2 Ways to Learn Piano (Number 2 is My Favorite)

There are 2 main methods when it comes to learning the piano. I have my favorite, but which one is right for you? It all depends on your goals, as each path has very different learning curves and progress projections.
Purchase the Faber Book here: www.sheetmusicplus.com/en/pro...
**********************************************************
Become a Piano Roadmap member to receive access to my follow-along piano course that follows the Faber Adult Method Book 1, along with any and all new video lessons that I release! www.pianoroadmap.com
The Piano Roadmap Membership gives you access to the follow-along piano course that goes through the entire Faber book 1, step by step (you must purchase the book separately). You'll have an assignment every day and know EXACTLY what to practice. I also give you supplementary exercises and pieces that go hand in hand with Book 1. There are 195 days of video lessons and over 22 hours!
It's a monthly subscription that you can cancel anytime, and I also offer a 7-day money-back guarantee. Use code INTRO2024 for your first month at only $25! Valid for a limited time
If you want to support this channel:
Patreon: / pianoroadmap
PayPal: [e-mail]
Stay in touch!
Facebook: / pianoroadmap
Private Facebook Group: / pianoroadmap
Instagram: / pianoroadmap
0:00 Intro
0:23 Path 1
2:02 Path 2
3:29 Which One?
4:10 Resource for Path 2

[@jcwpiano]

Loved the 'I played for an hr and still can't play Fur Elise' quote...🙂- and yes, I prefer method 2 and glad that is what I started with, sure sometimes things look like they are out of reach but as my teacher used to tell me 'if it was easy everybody will be doing it'.

[@PianoRoadmap]

That's so true! I always think of your teacher's quote when I see videos that promise something like, you'll be playing "like a pro" in 10 minutes a day. If that were true, EVERYONE would be doing it!

[@shermiesdad]

Excellent presentation Susan and spot on! As one of your Faber Follow-Along students I stand by all my earlier comments. Your's is hands down the absolute best online piano education course that I''ve ever seen. And I've seen a bunch of them. Working through your course is indeed almost like having a private piano teacher at your beck and call any hour of any day. The only thing it requires of a student is a desire to learn and persistence. Well done! 👏👏👏

[@PianoRoadmap]

Thank you! 😊

[@jenniferwinograd]

I think a good approach to keep people learning good skills, but then also motivated is a blend of both

[@PianoRoadmap]

Agreed! When I teach private lessons, I notice that people are naturally drawn to one method over the other. A good blend of both if a great way to go.

[@John.Khormtepir]

Achieve inner peace with calming piano music therapy! Thanks for teaching

[@momobit2143]

I want to learn music to be a composer for games or movies so I like to go with classic version but finding good resources is a hard thing to do these days due to business side of teaching music. I wish I had access to teachers like you. good for your students. wish me luck too.

[@caryheuchert]

Wonderful advice! Years ago, I learned guitar the “slow” way, and all the chords eventually fell into place.

[@maxfurtado]

thank you for sharing!!!

[@TomTom-em2xl]

And thank you for your videos

[@TrueDarkTV]

tysm this helped alot

[@eugenevazquez4890]

That's my first book. Love it.

[@TomTom-em2xl]

This topic is fundamental ! Maybe it depends if you want to play Elton John or Debussy ? I’ve been playing guitar for 30 years with the method 1, and I began the piano 10 years ago by myself with same method (I thought I was inventing a new piano method !). Method 1 teaches you also how quickly how to build a chord (2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7m, 7M, 9…), the scales, the chords progression, the arpeggios, the rythm… and all that is « theory ». I began to read music 2 years😮 ago, I began to read sheets (to play Debussy for example) , and it was easier for me because I could recognise the chords. BTW, why the chords are not written also on the sheets, it would be easier for everyone ? Anyway, whatever the method, the goal is to have fun quickly. Otherwise, the risk is to loose motivation and to quit. Music is fun !

[@PianoRoadmap]

100%!!!

[@philipmcniel4908]

Sounds to me like you went a bit deeper into Method 2 than many people do, since you were learning scales, chord progressions, etc.! As for why classical sheets usually don't have chord symbols at the top (I know jazz and popular sheets often do), I think there are two reasons: First, the composer's choice of chord inversions and voicings is more important in classical music, and second, we've historically had a few "strategies" for writing chords, and the lead-sheet system you're used to is the most recent of the main three strategies. The other two--the two that are old enough to have been used in classical music--are figured bass (think 17th-18th centuries) and Roman-numeral harmonic analysis (the grandpa of the Nashville numbers). Figured bass was basically a system for writing a bass line and filling in intervals above it. For instance, if you were in the key of C Major and you saw the note C with a 5/3 below it, you'd play a C in the bass and fill in the notes that were a 3rd and a 5th above it (i.e. E and G). If you saw a C with a 6/3 above it, you'd fill in the notes A and E (a 6th and a 3rd above the bass) to get an Am/C chord. *This system made it easy to take some bass-line sheet music written for cello or bass viol and just add some numbers below it so a harpsichordist could read off it and play along.* Notice how the guy playing the upright bass in this painting is reading off the harpsichordist's sheet music: www.wga.hu/art/v/visentin/concert1.jpg Roman numeral analysis--which many a young music theory student has written in the margins below classical sheets--categorizes chords according to what function they have within a key (which is why it's also called "functional analysis"). At this point, I assume you're at least passingly familiar with ideas such as the I, IV, and V chords; Roman numerals was just a system for writing out what each chord was _in a certain key_ and modern music theory classes tend to use those Roman numerals, combined with figured-bass numbers to specify what inversion you're in. p.s. As you can see, neither of those two reasons (composer's original chord voicings/inversions being important, and other chord-writing systems being in use when classical music was written) really apply to simplified arrangements for students, so if you're going to play a simplified arrangement of a masterwork, I don't see a reason not to include chord symbols!

[@bendang4456]

I love to learn the traditional method. More interesting if you know how to read the music...hand & fingers technic.... Thanks a lot Susan. You are great, great instructor !!!

[@denisehill7769]

My teacher used to compare method 2 to how we learn to read, too - as children we learned The Cat Sat On The Mat, we didn't get the Shakespeare plays out at the start, but later we found we could read those too. I have sometimes felt lacking in not knowing chords instinctively, but being able to read them on the page is so much better.

[@PianoRoadmap]

Agreed! And down the road with consistent practice and a knowledge of basic music theory , chords CAN become instinctive.

[@denisehill7769]

@@PianoRoadmap Thank you - I've learned a lot from Burgmuller op 100, lots of chords in there :)

[@michael.a.covington]

Yes. Give me the chords notated on the bass clef. I'll often recognize them, and even when I don't, I'll play what's written. If you just say "C" or "G7" different books teach different ways of playing them (how much inversion, etc.) and I don't know if I'm playing what the arranger expected.

[@denisehill7769]

@@michael.a.covington I will admit, I can't read chords written as C or G7, etc; reading them on the clef has been ingrained. My husband on the other hand (guitarist) is exactly the opposite, and now can't remember how to read bass clef (I'm sure he could if he wanted to).

[@88steps81]

​@@denisehill7769the truth is, to be really good you need to treat both paths as a single one. Knowing by heart chords with all inversions, progressions in each key, etc helps in faster music reading, you can use lead sheets, perhaps you could improvise and also figure out how to play pieces by ear/pattern recognition. I'm following mainly traditional approach but I try to include chord practice as well.

[@lenbennett530]

This is a great video to watch. For months I have been wondering which path I should choose. I chose path 2 because I want to be able to play the melody as well as the chords. Path 2 is a much more challenging road to travel, and yes it can be seriously frustrating at times, but I believe it will be worth the hard work in the end. You have to be self motivated and stick at it even when things sound terrible.... but, put the work in and path 2 will pay dividends down the line. If you haven't subscribed to the Faber Follow along course, do so now. You can choose to follow the path alone or you can follow the path with this course to accompany you.....Your journey will be a lot simpler with a guiding hand from Susan.

[@PianoRoadmap]

Thanks, Len! Yes, Path 2 is more challenging at first, and I think that's why it's so rewarding! It also requires a certain lack of pride. Just like with learning any new skill, one has to be willing to sound/be pretty bad at it in the beginning!

[@velcroman11]

I wasted 7 years using the simply music system. I am now 2 years into the AMEB classical course. Yes, it’s a challenge but I KNOW I am getting some where. I also use Piano Marvel, is a useful adjunct to my learning with my teacher. It can be connected to your piano if it has a MIDI outlet. I do commend this programme. It is free to use but facilities are limited. The full programme is about AU$18.00 be month. The people at Piano Marvel are wonderful, extremely helpful.

[@PianoRoadmap]

Sounds like you've got a great pool of resources!

[@pianofocuscommunity]

This is such a helpful video - thank you for making it! 😊

[@PianoRoadmap]

Glad it was helpful! Just took a peek at your channel - looks very helpful as well. Just subscribed!

[@pianofocuscommunity]

@@PianoRoadmap That's so kind - thank you! ☺

[@erwandiping6167]

I like this content... really help... as i take 2nd path for 7 months, yeah really slow... While my friend takes 1st path, and he played good on pop song, but can not read even simple sheet music...

[@DivineCodes101]

This is definitely one of the best advices a beginner need to see.

[@philgray1023]

So very true. Some muppets indicate that you can learn 1,000 songs in an hour. That is clearly delusional.

[@PianoRoadmap]

@philgray1023 😆

[@dunnkruger8825]

Thanks, a lot! And, I have that same shirt.

[@PianoRoadmap]

We're twinsies? 🤭😃

[@Ozgurs_piano_journey]

I would say a mixture of both methods could be rewarding. I started out with 1 as a self learner. Then I switched to 2 for several months maybe up to a year and learned to play from sheets / sight reading / reading music. Along the way, I discovered a very good music learning platform which focuses more on 1 and quite a lot of music theory. That was a real game changer. I'm focusing on improvisation, chord progressions and accompaniment and all that goes hand in hand with music theory. I don't do sheets that much any more; maybe from time to time when I want to improvise and harmonize songs using leadsheets... One thing I have to say though is: I don't think the part in the video where you say "you go back to the beginning and do the same thing over and over again" for 1 is accurate. It's actually quite the contrary. Yes, it's fast and yes you could be falling into that trap of being the same. But as with everything else; that depends on you, your interest and motivation to move on, improve and build upon that first / basic chord knowledge. You add in different rhythms, chord extensions, riffs and keep learning those your whole life long. Just take blues (not even talking about jazz) for example: You could be improvising in blues, R&B for ever just with chords, riffs and with the knowledge of 2 scales (major / minor blues which build on the pentatonic scale) for ever and still learning and improving. You could be taking your blues knowledge, adding it in to your pop or R&B style improvisation - again takes for ever and you do not play the same thing over and over again... I could go on, the list is long...So it's also how you approach method 1; if you just focus on playing the same pop rhythm / same progression with a bunch of triads not even splitting them or playing them as arpeggios, yes you will be doing the same thing over and over again. But if you take that basic level and keep improving it adding in different arpeggio/chord patterns, left hand patterns, rhythms, chord extensions, continously learn new songs different accompaniments / chord progressions, apply other aspects of music theory etc etc, you will definitely not be playing the same thing over and over again. And you will certainly not be going back to the beginning each time. In fact, method 1 unlocks quite a creative process in which you just sit down at the piano and play with freedom...And each time you do that, you will play the same thing a little differently, experiment with different rhythms/melodies etc, discovering yourself along the way....

[@PianoRoadmap]

I agree that method #1 can be an interesting approach, but that's with a theory mindset. The majority of people attracted to that method are looking for a fast start and aren't necessarily interested in diving into the fundamentals of music theory. There are exceptions, of course (you being one of them!).

[@georgesealy4706]

Hmmm. . . just some thoughts. I started learning to play piano around 5 years old. My teacher used the traditional method. I made progress. I continued to take lessons until high school. On your rating system, I would have been rated as high intermediate. Honestly, I had too many other interests to advance faster and further than that. And I saw it as boring. I felt I was just trying to do what other people had done thousands of times. But all that said, nobody ever taught me music theory or chord progressions. Sure, I could play moderately difficult classical pieces, but I couldn't play a simple blues progression. I didn't even know what it was. I loved to hear jazz pianists, but I had no idea how they played what they played or how they could improvise. Around 14 years old, I started to learn there was whole different side to music that I never knew. And once I did learn (on my own), suddenly playing the piano was a lot of fun. I was never, ever going to be a concert pianist. I didn't have the aspiration and drive for it. But even to this day, I can take out a 'fake book' and play contemporary pieces the first time, and then improvise the basic melody and chord progression into something different. And this I will say to piano teachers: please teach your students how music is put together, how chord progressions work, how a piece can be played in different keys. Sprinkle in popular songs. Ask your students to 'play melodies by ear' without music. Train them to hear music and translate that into what their hands are doing. My message is that it is great to get all of the fundamental and excellent classical training in place as in this video. But it is also good for students to be rounded too and have a greater appreciation of how music works from a structural point of view. And for goodness sake, teach them what a blues progression is.

[@PianoRoadmap]

Well said! It's important to at least introduce all aspects of music. Adult beginners usually veer towards a certain area. Some, like you, prefer to improvise and enjoy understanding the music fundamentals (and blues progressions 😆), while others prefer to play classical pieces they've heard, or read sheet music arrangements of their favorite pop songs...the list goes on. Tastes and preferences vary, and I totally agree that a student's music education should introduce all these aspects.

[@biginteger907]

You absolutely nailed it with this piece of advice Susan. There's a lot of hype around 'quick win' piano methods on KZbin and much of it is misleading. Even if you just want to play your favorite pop songs, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to sound at all convincing, you will need to practice multiple diatonic chords in many major and minor scales, one or two chord inversions for each of them, chord variants like sus chords, major 7's etc, multiple chord progression patterns, along with arpeggiating those chords and maybe even learning modes too, and many other techniques - you won't achieve that in an hour, a week, a month and maybe not even in a year, especially without consistent focused practice. After all that effort, it's possible that you might still not be able to play the original note-for-note version of your favorite songs. I'm not knocking this method - I've practiced many of these things myself and it does have it's merits, but as stated, you eventually realize that there's a significant limit to what repertoire you can play and it can still take several years to sound really convincing. You might be okay with that and that's cool. However, if you ultimately want to play a broad range of repertoire across multiple genres, from the original sheet music, including classical, jazz, blues, film themes, video game music and pop music, then a more traditional approach will open up all of this potential. Absolutely true it takes longer, but you'll break down many more barriers to your enjoyment of the instrument - and anyway what's the rush?

[@PianoRoadmap]

100%!! I also find that for *most* adults, you can't rush a fluid, effortless-looking technique. I always think of ballet dancers for some reason. If an adult newbie thinks they're going to look like a "pro" in 30 days because of some method, they're in for a hard lesson ahead!

[@philgray1023]

Thanks for putting this into words Susan. I already did the Faber book 1 with a teacher. I find it was a great starting point. I ruined my guitar playing because I just wanted to sound like the Beatles (many years ago) . Then I played with folks that just read the dots. They could literally look once and play what they saw. Now if only I could play canons by just reading the dots.

[@PianoRoadmap]

"...reading the dots." 😆Love it!

[@michael.a.covington]

Returning to the piano in late middle age after just a few lessons in high school, I'm definitely going for approach #2. I am more interested in music theory than in performing -- I want to appreciate what musicians and composers do. I've seen plenty of "chords only" videos and feel that those people aren't playing the songs, they're just accompanying them. (Which can be useful but is not what I want.)

[@PianoRoadmap]

Exactly! It's a matter of knowing which method works for each individual's goals.

[@kjwong4730]

There are no short cuts in life, you get what you paid for, easy decision hard life, hard decisions easy life

[@michelprimeau4531]

If you love yourself, chord method. If you love piano and music, traditional method. 4 years playing and I can't play Chopin or Debussy. I've been playing roughly 0.5 hours every day. So what, I'm in for the long run, very long run