Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu-WTF?

[Goldberg]

Don't lie-who here can play this song at tempo? A few weeks ago there was a thread about the most difficult piano music. I mentioned the song, but didn't get into it. I think it deserves a place in the top 5 most difficult songs. If you look at it, it seems close to impossible. Left hand, while staying on the same general notes, has to play a steady bass line that changes every time, so it starts on C# the first time you play the pattern, then you change notes and move it up to E. What I'm saying is that you have to keep a constant watch on that alone, and not just play a more standard pattern. Right hand, which starts a 16th rest AFTER the first eighth note is played, is truly complicated, with rapid arpeggio-type movement upward, and then more rapid scales, and at sort of the transition from that to the second theme, it is just mind-numbingly fast. The second theme is actually layed back and generally slow and easy. Pretty nice, really. Unremarkable. Then, you lanch back into the first theme, but it is played even FASTER than before, all with the same complication. The climax at the end is just plain hard, but things ease up near the end of the song, where left hand is left with a few whole notes and right hand is playing a simple, but fast, pattern to back up the left hand. If you haven't heard the song, but spent the entire time reading this post, you just waisted your time because I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. Go listen to it. For those who have heard it:has anyone played it? Is it really as hard as a first look has communicated? Or does it get easy, and more repetitive as you go along, making for a quicker learn? And, if you've played it, what sort of advice can you give me as to how to time the two hands? I'm rythmically challenged, and am horrible at counting out rythms, especially the one listed above(read:sixteenth rest, go after eighth note). The song is just mind boggling to me. It makes the more straight-forward 3rd Movement to Moonlight seem a ton easier!

[Goldberg]

Forgot to mention-I am indeed talking of the Posthumous-published song from Opus 66. It is in C# Minor if I'm not mistaken...don't have the music here with me.

[DOS]

Yeah, I listened to it and then listened to it again with the score in front of me. Pretty crazy. I would imagine that if your sight reading skills aren't near perfect, you can forget about learning this piece. I had a hard time with a Rachmaninoff prelude once that required me to play sixteenth notes with my right hand over sixteenth notes clustered in 6ths with my left, but that was only a few measures. This entire piece is similar to that section!

 

What I would do is try to learn both hands seperately really well until it would seem like they have their own direction kind of like a Bach invention or fugue or you can do what I did with the Rachmaninoff and actually count at the slowest tempo possible and speed your way up, though the first method is probably faster.

 

Mike

[Byrdman]

Originally posted by Striker1080:

It makes the more straight-forward 3rd Movement to Moonlight seem a ton easier!

 

Have you taken a look at Beethoven's Hammerklavier? For my money that is substantially harder than the 3rd movement of the Moonlight (for that matter, I think OP57, the Appassionata is quite a bit harder too)

 

Can't really compare to the Chopin; I will have to go out and get the music for it now.

 

I believe there was this keyboard hero thing going on between Chopin and Liszt rather like rock guitarists in the late seventies. So, if you can play the hardest of these pieces well, you are up there technically with some of the best piano players ever.

[DOS]

The fact that the Hammerklavier is longer than most concertos is the most challenging aspect of all. Having played the Moonlight 3rd, I have to say that it gave me confidence enough to tackle anything Beethoven with only exceptions to the Appassionata and the Hammer.

 

As far as Chopin and Liszt goes, I think at the end of his life, Liszt was a much better pianist, but then again, Liszt lived twice as long as Chopin.

 

Mike

[jimbyjoe]

not to sound i-don't-know-what, but the fantasie-impromptu is not extremely difficult. of course it's difficult, but it is far from the verge of implayable. yes the cross rhythms require quite a lot, but if you've played a lot of chopin (like i have), you'll find a) the left hand is almost always doing some bizarre bass line (see nocturne no.1 in Bbminor) b) the f-i just needs to be played like a nocturne and then sped up - way up

 

if you are after really really really insane stuff, forget beethoven - go straight to liszt's transcendental etudes. how many of you have seen that movie "shine" about david helfgott? in it, the teachers are saying "the rach 3? no one ever does the rach 3 - it's the hardest piece of music" (referring to rachmaninov's 3rd concerto). my teacher and his brother (who are both literal concert pianists) saw the movie and "had a good little chuckle" when they heard that line. when i questioned him about implayable stuff, he replied concerning the liszt transcendental etudes.

 

yes it is a shame about chopin dying so young.

may add more later - off to the carpark.

 

pray for peace,

kendall

[marino]

Yeah, the Fantasie-Improntu is a charming, virtuosistic salon piece, but it's far from being even Chopin's most difficult piece. It's musical quality is not stellar too, IMO. Yes, the rhythm is tricky, but paradoxically, the faster you play it, the easier the coordination. Plus, the L.H. has always strong pivots in its lowest and highest notes, always on the strong beats.

For some seriously hurting music, the Listz 'Trascendentals', or even Chopin's Etudes, are a good start.

Really scary:

 

Busoni - Fantasia contrappuntistica

Godowsky - Chopin-Etuden. You should hear/read these to believe them!

Bartok - Concerto n.2

Pratically anything by Scriabin and Prokofieff - Sonatas, Concertos, etc.

Stockhausen - Klavierstucke n.11

Ligeti - Study n.1 "Desordre" - unbelievable

Boulez - Sonata n.2 (aaarghh!)

 

No shortage of difficult music! Oh well, there's always the Disklavier...

[Antonio7]

There are so many pieces out there that are hard, but some will play harder pieces better that others...who can play hard pieces:

 

Prelude In E Flat Op 28 No 19.. My dad Plays the Fantasian Impromptu very fast and clean (amongst many other works, including Chopin ScherZi's. however, he just can't seem to grasp the piece mentioned above! - a Prelude I ask!. Well, if you here this piece at tempo, it will sound nice, and difficult. To play it though, according to my dad, is one of the most difficult pieces he as come accros. The Jumps are crazy on this Prelude. I had a go, and gave up in the same bar as the Time sig! (first bar of course).

 

The most difficult pieces you can play aren't necessarily the longest/fastest/Octavating etc (my dad Play Rach'd G Sharp minor well). It's the intricate trills of "Nocturnes" that can be just as hard. Nocturne Number 8 By Chopin is one example. Beautiful piece is this. However, in Bars 51 & 52, you have to play 62 notes on the normal semi quavers in the Left hand. If your timings not right, or you are having an "off" day, then it will sound bad....very bad.

 

So then, Virtuoso, and masterpices don't always come in long/fast packages, but small ones too. Prelude number 8 by Chopin is great, but yet again, very difficult to master if you don't time you L/H with your right. Its the pieces that SOUND harder that my dad seems to cope with better....than, say, the intricate ornamental pieces inflicted on us by Chopin - the BOSS

 

A7

 

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Antonio7 ]

[Brittanylips]

This thread pisses me off. The fast show-offy music is not necessarily the "hardest". People who are serious about playing/practicing usually don't look at the fast stuff as the hard stuff. You practice it, and then you can play it. It is that simple.

 

Plus, and this is not going to make me terribly popular, but it is probably true:

If you are a person who calls these virtuostic piano pieces "songs," chances are you will never be able to play them.

 

-Peace, Love, and BrittanyLips

[Felix_dup1]

I don't profess to be a great pianist, but I always found Gershwin to be way more difficult than Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, etc, probably because the chord structures, melodies, etc. were less traditional.

 

I agree with Brittanylips about the fastest and most virtuostic (is that a word?) pieces not necessarily being the hardest.

 

oh, and btw - I'm sure I couldn't ever dream of playing Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu - congratulations to you for making the attempt!

[coren]

i think its more based on complications...

i can easily go fast on my bass, but when every other note is at the opposite end of the neck its impossible, even when sliding.

the musicians they are talking about compose very intricate, difficult, and interesting pieces, whether they were fast or slow pieces.

of course, my perception of the difficulty may be off as the harddest song ive attempted (on keyboard) so far is "tourley tourley", or "swaneey river" (they're on the page after "when the saints go marching in" in my lesson book )

[Steve LeBlanc]

People who are serious about playing/practicing usually don't look at the fast stuff as the hard stuff. You practice it, and then you can play it. It is that simple.

 

Yeah, I agree....I haven't played stuff like this in a long time but playing the fast stuff was always just a matter of practice time.

 

Something you might try to help you get the fast stuff under your belt:

 

Play the more difficult sections with a metronome slowly, one measure, then two measures, then three and so on until you get it under your fingers. Then swing (like bebop) the notes instead of playing them straight...do this until it's really comfortable...then speed up.

 

Repeat...Rinse...

 

You haven't provided much info about your practice routine so forgive me if I'm being to basic for your skill level.

 

What I would do is try to learn both hands seperately really well until it would seem like they have their own direction kind of like a Bach invention or fugue

 

FWIW, I completely disagree with this...in my experience learning L/H and R/H separately only hindered my ability to learn a piece properly, especially Bach Inventions...Your doing double the work IMO.

 

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[Antonio7]

Maybe you should vist this site brittany

Piano nanny

 

.....oh and it even goes beyond swannnyy river coren555

[Steve LeBlanc]

hmmm Antonio7, that was rather sarcastic and 'uppity' of you.

[Goldberg]

I know what you're saying, Brittanylips, about fast pieces. However, on many occasions the speed of the song will increase the difficulty level. Take Flight of the Bumblebee-indeed, an easy song. But once you up the speed, then you begin to run into a few more problems. Now, after doing what Steve suggests, it will make songs like that easier. In fact, it has helped me in the past in a few fast songs like Rhapsody in Blue(don't jump on me-I know it's not THAT fast). But when starting out, it IS important to go very slow. Obviously. Now, I few more questions. What is better on this particular song:learning seperate hands first and putting them together, or just playing it very slow, but together, then upping the speed a bit as you go? Also, I have a question involving my particular copy of the piece. The notes on both right and left hands never seem to match up with other notes. What my question is is if this is just how the song is, or is it just a standard issue with Alfred Masterwork Edition books? I don't know if it matters, but it was edited by Willard A. Palmer. The biggest problem I guess is at the end of the third and fourth maesures. The last note in the left hand is the G# and the same is on the right. The sequence seems to go like this: Right: E, Left:G#, Right:G#. Is this how it is supposed to end, just hold the left hand through? It just seems wierd to me and doesn't sound right, being the horrible rythmist I am(is THAT a word?). Please reassure me...

And felix-I, too, find Gershwin harder than Chopin. But I "get" Chopin and it comes fairly naturally-especially the more emotional pieces such as his nocturnes. Mind, I haven't been playing long enough to have gained a huge repetoir of his alone-lots of variety of course. But Gershwin of course blows me away with rythm in pieces like I've Got Rythm. Also, I don't have that "jazziness" in me-I make a better classical/romantic musician in terms of feel and emotion in the music.

[jimbyjoe]

striker,

 

as for your most recent about how to learn it, i would definitely start off separate hands, and learn it in very small sections, like 4 bars at a time etc. i just did this with chopin's "revolution" etude (op10. no.12) and it works quite well. when you get the cross rhythms happening they will start to settle in your fingers. (just gotta see if my coffee has brewed yet...)

 

listen to a lot of recordings, and have you ever noticed some pieces are played just that bit too fast? someone once told me that over the last 30-40 years, when you record a classical album, you play as fast and as loud as possible. sure it sounds impressive but is it going too fast? the same when i did exams - the examiners want it hard and fast, and to the sacrifice of the beauty of the piece. get what i'm saying?

 

striker - editions. there are HEAPS of editions. yes i have seen 2 quite different versions of the fantasie-impromptu, with most of the differences being in the slow B-section of the piece. a safe way to make sure you're not getting all the editorial crap is to buy an URTEXT - that is the original written how they want. i always buy henle urtexts (they are dark blue covers and say G. Henle Verlag). another good urtext is Edition Peters. a good exampe - bach's urtext of 'the well-tempered clavier' has no dynamic markings whatsoever (except for on 'piano'). to see a really bad edition, just look to see the dynamic/tempo indications.

 

brittney - hmmmmm. do you play? i do see something in what you've said. classical comes pretty easy to me, as does pop/rock, but not jazz. and you'll find a lot of people on this forum who rock at playing jazz/by ear who couldn't play an etude if they try. that is perfectly ok. but this thread has been specifically talking about classical music.

i do agree - i hate when people call classical pieces "songs"!!!!

 

pray for peace always,

kendall

[Brittanylips]

I agree that some pieces are so physically demanding that they bump up against the limits of the possible. For instance, Stravinsky's "3 Movements From Petrouchka" is so hard that Rubinstein, for whom Stravinsky wrote it (or rather, transcribed it from his orchestral score), never played it, claiming it was too difficult. At the end, the score is in 4 staffs, not the usual two, with the hands leaping from the extremes of the piano to the center, playing heaps of notes, mimicking the orchestra. While it isn't mere speed that makes these hard, I remember performing them in NYC when I was around 17 and feeling pretty good about myself, only to have Claude Hefler and Cassedesus (who knew Stravinsky, I believe) bellowing "plus vite, plus vite, plus vite" -- faster, faster, faster, in a masterclass in France that summer. I realized how "un-vite" it was, and how far my performance was from what it should be. I never played them again in public.

 

Striker: in Flight of the Bumblebee, the fingers move fast but the hands are relatively still, so it is not that difficult. Music in which the hands are all over the keyboard, playing complex collections of notes and chords (like Petrouchka), is much harder.

 

Marino: some of the pieces you mention are hard for mental rather than physical reasons, for instance, the complex polyrhythms in the Ligeti or Boulez are a mind-fok. The Godowski, however, is a killer disguised as a cream-filled bon-bon! Skriabin isn't so hard though; and Prokofiev gives back what you put into it (Martha A is the best). Regarding the Stockhausen, you might as well just stick needles all over your body for the same effect.

 

STRIKER: I partly agree and partly disagree with STEVE regarding practicing. I believe, and every teacher I've ever had, bad ones and great ones included, believed, (and every great pianist I know believes) that you MUST slow practice, and you MUST practice hands seperately. I guarentee you that you will never play any piece well if you do not learn it hands seperately and slowly. How can you do both together if you can't do them seperately? Yes Steve, "double the work," but quadruple the results!

 

BTW, I think Steve's suggestions about swinging lines is great with one small change, IMO: I would not use a metronome for this. In fact, I would advocate minimal use of metronomes in general for a variety of good reasons. But slow practicing difficult runs with dotted or swung rhythms is a good way to learn them.

 

Antonio7: PianoNanny??!! Ahhhhh!!!! I checked out the site. Couldn't get past the graphic of that awful, shelf-chinned nanny!!! Yikes.

 

With regard to Gershwin, one of the beauties of it is you don't have to be a jazz player to play this great jazz. He spells it all out, for instance, in the Piano Preludes. Plus, they are easier to play than they sound. Once you figure out the notes and learn them, they're not all that physically challenging. That is, they "sit well" in the hands. After all, they were composed by a pianist (hence, they are "pianistic"), and one who was not technically all that accomplished (hence, they are not too difficult). Compared to Liszt, who was a much more accomplished pianist, Gershwin's piano music is a piece of cake. Musically, by the way, I think the Gershwin is far superior to the technically-dazzling dribble spewed out by LIszt.

 

ONE MORE THING:

 

"Song" -- something that is sung. E.G. a song by Whitney Houston, Lydia Lunch, or Pearl Jam.

 

"Piece" -- music for anything, including instruments.

 

Piano music w/o voices is therefore usually referred to as a "piece" rather than a song.

 

I don't mean to sound like a snob (I aint no snob), but if you call a piece of piano music a "song," it suggests that you haven't spent much time among serious musicians who typically do not refer to pieces as songs unless they are, in fact, songs.

 

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Goldberg]

While I appreciate your views on the calling of a piece of music a "song" and understand what I'm talking about, I don't think it should get anyone worked up. So, please don't. I think you have good points, though, and think it's respectful to the great composers to call their masterworks pieces. So, I will try to do so. Anyway, I know Bumblebee is easy. It's very easy. But I've heard too many people complain about it being hard-without even looking at it. But my point was that the only reason it was even MARGINALLY (sorry for uppercase-I don't know how to do italics)difficult, however, was because it was played fast. Therefore if you stumble, that's the only thing you can blame it on. Other than that, if you were playing it at a Moderate tempo, there would be no problems.

It should also be known that while practising Chopin, I hardly ever use the metronome. As I said before, I spent a lot of time playing his nocturnes-and using a metronome will screw the song up. But I don't know how I could use a metronome on this song, only because rythms in both hands, when put together, are un-countable, at least for me. However, playing it at slower speeds W/ the metronome won't be a problem. I hope. But I will try the different rythms-it has helped a lot in the past.

Well anyway, thanks for all of your help. Maybe after this piece is away with, I'll move on to the ol' 3rd Movement-a whole different boat.

[Steve LeBlanc]

and you MUST

practice hands seperately. I guarentee you that you will never play any piece well if you

do not learn it hands seperately and slowly. How can you do both together if you can't

do them seperately?

 

Well, I'm willing to take your word for it then ...I played a lot of 'difficult' piano pieces between ages 10-16 (I started playing when I was 4, got in a horrible car accident that crushed my left wrist when I was 16, took a while for my left hand to recover). I stopped playing this type of music altogether when I was 16, I wouldn't say I was ever a virtuoso but I was good.

 

For me personally (and my teachers which I think were very good), it worked best to learn both right and left simultaneously. Sure I could play each part separately if I wanted but since I was going to be playing them together in most cases it made more sense to learn them together. There are situations where separating the hands is important...for instance, I always practiced Hanon type exercises or Counterpoint exercises, scales etc. L/H only first, then R/H only, then together.

 

I think everyone is a little different in this respect.

 

I'm not a GREAT piano player anymore when it comes to the classics so I'll leave the more technical advice to those who are still doing it...just adding my 2 cents.

 

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[Steve LeBlanc]

...

 

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[Brittanylips]

One of the reasons for hands seperately is intensity. I like to dissect a piece and really learn each part, and make decisions about how I want to play them before I put it all together. There's simply too much information to play it all at once, all the time. Sure I can sightread through a piece, but if I am trying to learn it as best I can, I am more apt to notice the difference between what I am doing, and what I envision is the very best way to do it, and then bridge the gap as best I can, if I go hands seperately. Even after I can play it fairly well, I'll still practice hands seperately.

 

Steve -- youch. Sorry to hear about the accident. I suppose you're in good company, though; there are a lot of great pianists (and violinists) who have had flukish accidents and injuries.

 

Striker -- don't mean to go bananas with the "song" vs. "piece" thing. My point, however, was not that it is a sign of respect to call masterworks pieces rather than songs. "Piece" is simply the definition of music that does not include a vocal line, whether it is brilliant or junk. "Song" is typically reserved only for music that includes a vocal part. As a matter of custom, therefore, if you're around serious musicians, and you call any piano piece -- good or bad -- a "song," they'll give you that little look as if you just farted. If you want to call pieces songs, however, I say all the power to you. A rose, by any other name, after all, would smell as sweet.

 

-Brittanylips.

[coren]

Originally posted by Antonio7:

Maybe you should vist this site brittany

Piano nanny

 

.....oh and it even goes beyond swannnyy river coren555

 

whoa, you mean there is more than one "C" ?!?!?!

[Steve LeBlanc]

One of the reasons for hands seperately is intensity. I like to dissect a piece and really learn each part, and make decisions about how I want to play them before I put it all together. There's simply too much information to play it all at once, all the time.

 

AH, even more clarification needed

 

I didn't mean to imply I never practiced pieces hands seperately, if I had a recital coming up I would dissect the piece too and look at each hand separately. HOWEVER, when I first approached a piece to learn it I took it a few measures at a time, hands together as slow as necessary to avoid mistakes, until I could play it from beginning to end...This burned it into my brain right the first time so there was less likelyhood of silly learned mistakes.

 

For me dissecting (hands separately, etc) came later after I 'knew' how to play the piece.

 

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

when I first approached a piece to learn it I took it a few measures at a time, hands together as slow as necessary to avoid mistakes, until I could play it from beginning to end...This burned it into my brain right the first time so there was less likelyhood of silly learned mistakes.

 

For me dissecting (hands separately, etc) came later after I 'knew' how to play the piece.

 

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

 

Interesting.

 

What about fingering though? When you are deciding what fingers to play what notes, don't you need to look at each hand seperately in order to make the best fingering choices (I go through a piece and put in fingering as my first step in learning it)?

[Steve LeBlanc]

heh, I was lucky to have teachers do that for me most of the time, they would just mark good starting positions and problem areas...the rest kinda just flowed...there were exceptions to the rule...there were some pieces where I had no choice but to stop and work on one hand or the other, as a rule I always tried to do both hands together whenever possible.

 

Also, a lot of publishers include fingering guides in their editions, not all but my copy of Bach's Inventions for example has them.

 

Again, this is just what worked for me...your approach might be better, I think every player has to determine that on his own or have a perceptive teacher who can advise properly.

 

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

Again, this is just what worked for me...your approach might be better, I think every player has to determine that on his own or have a perceptive teacher who can advise properly.

 

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

 

Damn you: your message makes so much sense, there's nothing I can add to it!

 

 

-BrittanyLips

[RABid]

On the separate hands issue. In my early years of piano lessons my teacher wanted me to play songs that were close in level of difficulty to other students that had taken lessons for 10 years or more. On those songs she had me learn each part separate, practicing the fingering and memorizing one line at a time. Then I would put the two hands together. While this worked for learning those difficult songs I dont know that it improved my overall skill.

 

As far as difficulty, that is relevant. I will take fast, complex counter melodies any time over 7 to 9 note block cords in the style of old Baptists hymnals.

[Byrdman]

Originally posted by Rabid:

On the separate hands issue. In my early years of piano lessons my teacher wanted me to play songs that were close in level of difficulty to other students that had taken lessons for 10 years or more. On those songs she had me learn each part separate, practicing the fingering and memorizing one line at a time. Then I would put the two hands together. While this worked for learning those difficult songs I dont know that it improved my overall skill.

 

 

I agree with what I think Rabid is saying here - working with both hands together when you first read a piece helps your skill level. In particular it helps you recognize the chordal nature of the piece "on the fly". My sight reading is weak so I need to take every opportunity to work on it.

 

I think one should go to single hand work for passages that are at or beyond your technical limits. You can then concentrate on the technical elements rather than on playing the piece. If you can work up the technique to play the part faster than is actually required by the piece, you are building a comfort zone.

[Shiver]

i'm certainly no expert in this field, but when i was taking classical and jazz at the conservatory, my theory teacher (Wes Wragget extremely cool guy from Trebas Institute of Toronto) played a track off a Michel Camillo album called Hands and Feet...anyone who could play half this fast would be considered athletic at the least...awesome track though, talking back and forth between the piano and someone tap dancing at about the same speed on that piano....check it out if you get the chance, pretty amazing.

Cheers,

Shiver

[Brittanylips]

Ah, what the hell, all politeness aside, this is really the best:

 

PRACTICE HANDS SEPERATELY, ALWAYS.

 

It's not about "can you play it fast enough?" or learning the technical demands, although that's part of it. It is about learning the phrasing, personality, notes, hand positions, fingerings, dynamics, etc.

 

The hands, and the music each one plays, are like orchestral instruments. That's the beauty of the "piano illusion." You're orchestrating, creating the illusion of legato, lines and chords and phrases from a whole bunch of seperate little notes. You've got to learn the oboe, trumpet, strings, etc. independantly as best as possible if you want to play the final assemblage, the orchestral illusion, as best as possible, rather than just clomping along, from measure to measure.

 

After being around many of the really great pianists (I have studied and performed ever since age 5, including a number of years at Juilliard, festivals, etc.) I sware to you: I have yet to meet any pianist at any of the "upper echelon" places who does not practice hands seperately. Every accomplished classical pianist practices hands seperately, or they would not play nearly as well. Everyone does it because there is no alternative.

 

I remember an article in the New York Times exploring the differences between orchestral players and soloists. One absolute difference was the number of hours of practice per day. It's nice to think that the differences aren't so practical, but the reality is, Midori practiced more than 6 hours a day; the sixth seat violinist in the orchestra did not.

 

While I'm not advocating putting in hours like she did, the truth is, you can't be a world famous violin soloist if you don't.

 

Similarly, there is no way to play classical piano really well if you don't practice hands seperately. Furthermore, when you practice hands seperately, slowly, and with intensity, it draws you in, and offers "zen-like" rewards you do not get from cursory practice.

 

And then when you do put the hands together, it's what it's all about. You get drawn into the hills and valleys, rivers and volcanoes of the music, as does your audience. And each piece becomes a journey, rather than a race.

 

Peace, Love, and BrittanyLips.