studying Czerny's 'studies' (etudes) and Catharsis, any other easy contemporary studies?

... since you don't like it, there is the jazz hanon

Bartok, Mikrokosmos

Heller, Op 47, 46 and 45 (in order of difficulty)

Bach provides you with a complete pedagogy from A to Z (within his scope), so you start from studies of a couple of pages (two-part inventions) to arrive at concertos for pf and orchestra

But weren't you the one who said to me, in the discussion about reading sheet music, that "I still have much to learn"? Good luck!

....

Carlos wrote:

But weren't you the one who said to me, in the discussion about score reading, that "I still have much to learn"? Good luck with your work!

yes, it was indeed me. For your information, I learned all the classical harmony taught in the first 4 or 5 years of conservatory by studying on my own, harmony that I understand and use well, and personally, I am quite satisfied with it, given that my thing is more writing music than playing it, and as a pianist I am not a beginner at all, although in that too I am mostly self-taught,

Staying at a "lower" level of piano playing is a personal choice: it's better to be an exemplary intermediate pianist than one who is so or so advanced.

PS. but weren't you the one who "surpassed" harmony? Shoot yourself, come on. Who knows, maybe with all your sense of innovation, you'll even surpass bullets

Jamsession and TTV, thanks, I will look into it

Organista94, yes, I had started Bach's inventions a few years ago, but then my tastes changed a bit....in any case, with Czerny I am fine, regarding classical (I know Bach isn't classical, but you know what I mean). In fact, for a while now I have 'discovered' fantastic Renaissance music for lute, but not many transcriptions for piano can be found.

ttw wrote:

Bartok, Mikrokosmos

Heller, Op 47, 46 and 45 (in order of difficulty)

the Mikrokosmos volumes are very interesting.....I didn't know they were modal, great, it contrasts well with Czerny

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

PS. but weren't you the one who 'surpassed' harmony? Shoot yourself, come on. Who knows, maybe with all your sense of innovation, you'll even surpass bullets

No, it wasn't me. If you are looking for a foothold to attack me, you've chosen the wrong foothold (or the wrong person...) and since in the discussion in question you had confused "partitura" [musical score/composition] with "spartito" [sheet music], my irony was motivated, yours was not.

PS I would moderate the tone, if I were you. Thanks.

Carlos wrote:

But weren't you the one who said to me, in the discussion about reading sheet music, that "I still have much to learn"? Good luck with your work!

oh yes, now I remember, you are the one who shot that other thing, i.e., that sheet music "is useless". You were the one who attacked me first, on both occasions.... first of all, in the post where I wrote that "whoever says it is useless has much to learn", I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but to the lazy people who have no desire to learn and start saying "but is it worth it?" etc.... I hear quite a few. In other words, I was referring to beginners. You aren't one, right?

Which perhaps should be even more worrying.... but in the end you have made your experience and you can decide to do whatever you want: if in your opinion it is useless, fine, throw it away. In my opinion it makes no sense, and I'll explain why I think so, then everyone can think however they want: I have been reading music for 12 years, but until two years ago I never played anything with the score in front of me. I learned from the score, then I relied only on memory. Two years ago I started, for the first time, taking piano lessons, once a week, in a class. And what happened was this: at home I played well, but in front of the class, even the smallest memory lapse was enough to mess up the whole performance. The teacher told me: "you are good, but you freeze because you don't read the music continuously.". Everyone complimented me both for my technique, which is solid (I didn't say it myself, but excellent teachers), and because all the pieces I know, even if they aren't many, I usually played them without sheet music.

But I thought carefully about what was said to me, "you freeze because you don't follow the music on the score", from which I learned as follows:

1. a professional, anyway, performs from the score, unless they are a concert artist performing very difficult pieces.

2. if I perform by reading, and not by remembering, I don't make mistakes, because memory, even good memory, is generally not reliable.

conclusion: obviously when I hear "sheet music is useless", I think it's a load of bullshit, if only because my own experience has proven it to me, but this doesn't mean I think you are a fool; I respect everyone who has made efforts in music, we all know it's not easy for anyone. In other words, even a genius can say something stupid. Then, if you said it ironically, sincerely I didn't notice. You could even tell me that I was the one who said the stupid thing.... what difference does it make?

As for still having much to learn, tell that to someone.... you said it right. I wasn't saying that I have nothing to learn. But I think it applies to everyone too..... In the end, I don't think it's worth arguing on a forum over things like this: time is precious and life is not infinite.... better to use that time to make more music. I send you sincere greetings, and with my respects, bye.

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

conclusion: obviously when I hear 'the score is useless', I think it's a load of bullshit

In reality, even in the offending topic, they had explained to you that it referred to an exam called “Score Reading” and specifically to the advanced course... which is slightly different.

You can read, but it's how you “explicitly state” the problem... you know Berg's violin concerto with orchestra...?... try playing it on the pf using only 10 fingers

Some interventions

http://www.pianoconc...artitura-serve/

Dino wrote:

It certainly does not help to develop the inner ear and improve the aptitude for instrumentation/orchestration. Creating a reduction (then why demonstrate it extemporaneously and not on paper? This also forces one to stay within the limits of the presumed "keyboardist"... see any clarinetists who would aspire to become conductors) probably forces analysis, but this can be done perfectly well in an analysis course (precisely).

Tiger wrote:

...let's say it also depends on the type of music

Aside from the part where "modern piece of serial music" I didn't understand what is meant, "Reading the score is not "the score"

... therefore

The "score" or "reading of the score"? [Higher course (it must be said, eh!) absolutely useless that is proposed in the conservatory]

...if you read carefully, it does not refer to the mastery of reading a sheet music but to its exemplification or rather, to the exemplification of a reduction through the pf.

And what if the candidate were a clarinetist?

Here... knowing how to read is one thing, knowing how to exemplify (a reduction) through the pf is another

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

ah yes, now I remember, you are the one who shot that other one, meaning that the score 'is useless'.

Today Tullio De Mauro (the one from the famous De Mauro-Paravia Italian dictionary, present?) said that half of Italians are unable to understand a written message. You, probably, are part of that half. I NEVER SAID that "the score is useless". I responded to someone asking if THE SCORE READING COURSE held at the conservatory is useful. It is not exactly the same thing.

That (meaning the piano score reading course) in my opinion is not useful at all - and I have also argued the reasons for it. But if you think you are a phenomenon because you can read a Schubert lied, believing that that is a score, you are confusing things twice: first because you do not read correctly and put words in my mouth that I did not say, second is that you do not even know the exact meaning of the term "score", ergo you lack the minimum requirements to engage in an equal discussion on this topic.

And since I, unlike you, have been reading music for thirty years (meaning since I was 8 years old) and conducting for 15 (meaning since I was 23 years old), I think I can speak with sound judgment (and in correct Italian) without being told by you that I am expressing worrying concepts.

So much so that, in the other discussion, I had advised you, before telling me that I had much to learn, to clarify what the subject of the discussion was, something which, evidently, you did not do.

Carlos, anyway I reread your response on the score post, and indeed, yes, I admit that the irony escaped me; furthermore, you know what you're talking about, in fact you made an interesting comparison between the conductor, who is interested in the smallest details, and the composer, from whose score perhaps they only want to derive the harmonic progression. In my case, I use the score a lot to study harmony or other things regarding structure, so I generally ignore the smallest details; furthermore, I think that as you said, it is very different reading a score of simpler music (as in my case) and of much more complex pieces (I don't know, something like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? I don't know much about music after the classical-romantic period....

anyway, I apologize to you for my impulsiveness, in fact I understand why it seemed like an attack against you. No rather, from what I have understood, you are someone who has a lot of experience, I understand your irony now too. Bye

Natan wrote:

In reality, even in the offending topic, it had been explained to you that they were referring to an exam called "Score Reading" and specifically to the advanced course... which is slightly different.

You can read, but it's about how you "explicitly state" the problem... are you familiar with Berg's Violin Concerto...?...try playing it on the pf using only 10 fingers

yes, you are right. Now I understand everything. I had interpreted everything 'staying in my own shoes', instead of putting myself in yours.....different levels, styles, and complexities......I was also assuming that we all play the same things. Forgive me again, you are right.

Great PianistaMattiorennedi38, evidently Tullio De Mauro is right

It's important to understand each other

Natan wrote:

Great PianistaMattiorennedi38, evidently Tullio De Mauro is right

The important thing is to understand each other

in effect, I've thought about it: in the 'incriminated' post, I had only read the first message, and the beginning of Carlos's first message, and as soon as I saw 'it's useless', I stopped reading (I didn't read anything else that was written afterwards, by anyone) and I started to presume a lot of things, like 'grrrrr, these lazy people who started playing last week, now I'll tell them two things' and I started writing impulsively.

So, in addition to points '1 and 2' listed by me before, I also add point 3. 'before responding to a post, either I read everything before responding, or else 'come to one's senses and take your fingers off the PC keyboard'

I apologize to everyone and especially to Carlos.

pianistamaggiorenneDi38 wrote:

in effect, I've thought about it: in the 'incriminated' post, I had only read the first message, and the beginning of Carlos's first message, and as soon as I saw 'it's useless', I stopped reading (I didn't read anything else that was written afterwards, by anyone) and I started to assume a lot of things, like 'grrrrr, these lazy people who started playing last week, now I'll tell them two words'

Ok, peace made. The important thing is to clear things up.

Carlos wrote:

Ok, peace made. The important thing is to clear things up.

It was just a misunderstanding on my part, sorry again.