I second that.

There's a lot of truth to that kbk, but that doesn't come with piano necessarily but with inborn musicality or at least if not, musicality started at a very early age.

In my case, I've played guitar since I was 8 and I play it well. I started piano at age 46 and I have to admit it comes easily to me.

Here's an old post I dug up:

At age 42, Dr. Tony Cicoria, an orthopedic surgeon, was struck by lightning. A few weeks later he developed an irresistible urge to learn to play piano. With no prior training he began to teach himself piano. A few years later he began to take serious piano lessons. Now at 55 he performs classical music at concerts for paying audiences and also composes music.
Tony Cicoria in concert

Practice time is huge, but some people require fewer repetitions to learn than others. Some have a better ear than others. It's always been that way and it always will.

As an amateur playing for fun, the key for me is to not compare myself to others, but just do what I can and enjoy it. With that attitude I can't go wrong.

Yeah, I suppose. I want that to be true, especially since my musical understanding seems to be way ahead of my technical ability.

It ain't necessarily so.

kbk being cryptic again. But assuming I understand what you just said there kbk, I quite agree. Often, we don't know how to improve technically because we cannot hear or recognize our faults.

I find that I personally make huge development gains in rhythm, improvisation, or tone when I can hear myself screw up (even after months of thinking it sounded perfect). Similarly, I find I couldn't play fast until I can precisely hear each note when attempting to play uptempo.

So it's our brain's capacity to comprehend music that's the limiting factor. That's why some geniuses don't have to practice so hard IMHO.

I really believe that in piano practice, it isn't the fingers we're practicing. It's the brain.

They go hand-in-hand supporting each other, nudging up your skill level. Often you can't hear because you can't do. It's very much a Catch 22. I'm not sure jc quite got that.

You see that is why teachers (like you) are important. The teacher can 'hear' for you at the beginning. Helped me a lot. I couldn't learn quickly if I did it on my end.

The Pee Wee hockey analogy is interesting. I've read that concert pianists that started at 3 or 4 have a tremendous advantage over those that start at the advanced age of 5 or 6. This is because the brain is still unformed at 3 and those pianists develop synaptic connections between their brain and fingers specifically dedicated to pushing white and black piano keys. The way the story goes, playing to these pianists is as natural as speaking is to you and I, and they never need to practice. I read this on the Internet, so it must be true.

I, like Bluekeys, started at age 50 to fullfill a life-long dream before I ran out of time. My goals are modest and I usually exceed them. My biggest problem is I forget songs faster than I can learn them But I'm also very interested in MIDI programming, creating my own arrangements, and making annoying sounds on synthesizers, so I'm having a lot of fun.

Wow, that's really helpful. The King of Greece says "Think with your head!" "Speak AFTER thinking!"

And often you can't do because you can't hear. Don't think you're quite getting that. Or a lot of things.

I don't think it's impossible for later starters to achieve a very high level of playing on the piano. I know college students who started rather late, but with hard work they were able to play very demanding pieces like Lizst's transcendental etudes, brahms piano concerto etc and go on to good grad school with scholarship.

I think the biggest factor is time. a person who started at age 16 is litearally thousands of hours behind in practice. A person who has been practicing 2 hrs a day from age 6 will have about 6000hr advantage compared to someone starting at age 16.

And I don't think you can 'cram' that time by practicing 10 hrs a day either. You can only learn so much in a day. I don't think you can be just as productive on your 7th hrs of practice than your first.

I think adults have so much stacked up against them to improve. If they started much younger with that kind of motivation, they probably would have improved very quickly, and be labeled talented and will more likely be in a position to get quality education that others might not have.

So in that sense I have tremendous respect for any late starter who plays at a very high level.. in some ways its just as difficult as being a concert pianist.

...and sometimes people don't know the meaning of 'Catch 22'.

And of course, sometimes people are simply effete snobs.

Read it for the third time last month. I think you're simply wrong, that's all. Don't take it so hard, you'll be wrong again, a lot, from what I can see of your work so far. But good luck with that.

Invective aside, I think that is is certainly possible for someone to be very advanced in terms of musical understanding, but have very little technical ability. While not common, there are several great composers who were merely competent performers. Likewise, youtube is replete with examples of technical wizardry bereft of musical intelligence. But of course, to produce a Horowitz or some such, one needs both.

Jim

jc, as you seemed to have missed it here, the Catch 22 is - if you can't hear it you can't do it, if you can't do it you can't hear it. Jazzwee helpfully suggested that's where the teacher comes into it.

Effete!? You wanna see me without pants!

Please! This is spiraling out of control waaay too fast. I do NOT want to see Keyboardklutz without pants!!!

No fear bk. Been there, got the t-shirt.

My apologies to KK for my rude behavior. My teacher is my father, who in fact is the one telling me my musical knowledge is better than my technique. I have studied music for years, put not the piano, so maybe that's why he says that.

Anyway, once again, apologies to KK. This is a great group, and thanks for all the advice and support!

Jim