Improvising

 

Many people may assume that improvising applies only to jazz and popular music. They do not necessarily see it in the context of classical music. Therefore, people who are studying mainly classical music do not see the need to learn to improvise.

In the Classical era, that is, during the times of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert and Beethoven, it was customary that the performer (often the composer himself) would improvise the cadenza of a concerto. This was a free-form section towards the end of the first movement of a concert (e.g. piano and orchestra) where the soloist had a chance to show off by improvising a dazzling display of their technique and musical skills. (Nowadays almost all soloists play cadenzas written out by the composer.) Composers such as Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt were known to be fabulous improvisors. It's such a shame we have no record of any of it. After that, the idea of improvisation within classical music began to die out.

If you are studying jazz you will no doubt want and need to learn to improvise. Most people who play primarily improv love it and couldn't imagine doing it any other way. There is a great feeling to just "making stuff up on the spot." 

People who play classical music can also find the joy of improvising. Even if you never intend to improvise the cadenza of a concerto, you can become proficient enough in improvising to enjoy doing it with other musicians, or just on your own. In addition, it can become a wonderful tool which will affect your playing in positive ways.

Students of the piano (and, I assume, other instruments) become obsessed with playing the "right notes." The prospect of playing wrong notes often paralyzes them, making the learning stiff and joyless. Jazz players don't regard any notes as "wrong" but rather incorporate the "unintended" note into their riff and the listener would have no idea whatsoever that it was unintended. (I recommend replacing the term "wrong" with "unintended" across the board -- it's much less judgmental.) That's what improvising is all about. The ability to do this gives you the confidence that you can get through any situation. 

Of course if you are performing a classical piece in front of an audience, you are going to do your utmost to play the right notes. But what if you have a minor slip, or worse, a memory lapse? Are you going to just stop and start over? That would be hugely embarrassing. If you know the piece well enough (I address this in other posts), you can learn to improvise for a measure or two and continue. Most average listeners might never even know you had the slip. In order to do this successfully, you must practice this skill. Ironically, just knowing you can do this will decrease the likelihood of major memory slips, because you will be less anxious when you play by memory.

For my beginning students, I have them do some improvising very early on. First they just play single line melodies in the treble while I play a bass part with them. I give them a few general guidelines but mostly they are just free to explore. The main goal is that when they hear a note that sounds "bad" (i.e. dissonant against what I am playing) they learn to use it as part of their theme. If you think about it, a note that sounds dissonant is always one note away (either half step or whole step) from one that will sounds consonant, so you can resolve the dissonant note into the consonant one as if you intended it that way. Then, after they have learned basic chords such as I, IV, and V, they can improvise the right hand part while playing the chords in the left hand. (They will start with the Key of C but then move on to do the same thing in other keys. Being able to improvise in any key is critical.) Later they will proceed to use more chords and more complicated chords. The rest of the process is too long to explain here, but I think you get the idea. Then, when they are playing their classical pieces and something starts to go awry, I say "make it up." I do mean literally just play what you can, without stopping and trying to "correct" the notes, until you get back on track. Obviously, you will need to go back afterwards, determine what caused your problem, and work on it. But stopping and trying to fix in the moment actually teaches you nothing. Improvising your way through the problem, on the other hand, will give you extremely useful skills. 

Some people, despite loving playing the piano, have a hard time getting themselves to sit down and do what is often the hard work of practicing. For those people I suggest they sit down and just improvise for a little while, with the only goal being to have fun. After this "warm-up" they will hopefully feel the desire to continue with their practicing.

If you have never improvised before, I hope you will give it a try. There are books which help walk you through the process, but very few of them start with the absolute basics for a true beginner. Try to just "noodle around," as I call it, on your own. If you find you really enjoy it and want to do more, you can try to find a teacher who can help you.

Lessons vs. Practicing

 

My students sometimes ask: "I didn't get to practice much this week; should I still come to my lesson?" Or prospective students ask: "I really want to improve my playing but don't have a lot of time to practice. Is it still worth it to take lessons?"  The answer to both questions is a resounding YES. However, in order for the answer to be yes, you must have the right teacher.

From years of traditional schooling, most of us have gotten used to the idea that you go to class, where the teacher imparts some information, and then you go home and study it. Or, the teacher assigns some work, such as a paper or essay, which you do at home and then return to the teacher for "correcting" and, hopefully, constructive criticism, and possibly grading. You rarely do these assignments in class itself. Therefore it is not surprising that people may think the same model applies to learning an instrument, such as the piano.

Over the years, I have spoken with many people about their lessons with previous teachers. I'm often told that the teacher basically assigned a new piece, maybe went through it a small amount, but instructed the student to "learn" it at home. Then, at the lesson, the teacher might correct "wrong notes" or other problems, and the student would again be sent home to practice with the new "corrections." However, the problem with this is: what if the student doesn't really know or understand how to "learn" the piece for optimal results? The teacher may not even cover this, just assuming that the student knows. There are many ways to approach a new piece. Some are mechanical and joy-killing, and others are a creative process. How to practice well is one of the most important aspects of learning that the teacher needs to address. But many don't, or give it minimal emphasis. In fact, this is why many teachers just do a 30-minute lesson: if you are just correcting errors you may be able to do it in that amount of time. But there is no time to go into any depth on technique, ear-training, musical expression and all the myriad of subtleties that playing the piano requires.

The model  of "assign in class and learn at home" doesn't work at all for a pursuit which is highly physical, such as playing an instrument. The student needs to acquire good technique at the lesson, with the teacher demonstrating and, through various means, manipulating the student's hands and arms until they sense the new technique. The student needs to "experience" the new technique at the lesson, so they can attempt to duplicate it at home. I never let the student leave the lesson until I see that they at least have the beginnings of acquiring the new skill. Technique is just one an example, but the same applies to all aspects of playing. 

Because of this model, students tend to feel that they must "perform" for the teacher at the lesson in order to show what they have accomplished during the week. Whether conscious or unconscious, this idea will likely cause them to have some nerves, and the playing will be worse than the student hopes. As an experienced teacher, I can always tell what is going on, how the student has practiced, and how they have progressed (or not) during the week. If the student can just be relaxed, their playing will probably be better. I continually emphasize that they are practicing to improve and become more skilled, not to perform for me at the lesson.

A better model for the piano lesson would be a session with a personal trainer. If you are seeing a trainer weekly in order to get more fit, and you don't get a chance to exercise during a given week, should you skip your session with the trainer? Of course not. It would be all the more imperative that you go to your session so you at least get one solid exercise session in for the week. When you are with a trainer, he/she shows you the technique and observes you doing it, correcting your form as necessary. This is the most essential benefit of training with a professional, that is, making sure you have the best technique or form before you go home to do it on your own. 

Likewise, I consider the piano lesson to be a supervised practice session. When they are with me at the lesson, the students are doing the highest quality "practicing," and this is what they should be doing at home. Unfortunately, despite my explaining and emphasizing this, I have had some students who go home and do something else entirely, and of course, their results, or lack of results, show it.

At the lesson, the work must be "compressed" in order to get it done in the time allotted. However, the practice session at home should be seen as an "expanded" version of the lesson. In summary, lessons and practicing are not exactly the same, but the student should, ideally, try to replicate what was done at the lesson... again, providing you have the right teacher. If you are currently studying piano with a teacher who uses the "assign and learn at home" model, it's time to find a new teacher.