Book recommendation for non-jazz non-classical students?

[MAJUSCULE]

A question I've often asked myself...

 

Any go-to books for students who aren't into classical or jazz? Usually the type to want to learn pop songs, self-accompany, etc. Most recent case is the 11 year-old daughter of a cellist colleague who already has classical lessons but wants to learn songs like Elton and such. Can read notation and isn't against using that, but generally probably looking more for lead sheet stuff with theory/groove examples over scored out versions of pop/rock/film tunes. Real Book not really the thing either. Does Mark Levine have a pop book? Is the Mark Harrison Pop Piano book what I'm looking for?

 

Apologies if I'm missing an obvious resource, but then again, bang over the head with it so I don't forget why don'tcha.

[MathOfInsects]

Partially yes on the Harrison book. FWIW, lead sheets are generally confounding to the cellist's daughter, so although that's a great talent to have later, most people who just want to play through songs need the chords included in the notation, and don't really know what to do with "charts."

The Faber adult learner popular repertoire books are pretty good for this. https://www.amazon.com/Adult-Piano-Adventures-Popular-Book/dp/1616771887/ The material is a mixture of stale and "contemporary," but they are generally pretty good at making nice-enough sounding reductions for people to feel like they are playing the songs. (That link is level 1 but they have higher levels.)

In general pop reductions are infuriating, because they are always contrived to include every nuance of the sung melody, so students end up having to parse all these weird ties and note-durations and they get frustrated and bail. Even though the Faber stuff swings the other way and gets a bit square (and sometimes oversimplifies), that's also their strength for setting the cellist's daughter on the path of low-brow content.

 

[ElmerJFudd]

Because of the need to get licensing approval and the cost of licensing very popular and current songs don’t make it into method books. Somehow “Simply Piano, Simply Guitar, etc.” has a business model that allows them to offer pop/rock tunes as backing tracks for simple exercises.  It might be worth having a subscription yourself to get beginners hooked in.  
 

Many teachers simply write their own simplified transcriptions for their students - accounting for their level of ability.  If you get lucky - you can find easy piano arrangements of pop songs via MuseScore, musicnotes.com, sheetmusicplus.com, etc. 

[Docbop]

One of my favorite classes at GIT was our Composing class and to keep a bunch of mainly Rock guitarist interested in pretty my traditional composing the teacher Carl Schroeder used all Beatles tunes for his example of traditional composition concepts. It was really an interesting class.  

 

Be cool if some would take the catalog of a piano player like Stevie Wonder and create a piano course using simple to full on Stevie tunes.  It would get people of all ages interested and cover a lot of ground musically.      

[Farfisakid]

8 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Because of the need to get licensing approval and the cost of licensing very popular and current songs don’t make it into method books. Somehow “Simply Piano, Simply Guitar, etc.” has a business model that allows them to offer pop/rock tunes as backing tracks for simple exercises.  It might be worth having a subscription yourself to get beginners hooked in.  
 

Many teachers simply write their own simplified transcriptions for their students - accounting for their level of ability.  If you get lucky - you can find easy piano arrangements of pop songs via MuseScore, musicnotes.com, sheetmusicplus.com, etc. 

 

This graded list of arrangements may be useful to you. All the best with it ...

 

https://rcmusic-kentico-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/rcm/media/main/about us/rcm publishing/popularselectionlist2022.pdf

[ElmerJFudd]

27 minutes ago, Farfisakid said:

 

This graded list of arrangements may be useful to you. All the best with it ...

 

https://rcmusic-kentico-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/rcm/media/main/about us/rcm publishing/popularselectionlist2022.pdf

Has anyone collected the lot, or RC compiled into a collection?  

[Farfisakid]

Not that I am aware of unfortunately. I have several of them per level but my students still have to purchase their own for the exams because photo copies are not allowed. If you are using them simply for the pedagogical value you can usually find free 1 page samples that can be printed on sites like musicnotes.com which are about the same size as what you might find in some method books ...

[Joe Muscara]

10 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

Partially yes on the Harrison book

I agree. I would describe the Harrison book as more of a pop technique book. It's filled with examples of things described like, "this is a common comping rhythm for ballad/upbeat/medium tune in [genre]." It's super-useful for building vocabulary in many, many popular genres. But's not specific and doesn't give you any complete tunes to learn IIRC. It's also nearly 500 pages and IMNSHO, poorly formatted, but that probably only bothers someone like me.*

 

That said, it might be a useful accompaniment to learning specific tunes. You might say, "on page XX, there's an example of a comping rhythm that can be used for this song we're working on and there's an arpeggio pattern that's perfect for the song if you're playing behind the singer."

 

* I'm guessing Harrison did the book himself. It has section and chapter headings that combine things like bold, italicized, and underlined! Even words and phrases he highlights in paragraphs are bold and underlined at times. It's really ugly and hurts my brain . I don't think I've ever seen a professionally published book formatted like this. Literally the first page of the book looks like the attached image. And he does that colon-dash thing [ :- ] to lead into following examples or sections throughout the book. WTF? Don't mind me, I'm just crazy. 

 

[MAJUSCULE]

Thanks everyone! Yeah, the Harrison book maybe seems like a little much for the current student, but might be useful for adults. I might just get myself a copy for reference. Found another book of his that seems more age-appropriate. Anyone have experience with this one? I may just recommend it anyway, not overly expensive.

 

I do intend to build out my own resources to a certain extent in the future, but this will help.

[Montunoman 2]

I would suggest you base your lesson on songs your student likes. Maybe some simplified comping , bass, and melodies. Maybe mom can play the melody, or even the a bass part since she plays cello. A mother/daughter duo,  what a lovely and unique opportunity! 

 

Books are fine, but a student. especially at that age will be most inspired  to work hard when playing songs that they like and have some choice of.  

[stoken6]

This reminds me a little of me at 11. Classical lessons, and I had just discovered pop. I was lucky enough to live near a library that had a great sheet music department. I would borrow books of scores and just learn stuff from them. Not necessarily how to play whole songs, but "this is what m7b5 sounds like", or "how to voice a 7#9" or "what are the bluesy grace notes in a rock and roll figure" - all the stuff you won't learn from classical lessons.

 

I would perhaps invest the cost of a lesson in downloading scores for, say, 10 songs that your colleague's daughter likes, and let her work through them. If she has the aptitude, she should be able to internalise what she sees - and also see the limitations in the arrangements (such as the melody nuances that MoI mentioned). 

 

Beyond that, a few lessons with a pop/contemporary piano teacher would be invaluable. 

 

Cheers, Mike.

[Steve Nathan]

Not to throw water on anyone's book, but it occurs to me that if someone wants to learn to play like the players they hear on Pop records, they should perhaps use the same method most of those players learned by.  Just yesterday I watched a video of a seminar done by Jeff Porcaro, in which he described his process, which is the same process I've heard over and over from Studio musicians my whole career.  They bought the records they liked, and played along, again and again, learning how it had been done and building a depth of understanding for the nuances and particularities of what made their parts so appealing.  As I've said here more than once, making Pop records is a Collaborative Art Form, and it's extremely rare that it involves an entire rhythm section reading the notation of a single arranger.  Pop players are listeners and responders, and the best way to learn their methods is to listen and respond.

[ProfD]

55 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

They bought the records they liked, and played along, again and again, learning how it had been done and building a depth of understanding for the nuances and particularities of what made their parts so appealing.  Pop players are listeners and responders, and the best way to learn their methods is to listen and respond.

Brotha @Steve Nathan, thanks for writing it.  Ear training should start early.😎

 

 

[bill5]

On 12/7/2022 at 8:16 AM, Joe Muscara said:

I agree. I would describe the Harrison book as more of a pop technique book. It's filled with examples of things described like, "this is a common comping rhythm for ballad/upbeat/medium tune in [genre]." It's super-useful for building vocabulary in many, many popular genres. But's not specific and doesn't give you any complete tunes to learn IIRC. It's also nearly 500 pages and IMNSHO, poorly formatted, but that probably only bothers someone like me.*

 

That said, it might be a useful accompaniment to learning specific tunes. You might say, "on page XX, there's an example of a comping rhythm that can be used for this song we're working on and there's an arpeggio pattern that's perfect for the song if you're playing behind the singer."

 

* I'm guessing Harrison did the book himself. It has section and chapter headings that combine things like bold, italicized, and underlined! Even words and phrases he highlights in paragraphs are bold and underlined at times. It's really ugly and hurts my brain . I don't think I've ever seen a professionally published book formatted like this. Literally the first page of the book looks like the attached image. And he does that colon-dash thing [ :- ] to lead into following examples or sections throughout the book. WTF? Don't mind me, I'm just crazy. 

 

I know it's secondary at most in the grand scheme of things, but as a professional writer, I couldn't read that page without wincing numerous times. ugh. He couldn't afford an editor?

[El Lobo]

12 minutes ago, bill5 said:

I know it's secondary at most in the grand scheme of things, but as a professional writer, I couldn't read that page without wincing numerous times. ugh. He couldn't afford an editor?

Yes, this is what word processing and page layout software hath wrought. Amateurs think they are designers, typographers, editors when they are not. It is the downside of self-publishing. Professional graphic designers and editors have skills that amateurs don't have and actually contribute something to publishing that regular people can't do, even if they are good writers. It's an old complaint of mine. Thanks for letting me vent. 

[MathOfInsects]

It's true that many people who end up becoming professional musicians often learned some or a lot of what they know by listening to records.

But the great thing about music is that everyone can access it as a player on some level. 99.9% of learners--and possibly more--will never go on to become professional musicians. I'm a believer that we don't have to make them feel lesser or "wrong" if their way in is different from ours. 

Music is unique in my experience in that even if people have one year of lessons, 25 years ago, they still identify themselves as someone who played an instrument. Very odd, and it took me a little while to really process how powerful that is.

Most people who ask for lessons or guidance are really just trying to make whatever they play sound even remotely like a thing they've heard in the world, and they don't have the slightest idea how or where to start. It would be a bit dicey for me to turn an 11-year-old away and say, "Call me when you've learned 'Anti-Hero' by ear." Most people aren't even aware that they can play a song on piano that doesn't have piano in the recording, let alone how they'd go about translating those sounds into a thing they can do on an instrument they don't really know yet. 

I'm of course a huge advocate for ear-training, but always hesitate to characterize it in any way that makes it sound like other ways in are inferior. Everyone's "way in" is different, and the goal is always the same. The more music-makers we make, the better for us (and everyone).

[ElmerJFudd]

In the early years kids often don’t know what they like beyond the few songs they’ve heard on YouTube, tik tok or from movie.   As a lover of almost all styles of music I’ve no problem with hooking them in with what they are familiar with.  But, I also feel compelled to open their musical minds to classical, jazz, rock, blues, etc. etc. etc. There’s no way to know where their journey is going to take them until you see what they are spending most of their time on because they love it.  
 

Kids have varying levels of dexterity in their hands.   They aren’t going to succeed until they build strength and are doing enough repetition to make the gestures and movements they’ll need to play.   So spending time on how they are playing is building life long habits.  I feel this is also the time to train their ear and eyes.  Why not teach them to learn  a tune by ear and show them what it looks like on paper.  You’re definitely not doing a disservice to any young player by teaching him/her to hear, play, read and write the language over a decade.  Spending some time on all of it is just giving them options as they establish their preferences, tastes and goals.  ymmv
 

Adults… they have varying amounts of time to dedicate and find one thing or another easier or a quicker path to making something that sounds good.  Any approach is open game. At least that’s what I’ve found.  

[bill5]

3 hours ago, El Lobo said:

Yes, this is what word processing and page layout software hath wrought. Amateurs think they are designers, typographers, editors when they are not. It is the downside of self-publishing. Professional graphic designers and editors have skills that amateurs don't have and actually contribute something to publishing that regular people can't do, even if they are good writers. It's an old complaint of mine. Thanks for letting me vent. 

It's all good (or bad, as the case may be). A major pet peeve of mine, esp with "professional" writers (sports writers are the worst). I detest a lack of professionalism in any profession. Stop just hitting spell check. Read what you wrote! 

 

End rant, carry on    

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

I'm of course a huge advocate for ear-training, but always hesitate to characterize it in any way that makes it sound like other ways in are inferior.

Brotha MOI, in no way am I advocating ear training over other forms of instruction.  I believe ear training should be a part of the learning package. 

 

The teacher should be able to chart out the tune or plop down the sheet music and play the recording too. 

 

Young folks are like sponges.  Let that 11-year old absorb and do their thing with it.😎

[stoken6]

21 minutes ago, bill5 said:

Yes, this is what word processing and page layout software hath wrought. Amateurs think they are designers, typographers, editors when they are not. It is the downside of self-publishing. Professional graphic designers and editors have skills that amateurs don't have and actually contribute something to publishing that regular people can't do, even if they are good writers. It's an old complaint of mine. Thanks for letting me vent. 

And of course, sampling, DAW, quantise, Auto-Tune have brought exactly the same kind of "do it yourself, badly" capabilities to music amateurs. Any technology which democrati[sz]es a previously specialist skill opens up the possibilities that neophytes will make a mess of it. 

 

Cheers, Mike.

[stoken6]

2 hours ago, Jazz1642606857 said:

From my teaching syllabus

There's a ton of solid gold on the two pages you posted. It's almost too condensed to take in - you have to force yourself to read each note, each word. And all of it is invaluable to the player starting out in the pop/rock world.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[El Lobo]

41 minutes ago, stoken6 said:

And of course, sampling, DAW, quantise, Auto-Tune have brought exactly the same kind of "do it yourself, badly" capabilities to music amateurs. Any technology which democrati[sz]es a previously specialist skill opens up the possibilities that neophytes will make a mess of it. 

I think there's a lot of truth in this. To me, a lot of modern music composed or played using loopers, arpeggiators, styles, rhythms, and pre-formed bits of "music" results in boring, repetitive, uninspiring  material with no emotional or meaningful musical content, no soul. Just because you can assemble something that you think of as music does not mean that it is any good or that you know anything about creating and playing music. It just means you know how to assemble bits into something that resembles music. 

 

And you kids get off my lawn.

[Joe Muscara]

18 hours ago, El Lobo said:

Yes, this is what word processing and page layout software hath wrought. Amateurs think they are designers, typographers, editors when they are not. It is the downside of self-publishing. Professional graphic designers and editors have skills that amateurs don't have and actually contribute something to publishing that regular people can't do, even if they are good writers. It's an old complaint of mine. Thanks for letting me vent. 

I have a larger and very OT rant about the democratization of things that I won't share here, but this is one aspect of it. But what's screwy is, Harrison's book is published by Hal Leonard! He's not printing these in his basement. I seriously don't get why Hal Leonard didn't take the file and give it to someone there and say, "you know what to do."

[jerrythek]

6 hours ago, Joe Muscara said:

I have a larger and very OT rant about the democratization of things that I won't share here, but this is one aspect of it. But what's screwy is, Harrison's book is published by Hal Leonard! He's not printing these in his basement. I seriously don't get why Hal Leonard didn't take the file and give it to someone there and say, "you know what to do."

 

Over the last 10-12 years I have migrated into a lot of writing. I always wrote in my music company gigs, from ad copy, to application articles, to other forms of marketing copy. But when Mr. Fortner passed on to me the opportunity to write Keyboard For Dummies I saw firsthand what a qualified editor brings to the table. Wiley (the Dummies company) knows exactly what their voice is, and how to present material effectively. What a learning experience. For the last few years, my writing for Yamaha at their blog site is handled by a good friend who is a very qualified and involved editor. He helps me to present my information in ways that are always a little bit (or a lot) better than what I submit. And I spend days just letting my work "stew" and refine it multiple times before handing it in.

 

Finally, I am a stickler for layout - it is so important to help make the reading of material easier on the eye, and clearer to understand. The Harrison book drives me crazy with its poor layout, as good as the info may be.

 

Jerry

[El Lobo]

4 hours ago, Joe Muscara said:

... Harrison's book is published by Hal Leonard! He's not printing these in his basement. I seriously don't get why Hal Leonard didn't take the file and give it to someone there and say, "you know what to do."

 

1 hour ago, jerrythek said:

... The Harrison book drives me crazy with its poor layout, as good as the info may be.

 Thanks for joining in my off-topic opinion. Now back to the topic of this thread ...