Which do you think is of greater benefit to someone, playing lots of different music or learning the pieces one does practice thoroughly enough that they play it accurately?

Now I know most people would say both are valid endeavours and not mutally exclusive! However, if you were pressed to choose one of the two, say you had limited time, or just erm... COMPLY WITH THE POLL lol

What do you think?

Please discuss

Definitely quality. I am quite often called upon to perform and having a few things that are polished is essential. But I suppose its probably different for lots of instruments.

This is an interesting one Rock Star Guy.

I think the question of which is of more benefit depends on who you are and what stage in your learning / playing you are at. I fully agree that anyone who performs must have polished repertoire on hand, of course. If you are a performer you will, I hope, have met a wide variety of music along the way.

However, I voted for quantity - not without reservations - but for students whose appreciation may be limited and still fairly tentative, I feel (as a teacher) it is vital to meet and experience as much different music as possible.

This is not to say that I don't encourage pupils to polish some pieces. I think the key word here is explore.

I voted for quantity. After gaining the ability to tackle new pieces swifty it's great to explore what's out there - to see what you want to spend more time on and what types of music appeal.

My teacher has been away for a fortnight and while she was gone I borrowed a series of history books form her. There are almost a hundred pieces to play - most slightly beyond my sight-reading ability. My task was to get the gist of each era - which I did - and then I went on to spend a lot more time on those pieces I liked and discovered a list of composers I'm going to watch out for.

This is an interesting and thought provoking one.

It is certainly a good idea to learn a piece thoroughly and be able to play it both accurately and 'musically' so that you enjoy it and, if you perform, your audience enjoys it too. No one likes hearing wrong notes played; it "grates" to the very core of your musical senses.

Having said that, practicing the same piece over and over again to get it note perfect becomes a 'pain' and unless you have a very high threshold of boredom, that too soon sets in.

I tackle my music learning this way; I have about 50 or sixty pieces on the go and set out to play each piece at least once in the space of a week. I shuffle the pieces into a random order so that I'm not repeating the same playing sequence each week. My weekly menu of music contains everything from baroque/classical/romantic to balads/pop/and some rock with key signatures varying from no sharps and flats to six or even seven and time sigs. to suit.

As I am a doctor I don't have a lot of spare time, but even I manage 30 mins to an hour each evening and up to 4/5 hours or more at w/e's (unless travelling).

Well having not done any exams since 1964, nor played in public, I go for quantity.
I have a huge repertoire, most of it to decent standard, but not necessarily to complete performance standard. I guess its really because I havent the necessity to really get something off to perfection. In any case, if I did do that, I probably would not play that piece for a while after so would have to start the 'perfection process' over again.

Now why can't more people do this - a poll with adequate options, good dynamics and interesting idea!

In contrast to most comments here (maybe it's the way we interpret the question), I would say quality! My greatest feeling of happiness with regard to the piano is when my teacher tells me that he doesn't think there is any improvement I can make to a piece. When I have had times without lessons or pieces that I have learnt out of lesson, I always get a nagging feeling that no matter how much I practise it, it will never be as good as ones I take to lesson.

So I play lots of pieces, in fact I usually have about 3 officially on the go at any given time and 30 unofficially. However, I would rather have 2 pieces really good than 5 half-baked.

Good poll!

I think I'd go for quality if really pressed - just because I (like Boo) would rather play a few pieces really well than loads badly. Not that this is always the way I work, I hasten to add Also if pieces are well learned, the quantity will eventually build up as (in my experience anyway) if you learn a piece well enough then even some years later you don't have so much work to do to get it back to standard, and you can still work your way through a lot of music.

I do think "it depends" is probably the most accurate answer though - because what a novice musician needs will be different from what a seasoned performer needs, someone who excels at sight-reading will probably enjoy "quantity" more but probably _need_ to work on quality, and someone who isn't good at sight-reading will probably prefer to plump on the quality side of the equation but need encouraging to go for quantity now and then... someone working on their sight-reading for an exam will definitely be aiming to play as much music as possible and probably polishing very little of it whereas if someone is preparing for a diploma it's no use saying to the examiners "I can sight-read hours' worth of music"... and someone who is playing purely for pleasure will probably go for whichever is easier and therefore most pleasurable to them. I think in an ideal world there should be a balance between polishing something up till it's good, vs playing something till you've learned from it but not necessarily till it's 100% perfect. (eg in my piano lessons I have a pretty good balance of easier pieces that I can learn to play well and really polish, and learn to add all the finishing touches, and pieces which are at the top end of my ability and which I maybe never really polish off, but that I learn a lot from even if the end result is still a long way from a composer's intention!)

But personally I derive most satisfaction from playing a piece as well as I can (even if "as well as I can" isn't all that great!") so that's what I have voted for.

Quantity. Although it's nice to have the pieces you have polished off, I think I'd need to learn a lot more music to increase my repertoire and to find pieces that I particularly like. I then work on the ones that I do like! It's just I've been doing exams for most of the time since I started playing piano, and now that I'll be taking the Grade 8 exam soon, afterwards I want to take a break to work on expanding my repertoire rather than just learning grade specific pieces all the time! Then, I might consider contemplating working towards one of the higher exams - but only after I have explored the diverse world of music and learnt to play music that I myself have picked! So yep, quantity, with quality applied to the favourites of your new found quantity.

If you do quality, then quantity, you may find you have focused your time on a piece you are not so keen on - i.e. you are choosing to perfect a piece from the limited amount of music that you know. Conversely, if you do quantity then quality, you'd already know a wide spectrum of the music out there that there is to choose from, so when you do come to perfecting pieces, you can be sure they are pieces that you'd enjoy investing you're time in. Just the way I see it, anyway.

~Wobby~

I'm interested - how do you maintain a large repertoire? How often to do you have to play something to keep it in trim, so to speak?

Edward

I found all the responses here very interesting to read!

In years gone by I think I concentrated too much sometimes on sticking to the same pieces and in hindsight this was deterring me from practicing more... then again my sight reading at the time was terrible so I found tackling new pieces rather daunting!

Now I love playing through new music sometimes only once or twice - of course unless you have a good library nearby this can be an expensive habbit!

I think on the whole the most important thing for a student is to strink a balance, learning a couple of pieces at any point, while at the same time exploring lots of new music while doing it.



*blush* thankyou I take the compliment most graciously

I like playing lots of different music accuratly enough to perform(which isn't thst accurate)

I KNEW it!

I voted for quality. I enjoy bashing through pieces, but at the end of the day I love to be able to stand up and perform, and I need to perfect a piece for that. Saying that, I have a huge amount of music, and every time I practice I often just play a piece for fun, after working on perfecting another. I wouldn't learn a lot just playing random pieces though, except perhaps good sightreading skills...

I read that and thought "what??" - took me a minute

It's virtually neck and neck on this one! >.<

I tend to do a bit of both - if working for an exam or concert, I'll spend time doing detailed practice of little tricky passages, and sorting out articulation patterns and ornamentation, but when the fiddly detailed practice goes stale, I'll break off and haul out a selection of stuff to play through without all the under-the-microscope approach. It helps me to learn the exam or concert pieces too, because I find I can't concentrate intensively on practising in such detail for so very long, and I learn the music more quickly overall if I rehearse in shorter bursts.

I like to work on pieces in depth & tend to concentrate on one at a time, with a couple of others simmering over. I usually mean to practise all the pieces every week, but in practice generally run out of time because I've been working in such detail on my main piece. They are generally long pieces, usually concertos or sonatas, so are time- consuming & I try to reach the highest standard I'm capable of. I do tend to concentrate on one piece while the others have a rest & then go back - I really find pieces benefit from a period of rest then revision.

Sometimes I think I would like to have more pieces on the go, but if I learn too many at once it will just be note-learning & not getting to the finer details. I have a very busy teaching schedule, so can't do as much practice as I'd like to. If I could practice several hours a day, I'd probably do more pieces. I still have regular lessons & my teacher likes to work on pieces in detail with me, so we usually only do one at a time.

Sometiems when you spend ages and ages on a piece you wonder if its worth your time as you could be playing sooo much other stuff >.<

*feels smug knowing that she's just levelled the voting*

I voted for learning as much as possible. Although its good to know pieces that really demonstrate what you like and what you know, I tend to get bored and I like variety. I'm a sight reading addict and I just love sight reading anything and everything that I can reach. Some of these pieces I play once and put aside, and some I find myself maybe not practising daily, but practising often, so that sooner or later, because they are pieces I enjoy, I'll play them well anyway.

For me, picking a piece or two to learn really thoroughly and not playing anything else seems a bit examy...with no exams at the moment I like to EXPLORE and discover new music.

~CPPF

Definitely worth it to play a large variety of music than to have a narrow repertoire!

i voted for quality... i would feel a sense of sastifaction when i'm being able to play a piece to a high standard and being able to play it nicely with all the details (expressions, phrasings, dynamics etc) at the end of the day...

i dont really like to work too many pieces at one go unless i'm a very free person who is able to practise a lot... i would rather work on just a few and finish them then proceed to other pieces


ShArOn

Quantity if you are a adult beginner as the relatively short pieces can become boring after a while. I like to add new pieces as fast as possible, but then at times revisit the old ones and try to improve my playing.

Well I try to play pieces to the best quality all the time. I really do enjoy delving into a piece, seeing all the linking sections and that little chill of excitement of getting a proper understanding of what someone was thinking of 400 years ago. But I need to play different pieces, different composers, different eras. That way I can compare stlyes and know when to use what type of ornaments and when to really go all out. So yeah...

Not at all! Badly constructed polls really get on my nerves.


Again, trust Christmas Carol to twist things!


A sign of a good poll I tell you!

A most interesting poll - one I keep taking a peep at.

(just adding to RSGuy's blushes !)

I haven't cast my vote as I would not choose to decide between the two. I always learn one or two pieces at a time to a performing standard, and look at others during that time and read them through and learn them fairly well, but do not spend long on any very challenging passages. Some I will set aside for study later and others I will study at a rather shallow level just to get to know them a little. I encourage my pupils to do the same; They have a piece or two to work at until it is at performing standard, even if it is very simple, and others as quick-learn pieces. In this way their sight reading improves and they learn a far wider repertoire than they would otherwise. Pieces learnt roughly now can be polished up later. It makes little sense to me to be able to play a small number of pieces well, and to have little knowledge of other pieces that should be standard repertoire for one’s instrument.

Petrat I agree totally with your approach and I try to encourage my pupils to do similarly. Choosing between the two was not easy - and only after some thought (eg quote your last sentence here -) I voted for the wider option. Just out of interest, how do you persuade the pupils who prefer to have only one thing at a time on the go ? I have two or three youngsters like that - I think it makes practice much less interesting to have only one piece to play, quite apart from any other reasons.

Easy! I give them a book with a few lines of different pieces marked as sight reading or singing work for the week. When they enjoy a particular piece they end up reading the whole thing through. The following week I may show them something similar to look over. Then I tell them to begin work on it and that I will hear it in a few lessons' time. They usually keep them ticking over quietly.

Well - that's what I do too - and it works with some (sometimes very well indeed - it's great for them to feel they are surprising you when it's what you hoped would happen all along !... ) I do feel that exploring a few will often turn up the one or two they really want to play. But it doesn't often see results from the dedicated "I do one thing at a time" -ers.

I've tried giving a Secret Assignment (handed over in a sealed envelope, to be opened only at home) with page / line clues to a few snippets to explore - and again it works with some, but not all.

To some extent I think you just have to step back and let them learn the way they prefer. We may think it's boring to just practise one piece, but to them it may feel confusing or overwhelming to have two to practice - people's minds work in different ways! I am usually aware of how my pupils prefer to work and try to go with it as much as possible.

I guess you are right Carol. It is important to tap into how they like to learn - in fact how they learn best. It's just that having only one piece on the go can feel so static - you feel that with a bit of encouragement they might actually find they got more out of it - (oh ok now I've got one to polish and one to work on notes ); on the other hand you can't help feeling with one or two that it's a strategy to keep practice time to the minimum ??

Hi these history books sound great - are they something your teacher put together or are they published commercially? Cool idea....

A very intresting topic Rock Star Guy

Why not both?
Tackle a number of pieces and work seiously on one of them?

Learning a couple of bars from a thousand pieces will get you nowhere, so will working on a single piece till you hate and start cursing the one who composed it - I think.

you could always just explore new music till you can sight read anything offhand hahhaha

Yeah, that would be the day!

I tend to learn one piece really well, and while I'm doing that I usually explore other music but I don't work on them - I just play through for fun

I believe that both options are equally essential to becoming a well-rounded musician. It's very useful to look at a great variety of musical works, ranging in time periods, composers and styles as it provides you with experience to then refer back to when playing something similar. However, it is also crucial to study some pieces to a performance standard, working hard on the especially fiddly sections and playing particular attention to phrasing and dynamics etc. I think that it's best to develop your favourite pieces and practice them further as your enjoyment of them comes across in your playing.

lol yeah... but if you had too choose :P:P

I voted for quantity.

Music is often compared to languages and the learning process is similar (so I'm told - I don't speak any others myself...)

Therefore I'd rather have a good quality understanding of the language, and to be able to converse confidently (albeit with a few grammitical errors), than to perfect a few fantastic speeches without truly understanding much beyond that.

Suppose this way I'll never be as fluent as a native, but I'll get by on holiday!!


(Apologies for the rubbish analogy, it was the first thing I thought of when trying to decide!)

I like to have maybe at most 2/3 pieces to work hard on with my teacher then acouple (4/5) fun or different pieces to just mess around with......seems to work for me!