Average\Expected repertoire per year of violin study
I know everyone is different and progress is a very individual thing, but what is a good reference for major repertoire to be learned per year (or other time frame) of violin study.
Yes. You said it precisely.
You've been on this forum long enough to know that there's no clear answer to this question. So if you're hoping for something like "two major concertos per year" nobody's going to say that.
I think you can answer this question for pre-professional teenagers, in terms of what is a
I probably should have worded my question better, but I meant which pieces are representative of the year of violin study. Something like Rieding B-minor year one, Seitz\Bach Double year 2, etc etc. I'm guessing the answer would still be the same, but just thought I would clarify. I'm not looking for competitive rate either, I just wanted to gauge my progress. I know there is no concrete answer, but even an estimate. Even adding years of study to the violinmasterclass.com levels or something like that would be helpful to me.
People progress at different rates. I would say that an excellent progression for a well-taught diligently-practicing adult beginner would be Vivaldi A minor (Suzuki book 4 equivalent) by the end of year 1, Bach A minor by the end of year 3 (Suzuki book 7 equivalent) by the end of year 3, and then two to three pieces of significant repertoire per year.
A year doesn't say much. If A plays 2 hours a day and B plays half an hour a day then B needs to play 4 years in order to play as much A plays in 1 year. Furthermore there is also the quality of the practice. If A has a very good or efficient way of practicing compared with B it further makes a difference.
This post was a duplicate post by mistake. Please delete.
On average, for a student practicing approximately 20-30 min. daily consistently, I would say one Suzuki book per year is average for students age 9-10 and above. Some students will move faster, some slower.
I'm not sure about all levels, but in my experience as a university student, I would say that in 1 year, a reasonable amount would be:
"Three to four concert level concertos per year" not to be rude but this is ludicrous. Either the kid is preparing to a questionable level, or they have dropped out of school already to practise full time. Most *conservatory students* aren't conquering this amount in a year, let alone teenagers.
Lydia, that sounds a quite fast pace. I would bet that in reality its much slower, because its not all about practicing, its about how flexible the hands are to begin with. If someone has not played any other musical instrument and has average or low average fine motor skills, doing 4 Suzuki books in the first year seems impossible .just saying that that would probably not be the pace adults with no prior instrument experience should measure their progress against even if they practise well and have a good teacher.
Maria, I wasn't citing an
I don't know what competitive means in this context, but those numbers seem high to me also - I don't think I ever did more than 3 concertos a year, either in high school or in undergrad (and I think I learned one concerto total during the two years of my masters). I think my norm in high school was more one to two concertos, maybe one solo bach sonata or partita, and a whole bunch of etudes (including paganini). In college it was basically the same, plus a recital program. I suspect you'd only find 3-4 concertos etc in a couple of the more prestigious pre-college studios (eg Vamoses) - does not seem typical for students entering conservatory to me.
Irene, that's precisely the sort of studio that I was thinking of. (My own teen years were spent almost purely alongside the students of the Vamos and Cyrus Forough's studios.)
The question asks about a good reference point, which IMO implies 'typical' or average :)
I think the point made earlier in the thread is that rates of progression vary so widely that "typical" or "average" aren't really meaningful. (That's why I noted what I thought were particularly excellent rates of progression.)
Would high school students learning 3-4 concertos each year take more than one lesson per week? Even if the student's playing of the work is free of major technical errors at the first lesson, it's still going to take some time to get through it and discuss interpretive matters. Ten minutes of music has to be covered in one month at this rate, assuming each concerto is about 30 to 40 minutes long.
If these students are practising 2-4 hours a day and getting through that kind of repertoire, the only realistic outcome is an under-prepared performance (or "just playing the notes").
On a 0--10 grade scale, from absolute beginner to Paganini/Ysaye/Ernst, a good student can make good progress, about one technical grade per year until about level 7. Then things get really tough. Most won't make it it to 10 no matter how hard they work (including me). The technical practice doesn't need to be more than one hour a day - exercises, scales, etudes. I remember doing an average of one new etude every 2 weeks. Preparing repertoire is what really eats up practice time.
Is 7 the Bruch Level?
I'm in conservatory and I do 2 hours of technical work.. probably because I have a little bit of catching up to do, but it's not uncommon.
Jocelyn, often yes -- and/or lessons that last more than an hour (even for me as a teen, a 90-minute lesson was more common than 60 minutes, even if strictly speaking I was paying my teacher for an hour). Most concertos don't actually have 30 to 40 minutes of violin playing, once you eliminate the tuttis, too.
These discussions are nice, because it shows that we come from so different backrounds. Lydia, it is very interesting to hear that excellent pace with good practice with good teaching can bring a student so far. Im assuming you are not talking about adult prodigies, but just adults with good musical skills beforehand,
Otoh, Julian Bream more than once said that he practised each piece for about a year before performing it live for the first time.
I guess if you are referring to pieces like Mendelssohn, Bruch, Barber etc. that sounds like a reasonable timeframe.
I find the perspectives here interesting. It shows how different people choose to teach and what they consider learning a piece to mean. Ditto Maria. And MHO, even prodigies won’t be done mastering 10-12 concerto movements plus extra repertoire and technical works a year, at 15 years of age. They may have worked out some of the most difficult technical passages, but will likely revisit some for later study or they were taught these concertos for specific technical development and progression. That is, unless you are counting all of the concert work a student might do for ensembles as well.
I wouldn't be too worried about comparing yourself with other people. Some people are just going to tear through repertoire, but you should try and understand your own faults and capabilities and see if you are getting the most out of your talent based on whether you are able to get all the quality practice each day/week that you can handle, and no more.
--Paul D. Bruch concerto; It is of course subjective and arbitrary, I would put Bruch concerto at mostly technical level 7. But, a couple of spots; 10ths, octaves in tune, fast parallel thirds in tune, I would call a level 8 technique.
My son is in one of the above mentioned pre-college programs, and even within that program it varies considerably. Most of the kids are probably learning about 2 major concertos a year plus a Bach partita/sonata, a virtuosic piece, a handful of Paganini, and a handful of Dont/Rode or similar. Some of the kids are much slower; a few are faster. The faster tend to be kids who don't go to school and practice 4+ hours per day, but even those kids are only learning about 3 concertos a year. The kids officially only get 1 hour-long lesson a week, but most teachers give them extra time. A large number of them take two lessons a week - one with their main teacher, and another on technique with a teaching "assistant" who is really a younger less famous teacher. Some families can't afford or find time for the second lesson, though. And some kids don't need it.
I always wondered myself in high school, why my teacher chose what he chose. Having now gotten back into the violin after 20+ years of no playing at all, I can recall with ease the last thing I played. I think that is a testament to good teaching and solid practice regimen. I say listen to your teacher and play what feels right, unless you are fast track to a recording career, Just enjoy it....its a journey, some trains are faster than others, but we all arrive at the station eventually! Cheers!
Honestly, I could see some people my age (I'm 14) learning 3-4 major concerti a year. Because the best violinists can accomplish in 10 minutes what might take someone else an hour and a half.
Depriving yourself of sleep so that you can improve on the violin is an extremely bad bargain for a young teenager. You need 8-9 hours of sleep at that age. Are you going to sleep at 7 PM or 8 PM? If not, then your parents should prohibit this destructive, ill-considered behavior.
I agree -- I think you will progress faster with 2-3 hours of solid practice and a good night's sleep. My 13yo is up at 6 to practice (which is a real struggle for him) and in bed by 10. Though he does "practice" while asleep sometimes, I think!
For diligent adult students, expected repertoire within:
I suppose it's just about possible to imagine an adult beginner who practices 2+ hours a day, but you're also probably imagining someone with probably only one (or, preferably, none) of...
When I was in my twenties and single, I regularly carved out two 40-minute practice sessions each day, and could have done another 40 minutes if I'd wanted. And that still left me with plenty of time to do other stuff.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.