impressiveness of instrumental works and how to books?

In theory, all method books work this way. You can't get to point "B" without starting at point "A". Recent adaptations of that practice have all but eliminated the musical aspect of music that falls between "This is Middle C" and "Here's how you play <Bella's Lullaby>" (I inserted the name for you). By eliminating the musical aspects I mean: Standard notation on the grand staff, clefs, time signatures, key signatures, bar lines, note values, rhythm, dynamics, and everything else that goes with it. You're left with a tutorial that says "press this button (sic), skip this many, then press this one..." When you're done you're left with 'pianists' asking for "music for <River flows in you> in letter names, but not sheet music cuz (sic) I cant (sic) read that."

... In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

1. Using classical themes in popular music is nothing new. Often times it is so cliche as to make the "new work" revolting. On the other hand, you've got the Bach/Gounod "Ave Maria" -- How does that fit your question?

2. I don't mind simplified arrangements when they are presented in for the young or beginning piano student. As long as there is progress forward to the complete version. John Schwam did a lot of these type of transcriptions. Sadly, I still use some of those Schwam transcriptions because they are fun, and fairly easy.

3. To the ignorant, (yes I chose that word carefully) such music often opens they eyes, ears, and mind with some epiphany of "Wow! That is really good music" A position they hold generally until the time they discover that it is classical music that has been reworked into something popular. At which point the argument swings to "But it has new beats (sic) which makes it better" or the the lyrics, electric guitar solo, or some other aspect makes it better and the underlying classical piece is dismissed as being merely a vehicle for the "after-market accessories" that have been applied to it.

... nothing different than trying to use the Sistine chapel as a backdrop for tattooed bikini models.

Hi Switch,

I think my knowledge of English is not enough to understand your question, sorry..This is what I did get.

1.--.You're asking if a composition is less impressive or less valuable when it is presented in a "popular" version..is that it?

2.--I am against ALL forms of simplifying music, that is, changing it to make it easier, as it loses so much and it doesn't respect the composer's intentions.....However, are you including this form?

3.--And finally, from the point of view of the listener...what would be the reaction if he doesn't know about this partially "popular" background in such cases?

Conclusion..It is a tricky matter.

I don't like to answer questions with more questions, sorry.. Thanks for your clarifications, but still there are some interrogations marks in my mind.."Language barrier", maybe??...

EDIT: Thanks for answering my questions one by one..Don't worry about what I still don't understand about your third answer. I can patiently figure it out during the next 40 years or so...Gracias, Switch!

I would imagine that probably so in some instances: the old adage, "familiarity breeds contempt", might be applicable; but then again, not always.

How's that for an unambiguous answer? Sorry: but I don't think a definitive one is possible; I know of no scientific studies on the matter - purely subjective.

Alberich

Definetely not. Listen to this piece by Albeniz played by Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. Is quite easy and furthermore the pianist plays very slowly. Technically its something adequate for a second or third year of piano studying, but the result in this rendition is an unreachable miracle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMfUNpDsHRI