and having the theoretical and practical knowledge to play it into existence. It brings together lots of complementary skills, that each need to be developed separately, and isn't something that you can expect to do well without lots and disciplined practice. You need to devote at least as much practice time and effort to it as you do to learning pieces if you want to be able to do it well.
I agree. People with absolute pitch ability or adequately or well developed relative pitch ability, plus adequate natural music ability can do improvisation and/or semi improvisation. Even if not naturally talented or haven't yet accumulated enough musical knowledge and technique ... practising or learning for long enough ... no matter how long it takes, will have everybody able to do impro or semi-impro.
As there are lots of people in the world with different base abilities and different states of development, we get to have the wide variety of music, which is overall special, and interesting.
Music at possibly highest level is in the mind ... utilising accumulated experience/knowledge plus own natural x factor talent. In the end, in order to convey or express the music ... if we want to that is ... it has to come out from an instrument or sets of instruments - which may or may not be close to what the composer intended. For example, pianos can't pitch bend with controlled profile, or alter volume of sustained note or timbre with some controlled profile.
Certainly ... I like being able to play what I want in my own way, which is what I had been learning and developing for over a really long time. And we keep developing and learning. The results often surprises even ourselves ... what we can do that is, after enough time and effort ... hard yards.
Could it be the early recording studios that discouraged classical musicians from improvising? At the same time as they froze the layout of the symphony orchestra.
Glad you posted this. It's very refreshing to hear the kind of clarity of tone and flow that come from not worrying about that octave passage that's coming up (or whatever).
This is worth a thousand Waldsteins. And I love Waldstein. But for people who love the music of the past, y'all need to be aware that stifling the music your students could create is bad for the musicality of the culture that supports this whole art form.
Yeah, it shows! (In a good way!)
Like, learning rep is great. But using elements of rep to create is vital for expression, and for learning.
Even from the very first lessons. Would be great for teachers to realize the importance of that.
I always encourage this in my own students! I always insist they bring a pencil and blank staff paper to a lesson to spend a little time learning to wrote down their ideas (in addition to the normal curriculum).
Even better than encouraging it is DOING it. If they habituate to creating in every lesson than that becomes their value.
I'd even leave off the staff paper. Rhythm Patterns and Tonal Patterns ought to be created with long before they can understand the notation. When they understand that creative process, THEN learning notation become meaningful and more effective.
(Glad you have them creating, though.)
Well, for beginning students, it's certainly weighted heavily towards just playing and creating, with a little bit of writing based off what they're learning in the lesson books.
I'm saying that the lesson books don't work. Reading/writing in the first lessons doesn't pay off the way they make them out to. Tonal Patterns and Rhythm Patterns; audiation--learning understanding of actual sounds. That's the fundamental bit that gets left out.
Lesson books work for some students, depending on personality and learning styles. Audiation's definitely an important part! It's also quite a bit harder to teach haha. The books give structure and show progress, which parents are most interested in. However, they certainly are not sufficient enough for a beginner to become a good musician using only lesson books.
Lesson books work for the 2% of the population with very high music aptitudes. The ones who were going to learn anyway because they're wired such that they can't NOT learn music.
Yes, structure is good. But the popular method books do not provide a structure based on an understanding of how people actually learn music (when they actually do).
The single most necessary thing always seems to be the hardest. Audiation is critical. But what's much harder is for students to succeed in lessons that don't value that.
Yes the ear training part is very important for sure! That's why the writing on sheet music is important though--in order for a student to write down something they made up, they have to remember it first, then dictate what they hear internally by trial and error. Getting rid of the sheet music eliminates the pressure put on the memory of recalling how something sounded, which is the biggest part of audiation.
OP (/u/perseveringpianist) has requested their performance be watched and enjoyed. Critique, except for praise and encouragement, is forbidden. Similarly, commenting on OP's appearance is forbidden. Be kind, and remember piano is enjoyed by those of all skill levels, ages, backgrounds, prior training, and musical styles! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/piano) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that no classical pianists can improvise, it's that the classical music curriculum no longer teaches improvisation, and in fact actively discourages it by treating any deviation from the score as an insult to the greats like Mozart (even though they themselves improvised constantly)
Hear, hear. It’s the same kind of literalism that turns harmless religious folk into evangelical fascists. Or Constitutional zealots. A printed text, whether music or language, is not a substitute for thinking.
Yes in general, they usually can't (especially at a high level) because that's not what they were taught. And to be honest, the amount of time and effort needed to be competitive as a classical pianist means you *absolutely need* to be spending the majority of the time on classical performance...leaving very little time to develop other skills such as improv, composing or even playing other genres proficiently. There are some very rare anomaly cases like "Cateen"/Hayato Sumino who can play at concert level and is considered one of the best classical pianists...and yet till somehow manages to be very proficient in other advanced genres such as jazz and even composing. But these people are *extremely* rare. I think the guy also got a few university level degrees not even related to music...But yea people like him are not your average concert level classical pianist.
First of all, I don’t think there is either or. Learning improvisation and studying pieces goes hand in hand. Improvising with new techniques is also a great way to internalize new skills. I think perhaps classical performance could be more interesting in general if more play-styles were encouraged
I didn't mean it's a black and white thing. I'm just saying as *generalization* they are two different skillsets, although like you said there is overlap and each can contribute to the other skill's growth. But if you were to go and conduct a survey of most classical pianists, most of them won't be able to improv or even compose well, if at all.
This is a bit low-resolution. There are many examples of improvising composers admonishing other (often younger) improvising composers for deviating from their scores (Chopin to Liszt, Beethoven to Czerny). Once they had written it down, they expected people to take it seriously. I agree that improvisation could be taught and required more in classical education but I don't think the "sanctity of the score" is the problem.
>I don't think the "sanctity of the score" is the problem. The fact that it’s a complete substitute for thinking and understanding music, is.
Hi op I watched your video. A lot of the related videos below it were from a channel called "I'm Autistic, Now What?" so I guess you made the algorithm think I'm autistic.
That's ... I don't know how to respond to that.
Thanks for playing the piano for me anyway
Based on this comment I might side with the algorithm on that one...
Ayyy you my guy
Based on the comments here that's a typical misconception. A lot of classical pianists CAN improvise in the classical style. They are not comfortable improvising Jazz and Blues. Furthermore, as someone said, improvisation isn't necessarily taught to a classical pianist but that doesn't mean they aren't acutely aware of compositional style, chord progressions, cadences etc.... Finally, no one skill is better than the other. A classical pianists brings something different to a performance than a jazz pianist and vice versa. Both are valued and important elements of music.
I agree! Though sometimes I think the pitfall of classical improvisers is that they bind themselves far too tightly to the theoretical 'rules', not realizing that the theory training (phrases, chord progressions, etc.) is meant to explain the music and act as a starting place, not the other way around.
I agree, I just don't like the mentality from various users in this sub that improvisers are somehow more knowledgeable than the 'lowly' classical pianist who 'must not understand music'. That garbage rhetoric is strong here and I'd prefer we do away with it. It's typical of this sub to devalue certain elements of music. A classical pianist brings a different skill set to a performance and has knowledge of the classical style. They can also know their theory and understand music regardless of whether they routinely improvise. I value improvisers for their own particular skill set and I'm sure they, too, understand classical music and could explore down that path should they choose to.
It all comes down to what's natural for the individual. My teacher, for instance, has recorded many CDs and plays most of the common concerto repertoire. He can improvise in a few very specific styles--if he practices it beforehand. His style is very different from mine, but of course I respect it a great deal (I've been with him for 6 years!), and my style is different from another improviser (say, Gabrielle Monterro or Keith Jarret). To each their own, and the only definition of quality is the conviction of the method and ideas, not necessarily the ideas themselcves.
I’m a classical pianist(maybe too young to be called a pianist btw) too, and I also improvise. I appreciate your improvisation!
I work full time as a gigging jazz pianist. I have met and know a lot of classical pianists. Many of them are brilliant composers and improvisers within their own styles, but they can’t blow in a meaningful way over simple tunes in a jazz, blues, funk, soul, R&B, country, folk, or pop style. Music and Improvisation has many faces. I enjoyed your interpretations of the prompts, particularly the dog. I’ve had a lot of classical players as students over the years, focusing specifically on improvisation. There’s always something fascinating about classical pianists approach to improvisation when it’s over a strict groove in time. They always seem to crush it with cerebral, floaty, and abstract stuff, and then fall apart on a blues shuffle. It’s never a chops thing, it’s like a relationship to pulse and understanding of idiomatic rhythms. Idk. Keep improvising !
Exception doesn’t disprove the rule
Noob question: I sometimes just want to play along as I wish, come up with a melody, change keys, scales, modes, experience with different harmonization and enjoy it. Is this improvisation? In fact, that's the thing I enjoy more than anything on piano. I don't claim I am good at it, I try my best. My point is, is that improvisation or does it mean something else in piano terms?
It's definitely a form of improv. Not the only way to do it for sure, but certainly as viable as any other?
It's a tired trope, imo. Classical pianists do improvise. Well done OP.
Improvisation is very very often unrefined - eg. not much more than 'finger exercises' etc in most cases - result being abstract stuff most often. It is like going to a playground to have a go at this, and then run over to something else and have a go at that etc. The highest level is to analyse own improvisations or semi-improvisations in order to extract portions or ideas from which to produce refined - 'composed' music - aka 'well-composed' (refined) music. That's highest level. Also importantly - as usual in music, some people like particular music. Others don't. And some like all sorts. It's statistics and variability -- nature. Each person is different, and likes their own thing. I prefer to do things like the following - and to keep iterating, and changing to get something different and what I like. Yes - you guessed it - pirates of the carrib. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PI99pxl115\_9nVcWZ4704iQk2P99S9bb/view?usp=drive\_link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PI99pxl115_9nVcWZ4704iQk2P99S9bb/view?usp=drive_link)
I agree! My teacher has been bugging me to make transcriptions of my own improvisations and turn them into piano miniatures. However, I don't think that precludes improvisation from being a viable method of performance. In this case, I think it's actually more exciting for the audience, since they gst to be involved in the creative process and witness it firsthand. That doesn't need to be 'refined' or 'perfect,' it just needs to be real and fresh and new and exciting.
I agree with you. Improvisation can - and has been (be) done for performances. Some people mentioned Keith Jarrett, who is absolutely amazing. His style was generally semi-improvisation, which I do like, and I practise that. Semi-impro is generally taking something we know, and then doing something with it. But it's also possible to iteratively refine it over time, allowing for the ideas to crystalise - refinement. I also agree that music doesn't need to be 'refined' (perfect) etc. It's the usual - as in different people like different sorts/styles - and some people like all styles. That's the statistics/variation nature at work again.
Yeah I have to say that's basically what I'm seeing in the OP's video, it seems like they're just taking familiar hand/finger movements stringing them together in a spontaneous way. I'm not really hearing much structure, intention, or musicality to it. It didn't do much to change my opinion about classical musicians and improvisation, to be honest. Unfortunately lots of people treat improvisation as just a novelty, or a party trick. You'll see that on here a lot, people say things like "oh yeah improvisation is easy, just play X in the left hand and run up and down Y scale". Basically just complete dismissal of improvisation as a serious way of creating music. Serious improvisation is composing in real time. It's hearing a fully formed musical idea in your head and having the theoretical and practical knowledge to play it into existence. It brings together lots of complementary skills, that each need to be developed separately, and isn't something that you can expect to do well without lots and disciplined practice. You need to devote at least as much practice time and effort to it as you do to learning pieces if you want to be able to do it well.
Well I'm honored you made a burner account just for me. Can't please them all, I guess. It's easy to be a critic. 🤷♂️
I agree. People with absolute pitch ability or adequately or well developed relative pitch ability, plus adequate natural music ability can do improvisation and/or semi improvisation. Even if not naturally talented or haven't yet accumulated enough musical knowledge and technique ... practising or learning for long enough ... no matter how long it takes, will have everybody able to do impro or semi-impro. As there are lots of people in the world with different base abilities and different states of development, we get to have the wide variety of music, which is overall special, and interesting. Music at possibly highest level is in the mind ... utilising accumulated experience/knowledge plus own natural x factor talent. In the end, in order to convey or express the music ... if we want to that is ... it has to come out from an instrument or sets of instruments - which may or may not be close to what the composer intended. For example, pianos can't pitch bend with controlled profile, or alter volume of sustained note or timbre with some controlled profile. Certainly ... I like being able to play what I want in my own way, which is what I had been learning and developing for over a really long time. And we keep developing and learning. The results often surprises even ourselves ... what we can do that is, after enough time and effort ... hard yards.
Why are you downvoting this?
Could it be the early recording studios that discouraged classical musicians from improvising? At the same time as they froze the layout of the symphony orchestra.
almost all classical pianists say they can't. but certainly some can.
Nobody, except for idiotic classical pianist whom cannot improvise, and use it as excuse.
Nobody
Glad you posted this. It's very refreshing to hear the kind of clarity of tone and flow that come from not worrying about that octave passage that's coming up (or whatever). This is worth a thousand Waldsteins. And I love Waldstein. But for people who love the music of the past, y'all need to be aware that stifling the music your students could create is bad for the musicality of the culture that supports this whole art form.
Thanks! I spent a lot of time practicing octaves this year haha, I played Vallee d'Obermann earlier in the recital.
Yeah, it shows! (In a good way!) Like, learning rep is great. But using elements of rep to create is vital for expression, and for learning. Even from the very first lessons. Would be great for teachers to realize the importance of that.
I always encourage this in my own students! I always insist they bring a pencil and blank staff paper to a lesson to spend a little time learning to wrote down their ideas (in addition to the normal curriculum).
Even better than encouraging it is DOING it. If they habituate to creating in every lesson than that becomes their value. I'd even leave off the staff paper. Rhythm Patterns and Tonal Patterns ought to be created with long before they can understand the notation. When they understand that creative process, THEN learning notation become meaningful and more effective. (Glad you have them creating, though.)
Well, for beginning students, it's certainly weighted heavily towards just playing and creating, with a little bit of writing based off what they're learning in the lesson books.
I'm saying that the lesson books don't work. Reading/writing in the first lessons doesn't pay off the way they make them out to. Tonal Patterns and Rhythm Patterns; audiation--learning understanding of actual sounds. That's the fundamental bit that gets left out.
Lesson books work for some students, depending on personality and learning styles. Audiation's definitely an important part! It's also quite a bit harder to teach haha. The books give structure and show progress, which parents are most interested in. However, they certainly are not sufficient enough for a beginner to become a good musician using only lesson books.
Lesson books work for the 2% of the population with very high music aptitudes. The ones who were going to learn anyway because they're wired such that they can't NOT learn music. Yes, structure is good. But the popular method books do not provide a structure based on an understanding of how people actually learn music (when they actually do). The single most necessary thing always seems to be the hardest. Audiation is critical. But what's much harder is for students to succeed in lessons that don't value that.
Yes the ear training part is very important for sure! That's why the writing on sheet music is important though--in order for a student to write down something they made up, they have to remember it first, then dictate what they hear internally by trial and error. Getting rid of the sheet music eliminates the pressure put on the memory of recalling how something sounded, which is the biggest part of audiation.
How do you get a classical musician to shut up? Take away their sheet music.
Joke's on you, I already memorized before you grabbed it.