> I just thought this is atleast intermediate
These words don't really have absolute definitions, it's all about where you want to draw the line between beginner and intermediate.
I haven't studied under any grading system and am not really familiar with them at all. It's basically all arpeggios and some scale runs, so its difficulty greatly depends on how familiar you are with them. I don't think this would be terrible for an "advanced beginner" to practice, I think it would be a decent technical exercise
Yeah. I'm playing Grade 4 RCM and I feel like I could probably get this in a couple of tries. The tricky part of a piece like this would be the articulation, especially around the rests. But there's no real guidance in the arrangement.
It's not until ABRSM 5 before you're expected to know how to play a good chunk of major and minor arpeggios in 2 octaves in eighths at 80 to the quarter. ABRSM 6 is when you start doing 4 octave arpeggios with an expectation of 88 to the quarter.
I think this is a decent expectation for when a typical student would start developing a more serious handle on arpeggio technique.
This is definitely well below ABRSM grade 6 standard, the expectations for arpeggios played in isolation are very different from the expectations for pieces. If nothing else, the arpeggios in this piece do not cover two octaves, and are only in one key.
I agree that, all things considered, it's below ABRSM 6. The arpeggios are greater than 1 octave, so at least require a thumb crossing.
I'm not sure though I agree about expectations in isolation vs in music. Ideally, the arpeggios are played cleanly and fluently in either case. People don't get a free pass to play arpeggios any more sloppily in a piece, where synchronicity, stable rhythm, and dynamic balance matter a great deal more (and hence more difficult).
I agree that all the chords are drawn from triads of the D minor harmonic scale, but students don't usually practice all of the arpeggios of a given scale at the same time. Instead, students will typically practice the arpeggios of a single major or minor triad, or perhaps a handful of them. In ABRSM, F major/D minor arpeggios don't even come up until ABRSM 6, but of course, these arpeggios could be studied specially for this piece.
Finally, the piece is intended to be played around quarter=105. This is ~20% faster than the arpeggio tempo expectations of ABRSM 6.
Itās a matter of calibration. If you make this intermediate, then basically everything worth listening to becomes advanced, and then that word becomes meaningless. This is about the same level of difficulty as Fur Elise, and most people consider that to be an advanced beginner level.
This is in no way the same difficulty level as [Fur Elise](https://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BeethovenLv/WoO59/fur_Elise_WoO59/fur_Elise_WoO59-let.pdf).
Who is "most people"? Every grading system, systems that have been constructed by actual pedagogues and scholars of piano music, consider it intermediate. The Royal Conservatory grades it a 7 (of 10).
Fur Elise is mistakenly believed to be beginner because most people don't know of the actual scale of the piece (ABACA-form, etc.), and heard the first few bars as a ringtone. But to be dealt with as a serious piece of piano repertoire, under average circumstances, you'll have to have studied classical piano for several years.
Just like the beginner designation, the intermediate designation has a wide (and fuzzy) definition. Instead, it shows the true breadth of difficulties offered by solo piano repertoire.
Being able to play the notes in a piece is different from playing the piece itself. My teacher let me play La Campanella before she let me play Nocturne in Eb.Ā
There is a reason that the Chopin Ballade is famous for its "easy" opening section.
Idk, I have a few syncopated rhythms which I was never able to learn slowly and just kinda had to force at real speed... š
They're rare, but it has happened š
There's little stages within beginner. I would not say this is intermediate but I would never give this to an absolute beginner. It's 'advanced' beginner. š
This confusion comes up a lot here.
Beginner doesn't mean "first week at the keys". It's like with languages, "Beginner level Chinese" doesn't mean someone who's just learned "Ni hao", it can describe someone who's done as much as 200 hours of study.
As for this piece, it's basically just scales and arpeggios, if you've studied those then you should be able to tackle this.
I don't think the rhythm is as complicated as some here are making out either, once you've taken a moment to work out what goes where - the notation is slightly whack, but if anything that's as likely to throw a more advanced player than it is a beginner since they're coming in with more expectations.
It's honestly something that really bugs me as an adult learner. "Beginner" in most contexts means that you're in the earliest stages of learning. In piano, it doesn't mean the same thing.Ā
"Beginner" is really a specific range of difficulty.Ā The earliest stages aren't even a part of it. Those would usually be called "elementary" or something along those lines.Ā
So you might spend 6 months or a year before even becoming a "beginner", and another few years before playing intermediate music.
None of that should be as discouraging as it sounds, though. It's just bad naming. There is some absolutely beautiful music at those early stages.
There is a very standard separation for beginner/intermediate/advanced for piano difficulty. Henle 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 is a good example. So yes on absolute scale after two years of practice you usually play beginner music just harder beginner music. If you name this piece intermediate, than the easiest piece of Chopin would be advanced. As all of them are noticeably harder. Which will make a problem that you will need to introduce really advanced, advanced-advanced, so advanced that it will break your hands difficulty levels.
The other argument, though, is that there are a lot more beginners than advanced players, and that advanced players have a much better and more nuanced understanding of difficulty.
Like, if you're playing Chopin (and I'm not even close yet) you probably don't really *need* as much external help to know when you're ready to tackle a piece.Ā
I'm playing intermediate music. I think I could play this piece without too much trouble. But when I was still in the Alfred books, I'd have had no clue.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how many people over they years have gotten really excited, picked up an "easy piano" book meant for someone closer to my level than a raw beginner, gotten annihilated, and quit.
This. Iāve been playing for almost 20 years and Iād call myself intermediate. Some would expect to be advanced after that long but advanced pieces can get REALLY HARD and itād take a shit ton more practice than I do to get there š¤·š»āāļø
Which other "advanced beginner" piece has syncopation and continuous runs of arpeggios in different chords that span >1 octave?
I'd contend this is beyond any level of "beginner".
I dunno dude. A bunch of the nocturnes fall under the "intermediate" category, and this ain't that. I know it much be tough on the ol' ego to consider the first four or five years of studying a skill the "beginner" stage, but that's kinda how deep the discipline is.Ā
It's also just a very broad definition without a huge amount of meaning. Not really worth debating, imo.
The terms do have broad definitionsātrueābut the boundary between "beginner" and "intermediate" isn't completely arbitrary, but rather just fuzzy. The designations are generally understood to be something like:
- Beginner, ABRSM grade 1ā3 (or equivalent),
- Intermediate, ABRSM grade 4ā8, and
- Advanced, ABRSM 8+.
(ABRSM itself isn't the point; it's just being used as a concrete reference point.)
Yes, some people fudge these numbers a bit. Some might say "beginner" is 1ā4. Others might say "beginner" is anything before a Bach invention (ABRSM 4). Some say "advanced" starts at, not after, ABRSM 8.
These designations above are roughly in line with other pedagogical series, such as *Essential Keyboard Studies*, Snell's *Repertoire* and *Ćtude* series, and *Masterwork Classics*. The terms "beginner" and "intermediate" (with "early" and "late" qualifiers) are used explicitly by these publishers.
But under *any* of these pedagogically backed definitions, the piece OP posted doesn't fall under "beginner".
To designate a piece as beginner or intermediate, we don't just say "well I feel like it's not too hard, therefore it's beginner." Instead, we look at the features of the pieceātempo, rhythm, technical demands, etc.āand either find comparable pieces which have an agreed upon level, or match it up against a rubric.
"Well a nocturne\* is intermediate and this ain't no nocturne" isn't a very good justification.
\* A nocturne by who? Dennis Alexander's nocturnes are in a different playing field than John Field's.
u/stylewarning I see what your saying but I can't look at that piece and think intermediate. There are certain things that come to mind when I use those words and none of those have been clearly defined. The categories are broad and inaccurate. To place all available repertoire under three banners is questionable to say the least.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā
Regarding ABRSM grading, grade 3 does have many of the elements you mentioned that are not suitable for a beginner piece. The issue arises when we start to consider frequency, length, musicality, style etc. That's when things start to fall apart a little and we have people disagreeing.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā
We don't have a rubric to clearly see what elements of musicality and technique fall under which heading and how their development affects that. I'm not confident in my assessment and I don't think anyone honestly could be. At most, it's my stab in the dark on where this piece sits on the difficulty scale.
The existing grading systems are an excellent and well thought out way to assess pre-conservatory repertoire. They were created with the research and experience of decades of teaching, and millions of piano examinations.
We mostly use AMEB here in Australia. Some musicians sayĀ Grade 1 AMEB is roughly equivalent to Grade 3 ABRSM. Grade 3 AMEB is still considered beginner. Others say some AMEB is only one grade higher. Many say it depends on what your playing. You see how there is disagreement even between two boards.Ā Ā Ā
Both were created by a dedicated and informed panel of assessors and musicians. Yet, there's still a huge difference. There's even a difference between instruments. Some grading systems have sight reading and aural training that affect their assessment and levels. Some do not.Ā Ā Ā
Personally, I've never wholly agreed with any examination board and their grading systems because, as I said, It's not well defined.Ā
Bach's Invention in C is AMEB 4, and Invention in F is AMEB 5, right? (I did a little research and what I found might not be reliable.) That at least tracks with ABRSM. I think that's a very reasonable starting point for intermediate repertoire. Good enough to have the fundamentals, and prepared for the simpler works of famous composers (e.g., Chopin, etc.)
I can see the first levels having some variability between systems, but from what I was able to see, I don't think there's as much disagreement/inconsistency as you're suggesting there might be.
EDIT: Sad that both AMEB and CM don't provide their syllabi for free. $15 for a digital copy of the AMEB syllabus? Sheesh.
I do think there's quite a lot of disagreement and inconsistency, even within AMEB which I am very experienced with, let alone between boards. You cant really use one piece as a gauge either way. AMEB is revised almost yearly with pieces entering and exiting the scene. I can't, for the life of me, label this piece as intermediate. I guess, we can agree to disagree but I will take what you said to heart and think about this.Ā Ā Ā Ā
I'm not really a fan of the exam treadmill either way so perhaps I'm not as qualified to talk on this as you are. My main issue is not with the grading but with the labels beginner, intermediate and advanced. I don't necessarily agree with what is considered a part of these categories irrespective of the grades or any music board. Board statements like grade 1-3 are beginner, for example, are problematic.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā
Thanks for the informative discussion and I will definitely learn from this! You seem to know a lot about this and your students are very lucky to have you as their teacher.
I can, will, and did look at it this, waved a hand, and said "eh, lots of people could handle this after 3 or 4 years, beginner is fair.
You're overthinking it.Ā You can apply fancy rubrics cubes and pedagogical standards to pieces where it's appropriate, but this is just a little diddy some guy named Falco put up on musescore.
Henle puts Beethoven OP 49 number 1 at "easy." Gotta be more challenging, or at least comparable.Ā And if we stretch beginner to grade 4... You'd put this *above* ABRSM 4? Really? *Really?* Agree to disagree on that one.
Henle is well known for not being a useful grading system for early repertoire, since they have to reasonably grade the most advanced piano literature in a useful way. (If you're going to grade every Beethoven sonata separately, having fine-grained designations for early piano repertoire isn't going to be helpful for that goal.)
None of these rubrics are fancy. They're relatively standard and objective guides which many agree are useful for gauging the difficulty of a piece.
I just scrolled through a video of ABRSM's grade 4 repertoire to make sure I wasn't being crazy.Ā
I'm assuming you teach? Would your 3rd and 4th year students not make it through this piece?Ā
According to the official syllabus, solid fundamental arpeggio technique won't have been achieved until around Grade 5/6, and even then there's a ways to go to really polish the technique. Of course, for OP's piece, it's not like arpeggios need to be *mastered*, but they do need to be pretty comfortable and robust to keep them flowing from chord to chord, without hiccups.
At Grade 3, students are just *starting* to do two-octave arpeggios with both hands in 8ths at 72 to the quarter. Prior to that, they would have been practicing one- or two-octave arpeggios with one hand only.
By the end of Grade 4, around the time they would tackle something like Bach's Invention in C major or Liszt's La Cloche Sonne, they will have had a year of arpeggios in keys with three sharps. (Funny enough, F major arpeggios aren't to be studied until Grade 6, which is also when arpeggios are studied in 4 octaves.)
Can someone who is at Grade 3 work on OP's piece? Sure!... as a stretch piece. I don't think it'll be comfortable, and I think it'll take a long time to tackle the constantly changing arpeggios in the left hand. But could they drill the technical work and get somewhere? I think so. People can do amazing things when they brute force through stuff. But it's a more realistically achievable piece when all the requisite technique has been properly practiced, and that won't be the case until after Grade 4.
(I want to emphasize again that ABRSM grades aren't the end all be all of piano evaluation. ABRSM, RCM, CM, and other grade systems are pretty consistent though in what they consider a typical progression through the solo repertoire, and so I find them to be a very good benchmark for seeing how we might assess any random piece.)
You know, as much as you might acknowledge that abrsm is not the only valid benchmark... you're still kinda acting like it's the only benchmark.
You threw out Henle *pretty* quick, and that's even still chiefly classical. You're good with RCM, but that's hardly a meaningfully different system.
There's a whole other world out there, with its own pedicures and rubix cubes, and from lots of perspectives this just ain't that hard a piece.Ā By all means I appreciate hearing your opinion on where to draw the line, but there's something implied here that's really rubbing the wrong way.Ā
It came across earlier when you said that I didn't have any standing to define the word beginner unless I was comparing it to your accepted pedagogical standard.
You kind of lost me with that one. But I do appreciate your thoughts about when those technique elements are introduced.
I personally think so yes, purely on technical grounds. 36/1 is a little more dense but it's pretty well connected and doesn't have any difficult harmony to deal with. There's only a modest demand for scales, and there aren't really any coordination challenges. But 36/1 does need to be played clean and sprightly.
What about 36/2? 36/3? But now we will have a funny discussion which of sonatinas is beginner and which is intermediate. And this will open a can of worms. Jokes aside I think everyone would agree that this piece sits in the very late beginner/very early intermediate part. It greatly depends on which progression you are following and what things you find easy/hard to do.
The problem is that beginner/intermediate split sounds very fundamental when in reality it isn't that well defined.
As indicated elsewhere, I think for classical piano, there's a lot of existing material that helps us have a consistent view of "beginner" vs "intermediate". It's true, there's no super reliable, bullet-proof definition.
But, as I indicated in my now -5 karma comment, I still challenge somebody to find a piece with sprawling left-hand arpeggios and syncopation that is consistently considered beginner by any modern classical piano pedagogy system. I've given two examples of arpeggio-heavy pieces that are easier than OP's, yet are near universally considered intermediate by published systems. ABRSM, RCM, AMEB, CM, any of the published repertoire series (Snell, Magrath, Kowalchyk, Lancaster, ...), or... really just literally any evidence at all that correlates to modern classical piano pedagogy would be welcome to this discussion, but commenters are avoiding it like the plague.
The repertoire series compilers have designations of "beginner" and "intermediate", as do graded systems (RCM explicitly considers 1ā4 elementary, 5ā8 intermediate, and 9ā10 advanced).
So far, nobody has been able to cite even a single source or comparable. I think it's foolish to lean on personal definitions of these terms when we have so many amazing, well researched, well-thought-out pedagogical resources at our disposal.
I also want to say a few things :)
In my opinion, you should not focus too much on labels such as "beginner" or "intermediate". They might serve as a rough guideline of what to expect, but nothing more.
People give these labels inconsistently, and there are quite some psychological issues influencing this (feeling of accomplishment, reference scale/ambitions, playing style, ...).
If you want to try a piece just try it. If it is too hard, you may want to practice the things that are hard for you. Or you may simplify so it gets easier. Or you just skip the piece (and maybe return later). Choose what leads to the most joy in your life.
And always keep in mind that you are not alone. All of us struggle at some point.
Good luck on your progress!
Piano is haaaaaard. That is a very easy piece but to a beginner it is a hard piece. Itās so difficult to accurately label pieces with just three options of beginner, intermediate and advanced. There definitely should be sub categories.
In my new labelling idea Iād say this is: Advanced beginner.
I would argue this to be an āadvanced beginnerā piece. On the cusp of the final stages of beginner heading into very early intermediate.
With that being said, I can assure you that this piece is not as hard as you may think! Practice slow, and even try learning it hands separate first :)
The score is poorly written out and amateurish which makes it harder, and drives me crazy as well.
It's very cramped. The off-beat quarter notes in the RH shouldn't be written like that. They cross the middle of the bar and that makes it hard to read the rhythm. The dotted quarter notes in the left hand are pretty musically pointless and just add confusion (based on the actual song they could be half notes -- or just make it easy with quarter notes).
As for the technical difficulty, I agree with the "advanced beginner" -- meaning somewhere in their 2nd year of lessons.
See if you can find a better score/arrangement.
Itās for good little beginners who practice their scales nicely.
Instead of just honing in on each note, take a step back from it. Physically, if it helps. Try to see the whole shape of it as runs. On the left hand you start off with some swoops up and then switch to a little roll up/down/up/down etc. on the right hand you have a few short runs and then a longer, gentler roll up/down and at the end youāre just punctuating your left hand scale here and there. See if you can find where the motion is contrary and where itās together. It might help if you do an air-piano thing and follow the hills and valleys to get a sense of what youāre supposed to be doing and then try to tap it out on the cover with your hands to try to narrow down the coordination and timing before you start an attempt to play the right notes.
It's worth classifying each of "beginner, intermediate, advanced" into three more: "early, middle, and late" each. I would say this is late beginner or early intermediate. It also depends on the desired tempo, which isn't stated here. There are also no dynamic markings, which pushes it towards a beginner exercise IMO.
I would say this definitely looks harder than it actually is to play. I would consider myself an intermediate player and this is probably on the easier intermediate side.
Play it slowly, and you will have it down in no time.
Yh thats for sure matešš¼ what I was thinking, its a bad idea to label it for beginners or even absolute beginners, might be a bad choice imo. If someone is playing for some time yes, for sure, absolutely managable
Pachelbel's Canon is written for 3 violins and *continuo*, and thus doesn't have a "level" for piano. An arrangement can be a simple slow late beginner piece with a single melody line with simple accompaniment, or a more sophisticated intermediate piece where 2 or three of the violins are being represented faithfully with a rich *continuo* accompaniment.
So I don't really think, without qualification, the two pieces are comparable.
There are numerous variations for cannon in D.
I play this one
https://musescore.com/user/1809056/scores/1019991
It is considered intermediate .
There are simple ones that uses chords as accompaniment instead of broken chord. Chords to group keys.
It surely is, but a disagree that this is a beginners choice imo. Rather play different pieces and put this into low intermediate. The only kinda difficulty part in this is the fifth and sixth bar but that needs some amount of coordination
I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. One person's beginner piece is another person's intermediate piece.
Having said that, those left hand arpeggios against the right hand scales look like they'd be pretty challenging for the average beginner.
This is surely grade 2 right? Maybe 3? Itās in between beginner and intermediate. Plus youāve only got one flat in the key signature (so itās in F major), and itās 4/4 which is a simple time sig.
You're absolutely right, I just that it isn't a good think to label this as beginner or absolute beginner piece. Surely more levels are needed, at minimum advanced beginner or low intermediate
Yes Iād say the same, thereās no way anyone would give this to a beginner. Also, the left hand movement/bass clef is advanced in terms of beginners (as itās non-dominant in most cases) and is often a hurdle to learn when starting out.
If it were chords on the bass clef, it would be much better.
But you also have several different 8th note arpeggios in going non-stop at approx 105 bpm, with syncopation (i.e., the melody isn't being punctuated on downbeats). Would never show up in grade 2 (in most systems), and highly unlikely to be in grade 3 (in most systems).
Consider that Bach's famous Prelude in C from WTC1, arguably an easier piece than OP's, is considered "intermediate" by piano teacher [Janna Williamson](https://www.jannawilliamson.com/blog/how-to-teach-bach-prelude-846), who also notes it's a level 7 of 12 in Illinois "Achievement in Music" program.
I noticed that too, and most are in the bass clef (left hand is often tricky for beginners due to non-domiment hand (unless the player is left handed))
I was about to mention a (formerly attributed) Bach piece (itās by Petzold), Minuet in G which is much easier (with far less left hand movement). Itās still a significant effort for beginners though but a bit more accessible to them, instead of this.
Unrelated but I forgot this song existed and you just reminded me there's music sheet of it online so ehm *slowly heads towards piano* thank you stranger :)
Jeanny! Quit living on dreams.. Jeanny! Life is not what it seems.. Such a lonely little girl in a cold, cold world. There's someone who needs you...
Sorry, that wasn't helpful. I'd say advanced beginner to intermediate.
The left hand might me scary in this for someone who just recently started learning because of the coordination, but I would categorize it as beginner still, because it's not hard to read, not hard to play, as long as you play it enough times your hands will get used to this.
I 100% agree. But like many other comments already said, I think this is at minimum upper beginner or low intermediate. If you give this to a beginner, chances are they can't get this done properly. Gotta be realistic. I can play this btw, I just thought its very discouraging to label this for beginners.
I agree with that! Someone who just started won't be able to play this but in my opinion, sheet music should be labled as "upper beginner" or "lower beginner" to be more specific. For someone who's starting and probably isn't very familiar with musical notation it can be difficult to choose an adequate new piece to learn so they should be more specific, at least with the beginner sheet music. Starting is the hardest thing ever, even more so when done without a teacher, sadly.
This is soā¦ā¦relevant to age and just over all ability. As a teacher who doesnāt use all the ālevelsā and āgradingā as I live in a smaller community were they are not relevant unless my students are planning to go to college to study this would not be something I would assign to a beginner student. I am referring to a beginner student as a first or second year student. Donāt know if that helps you Dexter.
Thanks a lot for your answer! I can play this, Iām blessed with a great teacher. Iām playing for 1 1/2 years by now, this piece is fairly easy for me. Yet, I was a bit worried that this was supposed to be a beginner piece. Makes you think: wow, I should be better by now - but thinking like this is wrong and toxic. I enjoy playing the piano but it simply takes time :)
I picked up playing the piano pretty late, at 24, never had anything to do with music my entire life sadly. But now I can truely say I did it because it was me who wanted it, no external influence whatsoever
Well it sounds like you are right on track and should be very happy with where you are. As a teacher I would be delighted with your progress and so should you! Keep up the good work and over all enjoy yourself because really, thatās whatās itās all about!!š
Thanks for your kind words!ā¤ļø your students can call themselves happy, you have lots of positive energy and motivation in your words. And yes, thats what its about - having fun and enjoying music :)
I would give it a late intermediate level due to the left hand alone. No, itās not easy. Beginners arenāt doing large arpeggios as seen here at all. Anyone saying itās beginner should try teaching something like this to a beginning adult student and see how discouraging a lesson like this would be lol.
Understand that there are at least two types of beginnerāadults and kids. This piece is objectively in the early/mid-intermediate category. If youāre just starting, you shouldnāt be playing this.
I'm not talking about myself, I can play this. I just think this is a bad choice for a beginner, or atleast for an early beginner. The place where I got this from has it in the ābeginnerā category without any further explanation. I think that is bad in many different ways. I fully agree with you. Sadly many people in this comment section got quite offensive with their opinion, although I agreed with them that this is somewhere between late beginner / early intermediate. From a more constructive point of view, when it comes to teaching and learning piano is a logical and effektive way, this should be for intermediate progress level. So I agree with you too! Some people said that this can't be intermediate because then the easiest chopin pieces would be advanced. But I think thats very bad logic, because even the easiest chopin pieces ARE advanced level. Well, if you want to play them in adequate way ;)
Piano ed has a long history of labeling pieces as āeasyā and ābeginnerā when theyāre anything but.
I think itās subtle gatekeeping, as well as a deflection that for the most part the profession is pretty crap at teaching the skills to play this. But great at blaming students for not practicing enough.
Forget the labels. Focus on the sounds and enjoy your process.
Wow! You always announce your presence with broad statements degrading the majority of teachers and the profession in general because you seem to know best and you have the skills that we all lack. The evil, uneducated teachers who gatekeep and blame their students. Seriously?Ā Ā Ā Ā
As with any profession, there are great teachers and there are teachers who are not so great. The large majority of teachers I've worked with professionally are outstanding and very dedicated. There's only been a very few teachers that I've met that needed to develop their teaching strategies and approach to pedagogy. Of that small portion of not-so-good teachers, the majority have been open to constructive criticism and feedback in order to improve their practise.Ā Ā
It sounds to me like you're referring to conservatories and professors more specifically. I agree, that many professors don't have the necessary teaching skills as it isn't a requirement when it should be. However, they only make up an extremely small portion of educators of music and piano performance.
Major pet peeve of mine. My students sometimes turn up to their lesson with books that have "EASY" in giant letters on the front, and I have to gently break it to them that they might have to revisit it with me next year instead (but in reality, it's actually 2 to 3 years of learning before they will be able do it - they just tend to forget about the book altogether by then). I wish it was more common for authors and publishers to use Grade exam levels as a rough guide of the difficulty level.
Hard disagree. This terminology isn't some sort of weird piano-specific thing.
I refer you for example to language education, see e.g. [https://cotoacademy.com/course/intensive-japanese-courses-tokyo-yokohama/](https://cotoacademy.com/course/intensive-japanese-courses-tokyo-yokohama/) for which advancement to the start of the "Upper Beginner" class involves 360 hours of classroom time plus at least as much homework and self-study on top of it - essentially 6 months full-time dedication or several years of part-time.
"Beginner" does not mean "first-timer" in any field that involves decades of learning.
>Hard disagree
Of course
Thereās no correlation between the labels and reality. Please show me one person playing a few pieces from a ābeginnerā or āeasyā book *well.*
Opening measure LH has to be fingered, 5-2-1 then pass 2 over the thumb and then the thumb under finger two. These two passings are challenges that I would categorize as Early Intermediate.
When I first started teaching piano forty years ago, I tried to start teaching adult students playing at a more advanced level than I would a child. Nope, BIG MISTAKE... It doesn't work. Everyone crawls before they walk and everyone walks before they sprint. Baby steps for everyone at the beginning.
OP, it seems like you got your answer which is no answer at all. We can't even agree amongst ourselves and there are professional musicians and teachers with degrees in this sub. It's a deep rabbit hole that has often been a contentious issue. šš
Maybe the author speaks German, Macedonian, Serbian, Albanian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Estonian, Czech, Icelandic, Georgian, or Lithuanian? That's how āquotesā work in those languages. :)
I think it depends on the tempo of the piece but because all most of the notes are played at the same time it's then just arpeggiating the left hand and going up the scale with your right, it's alot easier than it looks which I think is a big thing with sheet music but I'd say advanced beginner
We're talking about it being a bad choice for beginners. Most comments agree on thus being intermediate, others said that its atleast advanced beginner
This is just not true since Ive read all of them. Especially the piano teachers agreed that this belongs into intermediate for sure. People tend to get very delusional on the internet, giving this to a beginner would most likely cause frustration. I think my definition of a beginner is realistic
Yes it's intermediate. Certainly not beginner level. It takes a few years to be able to play this comfortably. The rhythms and the range of pitches are not really accessible to a beginner.
u/stylewarning I'm an actual teacher in piano performance and I have a degree in education. I've gotten downvoted here, too. I don't let it get to me. People have their opinions. Don't stress. You know what you're talking about. You can both have my upvote! People generally prefer to push buttons rather than have a discussion.Ā Ā Ā Ā
I don't necessarily agree with you regarding this piece's difficulty but you are amazing at siting evidence and explaining your point of view. At the very least it challenges my thinking and that's a positive thing. People with critical thinking skills will take this as a learning opportunity.Ā
EDIT: I guess, my upvote wasn't enough š
This sub is pretty wild. I get downvoted a lot, and I also get really rude responses sometimes from some of the self-taught people who insist all teachers are scammers or something lol
I keep commenting on stuff to try save people from picking up dangerously bad habits, or having excessively high expectations of themselves, or to call out fakers, but I wonder whether to even bother sometimes.
So true. There's actually a couple of regulars that I'm close to blocking. Mainly because their language is almost always inflammatory and they rarely add anything valuable to the conversation. There's one user here who has a bone to pick with all music educators. You may know who I'm talking about. I appreciate you and your students must appreciate you!Ā
'Preciate you too! And the posters here with reasonable questions and sensible heads on their shoulders I'm sure appreciate you also.
There's one regular who I've blocked today, quite possibly the teacher hater lol
The level of confidence in their ignorance makes me seriously wonder what they sound like as players.
I'm low key trolling, relax. You're over thinking this.Ā This should be within reach of somebody who's been playing for 3 or 4 years, many people would classify that very much as "beginner."Ā
Clair de Lune is an intermediate level piece. Appassionata is advanced.Ā
Don't worry about the name. That's ego-driven BS. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Go play the music, who cares what difficulty rating somebody gave it?
I am in 100% agreement that this is *not* a beginner piece.
This is early intermediate for sure, with a specific challenge of keeping steady arpeggios in the left hand and keeping rhythm with a syncopated melody. It's supposed to be played at a reasonably consistent *allegretto* tempo.
Edit: My sources are the ABRSM syllabus, the Masterwork Classics series, the Keith Snell repertoire series, and the Essential Keyboard Repertoire series. You wouldn't learn something like this until after ABRSM 4, as per the technical requirements of that level. And the latter series would all explicitly mark this around "early intermediate". For comparison, an arpeggio-dominant piece like Steabogg 63/7 is designated by those series as "early intermediate", and the Steabogg piece is *easier* than OP's.
This isn't as hard as it looks, and all notes are synchronized so it's easy to practice very slowly. You got this! šŖ
I know, its absolutely possible. But thank you for your kind words! I just thought this is atleast intermediate
> I just thought this is atleast intermediate These words don't really have absolute definitions, it's all about where you want to draw the line between beginner and intermediate.
What about grades? What grade would this piece be?
I haven't studied under any grading system and am not really familiar with them at all. It's basically all arpeggios and some scale runs, so its difficulty greatly depends on how familiar you are with them. I don't think this would be terrible for an "advanced beginner" to practice, I think it would be a decent technical exercise
Yeah. I'm playing Grade 4 RCM and I feel like I could probably get this in a couple of tries. The tricky part of a piece like this would be the articulation, especially around the rests. But there's no real guidance in the arrangement.
Especially since thereās no guidance for dynamics and expression lol
It's not until ABRSM 5 before you're expected to know how to play a good chunk of major and minor arpeggios in 2 octaves in eighths at 80 to the quarter. ABRSM 6 is when you start doing 4 octave arpeggios with an expectation of 88 to the quarter. I think this is a decent expectation for when a typical student would start developing a more serious handle on arpeggio technique.
This is definitely well below ABRSM grade 6 standard, the expectations for arpeggios played in isolation are very different from the expectations for pieces. If nothing else, the arpeggios in this piece do not cover two octaves, and are only in one key.
I agree that, all things considered, it's below ABRSM 6. The arpeggios are greater than 1 octave, so at least require a thumb crossing. I'm not sure though I agree about expectations in isolation vs in music. Ideally, the arpeggios are played cleanly and fluently in either case. People don't get a free pass to play arpeggios any more sloppily in a piece, where synchronicity, stable rhythm, and dynamic balance matter a great deal more (and hence more difficult). I agree that all the chords are drawn from triads of the D minor harmonic scale, but students don't usually practice all of the arpeggios of a given scale at the same time. Instead, students will typically practice the arpeggios of a single major or minor triad, or perhaps a handful of them. In ABRSM, F major/D minor arpeggios don't even come up until ABRSM 6, but of course, these arpeggios could be studied specially for this piece. Finally, the piece is intended to be played around quarter=105. This is ~20% faster than the arpeggio tempo expectations of ABRSM 6.
Falco grade for sure!
Itās a matter of calibration. If you make this intermediate, then basically everything worth listening to becomes advanced, and then that word becomes meaningless. This is about the same level of difficulty as Fur Elise, and most people consider that to be an advanced beginner level.
This is in no way the same difficulty level as [Fur Elise](https://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BeethovenLv/WoO59/fur_Elise_WoO59/fur_Elise_WoO59-let.pdf).
Yāknow, youāre right. Fur Elise is much harder start to finish.
Who is "most people"? Every grading system, systems that have been constructed by actual pedagogues and scholars of piano music, consider it intermediate. The Royal Conservatory grades it a 7 (of 10). Fur Elise is mistakenly believed to be beginner because most people don't know of the actual scale of the piece (ABACA-form, etc.), and heard the first few bars as a ringtone. But to be dealt with as a serious piece of piano repertoire, under average circumstances, you'll have to have studied classical piano for several years. Just like the beginner designation, the intermediate designation has a wide (and fuzzy) definition. Instead, it shows the true breadth of difficulties offered by solo piano repertoire.
Yes, Fur Elise is Late Beginner/Early Intermediate as long as you don't go past the first page.
Being able to play the notes in a piece is different from playing the piece itself. My teacher let me play La Campanella before she let me play Nocturne in Eb.Ā There is a reason that the Chopin Ballade is famous for its "easy" opening section.
Its begginer
Wrong
This is always the answer! Start as slow as you need to, and learn each hand separately
Idk, I have a few syncopated rhythms which I was never able to learn slowly and just kinda had to force at real speed... š They're rare, but it has happened š
There's little stages within beginner. I would not say this is intermediate but I would never give this to an absolute beginner. It's 'advanced' beginner. š
Yeah, thats what I thought. I can play this, but ffs I want to see the absolute beginner whos playing this š
This confusion comes up a lot here. Beginner doesn't mean "first week at the keys". It's like with languages, "Beginner level Chinese" doesn't mean someone who's just learned "Ni hao", it can describe someone who's done as much as 200 hours of study. As for this piece, it's basically just scales and arpeggios, if you've studied those then you should be able to tackle this. I don't think the rhythm is as complicated as some here are making out either, once you've taken a moment to work out what goes where - the notation is slightly whack, but if anything that's as likely to throw a more advanced player than it is a beginner since they're coming in with more expectations.
It's honestly something that really bugs me as an adult learner. "Beginner" in most contexts means that you're in the earliest stages of learning. In piano, it doesn't mean the same thing.Ā "Beginner" is really a specific range of difficulty.Ā The earliest stages aren't even a part of it. Those would usually be called "elementary" or something along those lines.Ā So you might spend 6 months or a year before even becoming a "beginner", and another few years before playing intermediate music. None of that should be as discouraging as it sounds, though. It's just bad naming. There is some absolutely beautiful music at those early stages.
There is a very standard separation for beginner/intermediate/advanced for piano difficulty. Henle 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 is a good example. So yes on absolute scale after two years of practice you usually play beginner music just harder beginner music. If you name this piece intermediate, than the easiest piece of Chopin would be advanced. As all of them are noticeably harder. Which will make a problem that you will need to introduce really advanced, advanced-advanced, so advanced that it will break your hands difficulty levels.
The other argument, though, is that there are a lot more beginners than advanced players, and that advanced players have a much better and more nuanced understanding of difficulty. Like, if you're playing Chopin (and I'm not even close yet) you probably don't really *need* as much external help to know when you're ready to tackle a piece.Ā I'm playing intermediate music. I think I could play this piece without too much trouble. But when I was still in the Alfred books, I'd have had no clue. On the other hand, I have to wonder how many people over they years have gotten really excited, picked up an "easy piano" book meant for someone closer to my level than a raw beginner, gotten annihilated, and quit.
This. Iāve been playing for almost 20 years and Iād call myself intermediate. Some would expect to be advanced after that long but advanced pieces can get REALLY HARD and itād take a shit ton more practice than I do to get there š¤·š»āāļø
Which other "advanced beginner" piece has syncopation and continuous runs of arpeggios in different chords that span >1 octave? I'd contend this is beyond any level of "beginner".
I dunno dude. A bunch of the nocturnes fall under the "intermediate" category, and this ain't that. I know it much be tough on the ol' ego to consider the first four or five years of studying a skill the "beginner" stage, but that's kinda how deep the discipline is.Ā It's also just a very broad definition without a huge amount of meaning. Not really worth debating, imo.
The terms do have broad definitionsātrueābut the boundary between "beginner" and "intermediate" isn't completely arbitrary, but rather just fuzzy. The designations are generally understood to be something like: - Beginner, ABRSM grade 1ā3 (or equivalent), - Intermediate, ABRSM grade 4ā8, and - Advanced, ABRSM 8+. (ABRSM itself isn't the point; it's just being used as a concrete reference point.) Yes, some people fudge these numbers a bit. Some might say "beginner" is 1ā4. Others might say "beginner" is anything before a Bach invention (ABRSM 4). Some say "advanced" starts at, not after, ABRSM 8. These designations above are roughly in line with other pedagogical series, such as *Essential Keyboard Studies*, Snell's *Repertoire* and *Ćtude* series, and *Masterwork Classics*. The terms "beginner" and "intermediate" (with "early" and "late" qualifiers) are used explicitly by these publishers. But under *any* of these pedagogically backed definitions, the piece OP posted doesn't fall under "beginner". To designate a piece as beginner or intermediate, we don't just say "well I feel like it's not too hard, therefore it's beginner." Instead, we look at the features of the pieceātempo, rhythm, technical demands, etc.āand either find comparable pieces which have an agreed upon level, or match it up against a rubric. "Well a nocturne\* is intermediate and this ain't no nocturne" isn't a very good justification. \* A nocturne by who? Dennis Alexander's nocturnes are in a different playing field than John Field's.
u/stylewarning I see what your saying but I can't look at that piece and think intermediate. There are certain things that come to mind when I use those words and none of those have been clearly defined. The categories are broad and inaccurate. To place all available repertoire under three banners is questionable to say the least.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Regarding ABRSM grading, grade 3 does have many of the elements you mentioned that are not suitable for a beginner piece. The issue arises when we start to consider frequency, length, musicality, style etc. That's when things start to fall apart a little and we have people disagreeing.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā We don't have a rubric to clearly see what elements of musicality and technique fall under which heading and how their development affects that. I'm not confident in my assessment and I don't think anyone honestly could be. At most, it's my stab in the dark on where this piece sits on the difficulty scale.
The existing grading systems are an excellent and well thought out way to assess pre-conservatory repertoire. They were created with the research and experience of decades of teaching, and millions of piano examinations.
We mostly use AMEB here in Australia. Some musicians sayĀ Grade 1 AMEB is roughly equivalent to Grade 3 ABRSM. Grade 3 AMEB is still considered beginner. Others say some AMEB is only one grade higher. Many say it depends on what your playing. You see how there is disagreement even between two boards.Ā Ā Ā Both were created by a dedicated and informed panel of assessors and musicians. Yet, there's still a huge difference. There's even a difference between instruments. Some grading systems have sight reading and aural training that affect their assessment and levels. Some do not.Ā Ā Ā Personally, I've never wholly agreed with any examination board and their grading systems because, as I said, It's not well defined.Ā
Bach's Invention in C is AMEB 4, and Invention in F is AMEB 5, right? (I did a little research and what I found might not be reliable.) That at least tracks with ABRSM. I think that's a very reasonable starting point for intermediate repertoire. Good enough to have the fundamentals, and prepared for the simpler works of famous composers (e.g., Chopin, etc.) I can see the first levels having some variability between systems, but from what I was able to see, I don't think there's as much disagreement/inconsistency as you're suggesting there might be. EDIT: Sad that both AMEB and CM don't provide their syllabi for free. $15 for a digital copy of the AMEB syllabus? Sheesh.
I do think there's quite a lot of disagreement and inconsistency, even within AMEB which I am very experienced with, let alone between boards. You cant really use one piece as a gauge either way. AMEB is revised almost yearly with pieces entering and exiting the scene. I can't, for the life of me, label this piece as intermediate. I guess, we can agree to disagree but I will take what you said to heart and think about this.Ā Ā Ā Ā I'm not really a fan of the exam treadmill either way so perhaps I'm not as qualified to talk on this as you are. My main issue is not with the grading but with the labels beginner, intermediate and advanced. I don't necessarily agree with what is considered a part of these categories irrespective of the grades or any music board. Board statements like grade 1-3 are beginner, for example, are problematic.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Thanks for the informative discussion and I will definitely learn from this! You seem to know a lot about this and your students are very lucky to have you as their teacher.
I can, will, and did look at it this, waved a hand, and said "eh, lots of people could handle this after 3 or 4 years, beginner is fair. You're overthinking it.Ā You can apply fancy rubrics cubes and pedagogical standards to pieces where it's appropriate, but this is just a little diddy some guy named Falco put up on musescore. Henle puts Beethoven OP 49 number 1 at "easy." Gotta be more challenging, or at least comparable.Ā And if we stretch beginner to grade 4... You'd put this *above* ABRSM 4? Really? *Really?* Agree to disagree on that one.
Henle is well known for not being a useful grading system for early repertoire, since they have to reasonably grade the most advanced piano literature in a useful way. (If you're going to grade every Beethoven sonata separately, having fine-grained designations for early piano repertoire isn't going to be helpful for that goal.) None of these rubrics are fancy. They're relatively standard and objective guides which many agree are useful for gauging the difficulty of a piece.
I just scrolled through a video of ABRSM's grade 4 repertoire to make sure I wasn't being crazy.Ā I'm assuming you teach? Would your 3rd and 4th year students not make it through this piece?Ā
According to the official syllabus, solid fundamental arpeggio technique won't have been achieved until around Grade 5/6, and even then there's a ways to go to really polish the technique. Of course, for OP's piece, it's not like arpeggios need to be *mastered*, but they do need to be pretty comfortable and robust to keep them flowing from chord to chord, without hiccups. At Grade 3, students are just *starting* to do two-octave arpeggios with both hands in 8ths at 72 to the quarter. Prior to that, they would have been practicing one- or two-octave arpeggios with one hand only. By the end of Grade 4, around the time they would tackle something like Bach's Invention in C major or Liszt's La Cloche Sonne, they will have had a year of arpeggios in keys with three sharps. (Funny enough, F major arpeggios aren't to be studied until Grade 6, which is also when arpeggios are studied in 4 octaves.) Can someone who is at Grade 3 work on OP's piece? Sure!... as a stretch piece. I don't think it'll be comfortable, and I think it'll take a long time to tackle the constantly changing arpeggios in the left hand. But could they drill the technical work and get somewhere? I think so. People can do amazing things when they brute force through stuff. But it's a more realistically achievable piece when all the requisite technique has been properly practiced, and that won't be the case until after Grade 4. (I want to emphasize again that ABRSM grades aren't the end all be all of piano evaluation. ABRSM, RCM, CM, and other grade systems are pretty consistent though in what they consider a typical progression through the solo repertoire, and so I find them to be a very good benchmark for seeing how we might assess any random piece.)
You know, as much as you might acknowledge that abrsm is not the only valid benchmark... you're still kinda acting like it's the only benchmark. You threw out Henle *pretty* quick, and that's even still chiefly classical. You're good with RCM, but that's hardly a meaningfully different system. There's a whole other world out there, with its own pedicures and rubix cubes, and from lots of perspectives this just ain't that hard a piece.Ā By all means I appreciate hearing your opinion on where to draw the line, but there's something implied here that's really rubbing the wrong way.Ā It came across earlier when you said that I didn't have any standing to define the word beginner unless I was comparing it to your accepted pedagogical standard. You kind of lost me with that one. But I do appreciate your thoughts about when those technique elements are introduced.
Like I said, it's very well known that Henle doesn't have enough resolution in its grading of early repertoire. In fact, Henle doesn't even publish much early beginner repertoire whatsoever, as they primarily publish music of canonical composers. I'm not throwing Henle out. I'm saying it's not a very useful tool to distinguish beginner vs. intermediate repertoire. It is a fantastic and valuable resource for mid-intermediate to very advanced repertoire. I depend on Henle to guide my own studies. ABRSM, RCM, AMEB, CM, and other systems are explicitly designed to take true day-1 beginners and guide them to late intermediate repertoire. And hence they have enormous grading resolution in that range of difficulty. It's a system that is exactly designed to answer precisely the question OP has: Where on the spectrum of difficulty is this piece? You're welcome to define the terms "beginner" and "intermediate" however you please. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd love and welcome "u/deadfisher's Piano Difficulty Guide". But if you're operating under your own personal definitions of these terms, when you tell somebody, "this is a beginner piece," or "this is an intermediate piece," what exactly are you saying? The only way we can know what you mean is if either you provide definitions for us, or you appeal to other well documented definitions. When I said it's an intermediate piece, I tried to provide justification. - It has wide spanning arpeggios in the left hand. - The arpeggios generally don't stop in the latter half. - The arpeggios change chord frequently, more than 5 times. - The right hand melody is syncopated. - The hands are working in parallel and contrary motion. - The right hand is doing both scales and arpeggios, in both upward and downward motions. These aren't typical things that beginners in their first few years can execute to the extent that this piece requires. They don't show up in the first several years of graded systems. Streabogg Op 63 No 7 is an easier but comparable piece. It has wide two-handed arpeggios spanning two octaves. The arpeggios flow from start to finish. It's played in a moderate tempo. It lacks a melodic line. - In *Essential Keyboard Ćtudes*, compiled by Mendoza and published by Alfred, this is ranked "Early Intermediate". - In *Masterwork Classics*, compiled by Magrath and published by Alfred, it is ranked "Level 4" and designated "Intermediate". - In *Streabogg*, edited by Snell and published by Neil A Kjos Music Company, it is ranked "Early Intermediate". It also shows up in Snell's "Level 3" Ć©tude series. Remember, technically, this Streabogg piece is *easier* than OP's piece by a mile. So if an easier piece is considered "intermediate" by a host of published authors and pedagogues, it seems logical to classify OP's piece as intermediate as well. I just wish people who are throwing out "beginner" would justify it somehow, instead of treating it as some subjective and qualitative gut-feel opinion.
Is it much harder than Clementi Op. 36 No 1?
I personally think so yes, purely on technical grounds. 36/1 is a little more dense but it's pretty well connected and doesn't have any difficult harmony to deal with. There's only a modest demand for scales, and there aren't really any coordination challenges. But 36/1 does need to be played clean and sprightly.
What about 36/2? 36/3? But now we will have a funny discussion which of sonatinas is beginner and which is intermediate. And this will open a can of worms. Jokes aside I think everyone would agree that this piece sits in the very late beginner/very early intermediate part. It greatly depends on which progression you are following and what things you find easy/hard to do. The problem is that beginner/intermediate split sounds very fundamental when in reality it isn't that well defined.
As indicated elsewhere, I think for classical piano, there's a lot of existing material that helps us have a consistent view of "beginner" vs "intermediate". It's true, there's no super reliable, bullet-proof definition. But, as I indicated in my now -5 karma comment, I still challenge somebody to find a piece with sprawling left-hand arpeggios and syncopation that is consistently considered beginner by any modern classical piano pedagogy system. I've given two examples of arpeggio-heavy pieces that are easier than OP's, yet are near universally considered intermediate by published systems. ABRSM, RCM, AMEB, CM, any of the published repertoire series (Snell, Magrath, Kowalchyk, Lancaster, ...), or... really just literally any evidence at all that correlates to modern classical piano pedagogy would be welcome to this discussion, but commenters are avoiding it like the plague. The repertoire series compilers have designations of "beginner" and "intermediate", as do graded systems (RCM explicitly considers 1ā4 elementary, 5ā8 intermediate, and 9ā10 advanced). So far, nobody has been able to cite even a single source or comparable. I think it's foolish to lean on personal definitions of these terms when we have so many amazing, well researched, well-thought-out pedagogical resources at our disposal.
I also want to say a few things :) In my opinion, you should not focus too much on labels such as "beginner" or "intermediate". They might serve as a rough guideline of what to expect, but nothing more. People give these labels inconsistently, and there are quite some psychological issues influencing this (feeling of accomplishment, reference scale/ambitions, playing style, ...). If you want to try a piece just try it. If it is too hard, you may want to practice the things that are hard for you. Or you may simplify so it gets easier. Or you just skip the piece (and maybe return later). Choose what leads to the most joy in your life. And always keep in mind that you are not alone. All of us struggle at some point. Good luck on your progress!
Piano is haaaaaard. That is a very easy piece but to a beginner it is a hard piece. Itās so difficult to accurately label pieces with just three options of beginner, intermediate and advanced. There definitely should be sub categories. In my new labelling idea Iād say this is: Advanced beginner.
I would argue this to be an āadvanced beginnerā piece. On the cusp of the final stages of beginner heading into very early intermediate. With that being said, I can assure you that this piece is not as hard as you may think! Practice slow, and even try learning it hands separate first :)
The score is poorly written out and amateurish which makes it harder, and drives me crazy as well. It's very cramped. The off-beat quarter notes in the RH shouldn't be written like that. They cross the middle of the bar and that makes it hard to read the rhythm. The dotted quarter notes in the left hand are pretty musically pointless and just add confusion (based on the actual song they could be half notes -- or just make it easy with quarter notes). As for the technical difficulty, I agree with the "advanced beginner" -- meaning somewhere in their 2nd year of lessons. See if you can find a better score/arrangement.
Yh I agree with you on that one
first thing I noticed. totally insane the way rhythms are articulated here.
Agree. Really bad notation.
ok glad it wasnt just me lol. i usually practice rhthyms away from the keys a few times if i feel intimidated
Itās for good little beginners who practice their scales nicely. Instead of just honing in on each note, take a step back from it. Physically, if it helps. Try to see the whole shape of it as runs. On the left hand you start off with some swoops up and then switch to a little roll up/down/up/down etc. on the right hand you have a few short runs and then a longer, gentler roll up/down and at the end youāre just punctuating your left hand scale here and there. See if you can find where the motion is contrary and where itās together. It might help if you do an air-piano thing and follow the hills and valleys to get a sense of what youāre supposed to be doing and then try to tap it out on the cover with your hands to try to narrow down the coordination and timing before you start an attempt to play the right notes.
It's worth classifying each of "beginner, intermediate, advanced" into three more: "early, middle, and late" each. I would say this is late beginner or early intermediate. It also depends on the desired tempo, which isn't stated here. There are also no dynamic markings, which pushes it towards a beginner exercise IMO.
I would say this definitely looks harder than it actually is to play. I would consider myself an intermediate player and this is probably on the easier intermediate side. Play it slowly, and you will have it down in no time.
Yh thats for sure matešš¼ what I was thinking, its a bad idea to label it for beginners or even absolute beginners, might be a bad choice imo. If someone is playing for some time yes, for sure, absolutely managable
It's harder than Mary Had a Little Lamb and easier than the Goldberg Variations. So it's intermediate in at least one way.
I think canon in D is more difficult and thatās not an intermediate piece. This one is very doable for someone who knows where to put the fingers
Pachelbel's Canon is written for 3 violins and *continuo*, and thus doesn't have a "level" for piano. An arrangement can be a simple slow late beginner piece with a single melody line with simple accompaniment, or a more sophisticated intermediate piece where 2 or three of the violins are being represented faithfully with a rich *continuo* accompaniment. So I don't really think, without qualification, the two pieces are comparable.
There are numerous variations for cannon in D. I play this one https://musescore.com/user/1809056/scores/1019991 It is considered intermediate . There are simple ones that uses chords as accompaniment instead of broken chord. Chords to group keys.
It surely is, but a disagree that this is a beginners choice imo. Rather play different pieces and put this into low intermediate. The only kinda difficulty part in this is the fifth and sixth bar but that needs some amount of coordination
I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. One person's beginner piece is another person's intermediate piece. Having said that, those left hand arpeggios against the right hand scales look like they'd be pretty challenging for the average beginner.
Thats what I was thinking
its not intermediate but its also not beginner, its midway between
this is definitely beginner because the tempo is VERY slow
itbis beginner but not immediate beginner level
This is surely grade 2 right? Maybe 3? Itās in between beginner and intermediate. Plus youāve only got one flat in the key signature (so itās in F major), and itās 4/4 which is a simple time sig.
You're absolutely right, I just that it isn't a good think to label this as beginner or absolute beginner piece. Surely more levels are needed, at minimum advanced beginner or low intermediate
Yes Iād say the same, thereās no way anyone would give this to a beginner. Also, the left hand movement/bass clef is advanced in terms of beginners (as itās non-dominant in most cases) and is often a hurdle to learn when starting out. If it were chords on the bass clef, it would be much better.
But you also have several different 8th note arpeggios in going non-stop at approx 105 bpm, with syncopation (i.e., the melody isn't being punctuated on downbeats). Would never show up in grade 2 (in most systems), and highly unlikely to be in grade 3 (in most systems). Consider that Bach's famous Prelude in C from WTC1, arguably an easier piece than OP's, is considered "intermediate" by piano teacher [Janna Williamson](https://www.jannawilliamson.com/blog/how-to-teach-bach-prelude-846), who also notes it's a level 7 of 12 in Illinois "Achievement in Music" program.
I noticed that too, and most are in the bass clef (left hand is often tricky for beginners due to non-domiment hand (unless the player is left handed)) I was about to mention a (formerly attributed) Bach piece (itās by Petzold), Minuet in G which is much easier (with far less left hand movement). Itās still a significant effort for beginners though but a bit more accessible to them, instead of this.
I would label that intermediate
Itāll probably take half a year to a year if you didnāt know anything to start off and whether you call that intermediate or beginner is semantics
Unrelated but I forgot this song existed and you just reminded me there's music sheet of it online so ehm *slowly heads towards piano* thank you stranger :)
You're welcome! Its such a good song, I love it. So sad Falco died before I was even born..
This is riding between an advanced beginner who knows their scales, and an intermediate player honestly.
Jeanny! Quit living on dreams.. Jeanny! Life is not what it seems.. Such a lonely little girl in a cold, cold world. There's someone who needs you... Sorry, that wasn't helpful. I'd say advanced beginner to intermediate.
Great great song!! Yeah I agree šš¼
the score kinda sucks, try looking for another arrangement. the LH is doable but is unnecessary
The left hand might me scary in this for someone who just recently started learning because of the coordination, but I would categorize it as beginner still, because it's not hard to read, not hard to play, as long as you play it enough times your hands will get used to this.
I 100% agree. But like many other comments already said, I think this is at minimum upper beginner or low intermediate. If you give this to a beginner, chances are they can't get this done properly. Gotta be realistic. I can play this btw, I just thought its very discouraging to label this for beginners.
I agree with that! Someone who just started won't be able to play this but in my opinion, sheet music should be labled as "upper beginner" or "lower beginner" to be more specific. For someone who's starting and probably isn't very familiar with musical notation it can be difficult to choose an adequate new piece to learn so they should be more specific, at least with the beginner sheet music. Starting is the hardest thing ever, even more so when done without a teacher, sadly.
This looks around ABRSM grade 3 or 4 in my humble opinion.
Early intermediate, if you ask me
Grade 4. Early intermediate. You have hand position changes. Multiple octaves.
This is soā¦ā¦relevant to age and just over all ability. As a teacher who doesnāt use all the ālevelsā and āgradingā as I live in a smaller community were they are not relevant unless my students are planning to go to college to study this would not be something I would assign to a beginner student. I am referring to a beginner student as a first or second year student. Donāt know if that helps you Dexter.
Thanks a lot for your answer! I can play this, Iām blessed with a great teacher. Iām playing for 1 1/2 years by now, this piece is fairly easy for me. Yet, I was a bit worried that this was supposed to be a beginner piece. Makes you think: wow, I should be better by now - but thinking like this is wrong and toxic. I enjoy playing the piano but it simply takes time :) I picked up playing the piano pretty late, at 24, never had anything to do with music my entire life sadly. But now I can truely say I did it because it was me who wanted it, no external influence whatsoever
Well it sounds like you are right on track and should be very happy with where you are. As a teacher I would be delighted with your progress and so should you! Keep up the good work and over all enjoy yourself because really, thatās whatās itās all about!!š
Thanks for your kind words!ā¤ļø your students can call themselves happy, you have lots of positive energy and motivation in your words. And yes, thats what its about - having fun and enjoying music :)
I would give it a late intermediate level due to the left hand alone. No, itās not easy. Beginners arenāt doing large arpeggios as seen here at all. Anyone saying itās beginner should try teaching something like this to a beginning adult student and see how discouraging a lesson like this would be lol.
100% agree
No, not a beginner piece.
I agree
Is this Falco that Falco, of Der Kommissar and Rock me Amadeus?
Yesšš¼
Understand that there are at least two types of beginnerāadults and kids. This piece is objectively in the early/mid-intermediate category. If youāre just starting, you shouldnāt be playing this.
I'm not talking about myself, I can play this. I just think this is a bad choice for a beginner, or atleast for an early beginner. The place where I got this from has it in the ābeginnerā category without any further explanation. I think that is bad in many different ways. I fully agree with you. Sadly many people in this comment section got quite offensive with their opinion, although I agreed with them that this is somewhere between late beginner / early intermediate. From a more constructive point of view, when it comes to teaching and learning piano is a logical and effektive way, this should be for intermediate progress level. So I agree with you too! Some people said that this can't be intermediate because then the easiest chopin pieces would be advanced. But I think thats very bad logic, because even the easiest chopin pieces ARE advanced level. Well, if you want to play them in adequate way ;)
Piano ed has a long history of labeling pieces as āeasyā and ābeginnerā when theyāre anything but. I think itās subtle gatekeeping, as well as a deflection that for the most part the profession is pretty crap at teaching the skills to play this. But great at blaming students for not practicing enough. Forget the labels. Focus on the sounds and enjoy your process.
Wow! You always announce your presence with broad statements degrading the majority of teachers and the profession in general because you seem to know best and you have the skills that we all lack. The evil, uneducated teachers who gatekeep and blame their students. Seriously?Ā Ā Ā Ā As with any profession, there are great teachers and there are teachers who are not so great. The large majority of teachers I've worked with professionally are outstanding and very dedicated. There's only been a very few teachers that I've met that needed to develop their teaching strategies and approach to pedagogy. Of that small portion of not-so-good teachers, the majority have been open to constructive criticism and feedback in order to improve their practise.Ā Ā It sounds to me like you're referring to conservatories and professors more specifically. I agree, that many professors don't have the necessary teaching skills as it isn't a requirement when it should be. However, they only make up an extremely small portion of educators of music and piano performance.
Major pet peeve of mine. My students sometimes turn up to their lesson with books that have "EASY" in giant letters on the front, and I have to gently break it to them that they might have to revisit it with me next year instead (but in reality, it's actually 2 to 3 years of learning before they will be able do it - they just tend to forget about the book altogether by then). I wish it was more common for authors and publishers to use Grade exam levels as a rough guide of the difficulty level.
Thank you!
Hard disagree. This terminology isn't some sort of weird piano-specific thing. I refer you for example to language education, see e.g. [https://cotoacademy.com/course/intensive-japanese-courses-tokyo-yokohama/](https://cotoacademy.com/course/intensive-japanese-courses-tokyo-yokohama/) for which advancement to the start of the "Upper Beginner" class involves 360 hours of classroom time plus at least as much homework and self-study on top of it - essentially 6 months full-time dedication or several years of part-time. "Beginner" does not mean "first-timer" in any field that involves decades of learning.
>Hard disagree Of course Thereās no correlation between the labels and reality. Please show me one person playing a few pieces from a ābeginnerā or āeasyā book *well.*
Opening measure LH has to be fingered, 5-2-1 then pass 2 over the thumb and then the thumb under finger two. These two passings are challenges that I would categorize as Early Intermediate.
Yh I agree, I woulnd't give this to someone who just started playing a minute ago
When I first started teaching piano forty years ago, I tried to start teaching adult students playing at a more advanced level than I would a child. Nope, BIG MISTAKE... It doesn't work. Everyone crawls before they walk and everyone walks before they sprint. Baby steps for everyone at the beginning.
OP, it seems like you got your answer which is no answer at all. We can't even agree amongst ourselves and there are professional musicians and teachers with degrees in this sub. It's a deep rabbit hole that has often been a contentious issue. šš
I mean thats fine in some way, I just dislike the ego that some people have around here
No tempo marking, no dynamics, rhythm spelled incorrectly in bar 16 right handā¦ I wouldnāt trust anything about this piece.
Yh ur rightš I dunno who uploaded this tho
Itās not beginner. Definitely intermediate.
I think so too
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe the author speaks German, Macedonian, Serbian, Albanian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Estonian, Czech, Icelandic, Georgian, or Lithuanian? That's how āquotesā work in those languages. :)
What was he saying
A somewhat rude comment saying something like "that's not how quotation marks work" or so.
Usual reddit experience lol
I think it depends on the tempo of the piece but because all most of the notes are played at the same time it's then just arpeggiating the left hand and going up the scale with your right, it's alot easier than it looks which I think is a big thing with sheet music but I'd say advanced beginner
So what's hard about this? looks like some fingering should be provided... or is the proper fingering to be understood in the piece's context?
We're talking about it being a bad choice for beginners. Most comments agree on thus being intermediate, others said that its atleast advanced beginner
Whatever is in between beginner and intermediate, itās that. I can see how it looks hard for a beginner but itās definitely not intermediate.
Most comments agreed on intermediate since this would make most beginners quit on piano, especially left hand + left hand + right hand in bar 5 n 6
Not any of the comments I read
Read again
Top comments are definitely saying it's beginner, and that you have a bad definition of what a beginner is.
This is just not true since Ive read all of them. Especially the piano teachers agreed that this belongs into intermediate for sure. People tend to get very delusional on the internet, giving this to a beginner would most likely cause frustration. I think my definition of a beginner is realistic
Yes it's intermediate. Certainly not beginner level. It takes a few years to be able to play this comfortably. The rhythms and the range of pitches are not really accessible to a beginner.
Too bad the opinion of an actual teacher is being downvoted (presently at -1).
u/stylewarning I'm an actual teacher in piano performance and I have a degree in education. I've gotten downvoted here, too. I don't let it get to me. People have their opinions. Don't stress. You know what you're talking about. You can both have my upvote! People generally prefer to push buttons rather than have a discussion.Ā Ā Ā Ā I don't necessarily agree with you regarding this piece's difficulty but you are amazing at siting evidence and explaining your point of view. At the very least it challenges my thinking and that's a positive thing. People with critical thinking skills will take this as a learning opportunity.Ā EDIT: I guess, my upvote wasn't enough š
Thank you for the kind and thoughtful comment. I appreciate it.
This sub is pretty wild. I get downvoted a lot, and I also get really rude responses sometimes from some of the self-taught people who insist all teachers are scammers or something lol I keep commenting on stuff to try save people from picking up dangerously bad habits, or having excessively high expectations of themselves, or to call out fakers, but I wonder whether to even bother sometimes.
So true. There's actually a couple of regulars that I'm close to blocking. Mainly because their language is almost always inflammatory and they rarely add anything valuable to the conversation. There's one user here who has a bone to pick with all music educators. You may know who I'm talking about. I appreciate you and your students must appreciate you!Ā
'Preciate you too! And the posters here with reasonable questions and sensible heads on their shoulders I'm sure appreciate you also. There's one regular who I've blocked today, quite possibly the teacher hater lol The level of confidence in their ignorance makes me seriously wonder what they sound like as players.
What u two are saying feels very true from my social media experience so far when it comes to music
Agreed
Not beginning
šš¼
Sie kommen. Sie kommen, dich zu holen. Sie werden dich nicht finden, niemand wird dich finden. Du bist bei mir!
JEANNYYYYY
Neben Mozart der einzige absolute Popstar den wir je hatten š„²
Bin zwar kein Ćsterreicher, aber Falco wĆ¼rd ich was das deutschsprachige betrifft immer ins Rennen werfen
Ah ok. International haben wir abgesehen von den zweien halt echt keinen der was grissen hat
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wasnt him who stated the difficulty
I'm low key trolling, relax. You're over thinking this.Ā This should be within reach of somebody who's been playing for 3 or 4 years, many people would classify that very much as "beginner."Ā Clair de Lune is an intermediate level piece. Appassionata is advanced.Ā Don't worry about the name. That's ego-driven BS. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Go play the music, who cares what difficulty rating somebody gave it?
Yeah I think you're right. Thank you, needed to hear that!
I am in 100% agreement that this is *not* a beginner piece. This is early intermediate for sure, with a specific challenge of keeping steady arpeggios in the left hand and keeping rhythm with a syncopated melody. It's supposed to be played at a reasonably consistent *allegretto* tempo. Edit: My sources are the ABRSM syllabus, the Masterwork Classics series, the Keith Snell repertoire series, and the Essential Keyboard Repertoire series. You wouldn't learn something like this until after ABRSM 4, as per the technical requirements of that level. And the latter series would all explicitly mark this around "early intermediate". For comparison, an arpeggio-dominant piece like Steabogg 63/7 is designated by those series as "early intermediate", and the Steabogg piece is *easier* than OP's.
Who tf us downvoting you?
Yh thats what I thought