Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Realistic Goals as adults/late starter

The idea that when was born in the year, in the Outliers book, came from a study of young boys in a hockey program. There was a cut-off date that determined when you could enter the program. So there was sometimes almost a year's difference in age of those who were considered, say "six-year-olds". The ones who were older were physically bigger and almost a year more mature - a significant difference at younger ages. The older ones played better, and people assumed they had more talent - not taking into account the age difference. The idea was that, no matter *when* the cut-off date was in a year, the same effect would be there. If the cut-off date was June 1, then that would determine who was older, if the cut-off date was Dec 31, that would determine it. It wasn't the physical time of the year that made the difference.

Gladwell's sense was that the same affect would happen in other activities - like school. In piano, my impression is that people understand that "almost 4-year-olds" and "almost 5-year-olds" will probably progress differently, altho there will be some students with more affinity for piano. For adult beginners I doubt it has any affect.

Cathy

joutur,

thanks so much for summarizing, you saved me a lot of time I don't have the book with me, so I wasn't able to explain what Gladewell meant in detail. I think he goes on to talk about how these older 'more talented' kids go on to play in the top team, youth camps.. etc and they have much more exposure to quality training... So the advantage becomes exponentially bigger as they grow older.

I think Gladwell also mentions a study that was done about music students. What they found out was that the top students practiced anywhere between 8,000-10,000 hrs, sometimes even more, where as the ones who weren't good enough to be performers practiced 5000 hrs or less.

speaking of quotes...

"People err who think my art comes easily to me. I assure you, no one has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I. There is not a famous master whose music I have not industriously studied through many times." Mozart

“I believe in things that are developed through hard work. I always like people who have developed long and hard, especially through introspection and a lot of dedication. I think what they arrive at is usually a much deeper and more beautiful thing than the person who seems to have that ability and fluidity from the beginning." Bill Evans

[Wades into yet another talent vs. practice quagmire of a thread, 10-foot-pole in hand.]

sotto voce, I normally agree with everything you say, but I gotta disagree on the "talent is a crucial variable" argument. There's a lot of good researchers making a persuasive argument that talent is vastly overrated; some argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as "innate talent." Here's what my students are reading for next week in my psych of music class:

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, J. C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.

Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399-442.

The second article, if you can get hold of it, is especially interesting. The first part of it is a review article by Howe et al. describing all the literature suggesting that concentrated, deliberate practice is all that is needed to gain expertise in any subject. But about 3/4 of the article consists of rebuttals by other eminent scholars trying to poke holes in that argument. It's fascinating reading.

My own take on the O.P.'s question: You can start as an adult and, with sufficient focused practice and dedication, you can become an expert pianist and successful professional musician. "Innate talent" (if it even exists) plays only a negligible role (if it plays a role at all).

That doesn't rule out the importance of those other factors mentioned by people here; 'being in the right place at the right time' matters a great deal, too. But it's also true that if you broaden your definition of "right place" beyond that of the world's leading orchestras, there are a lot of potential "right places" a pianist can find him- or herself in.

Monica, at least we can agree here that these threads are a quagmire.

I knew from past quagmires that your view of "talent" was different from mine. I recognize how intangible it is; all I can say in defense of its existence is that people with comparable backgrounds and experiences tend to experience differing results when learning a new task despite comparable efforts.

Maybe "talent" is no longer a good term for that difference, and I can't deny that there could be a constellation of other factors as well. Still, I think it's manifest that some people are "naturals" in the way they "take to" certain things; they progress at a faster rate and with less effort than the average person. If that were strictly anecdotal, it wouldn't carry much weight—but I'm pretty sure that it matches the real-life experiences that most of us have had.

Steven

I think it is also important to recognize several factors that might be mistaken for lack of "talent":

* Learning disabilities
* Inappropriate teaching style
* Lack of motivation
* Lack of self-confidence
* Improper practicing

Well, Steven, that has been very true in my experience.

Second year at university I studied the Saint-Seans 4th piano concerto. I put in my time practicing it -and managed to pull if off- but one of my mates was concurrently practicing the Beethoven 2nd, and there was plenty of evidence that he worked as hard as I did, but he simply never managed to conquer its technical challenges. (And they are intense, but not particularly more than the S-S 4th.)

The next year I switched to organ and church music, and once again I simply progressed faster than several of my mates. If that was to due to my intense -and experienced- Anglican background, I don't know, but what do you say to a friend that complains about the difficulty of the Bach 9/8 (P&C in C), but yet I got it within 10 days?

I'm no keyboard genius -and my application to Durham Cathedral is only a fantasy- but the mistaken idea that great piano or organ playing is all 'hard work' is utterly sickening to me. Yes indeed, there's plenty of hard work involved, but that measly 1% talent is what makes all that hard work pay off.

Why don't people understand that? It's not like balancing one's checkbook -anyone can do that if they apply a certain amount of effort- we're talking something so far removed, and to say hard work is all that is important makes a silly mockery of Rachmaninov, Horowitz, Argerich... or put in any name you wish.

Over and out, this issue is beyond tiresome.

No such thing as talent? Gary Graffman was accepted into the Curtis Institute at age seven. Keith Jarrett was playing in front of paying audiences at age eight - during which he played two of his own compositions.

When I was a child, my parents would tell me, "You can accomplish anything you put your mind to.". Boy, were they wrong. In my case, it resulted in a lot of frustration. I have two daughters. What I would tell them is, "You never know until you try." There will be many things that they can accomplish, and others that they can't.

On a different tack, for most nonretired adults, practice time will be the greatest limitation on what they can accomplish on the piano. Speaking of which, I'm off to practice.

I think many people have trouble dealing with the idea of talent because it creates the fear that they won't be able to achieve their goals through the application of hard work alone. Maybe also because it implies a gift from a diety in which they don't believe.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

I'm up too late this morning -must have been all the curry- but I was contacted by an Anglican Church earlier today to fill in for their organist who was taken sick.

I don't even know what the hymns are, let alone the anthem. I'll figure out some service music later on.

Whatever, I think that must take a certain amount of talent, but of course wasn't that just hard work? Not really, I do this stuff well. It is second nature. That is talent.

But as I say, Durham Cathedral is not asking for my services. Nuts to that.

Very nice, Damon.

Religion isn't very trendy these days -not surprisingly- but I certainly attribute my ability to play an Anglican service at short notice to (a)I've done this stuff a lot and (b)I actually want to be of service to that church.

Fair enough.

I've been following this thread with interest. At the risk of sounding immodest,I've been told that I have the right talent and I have the right work ethic. Time (a full time job) is the only factor that is holding me back. I honestly don't know if my talent and hard work will be enough but I do know that I deeply love making music. It makes me enormously happy and satisfied. Only recently, I discovered I like performing so I am allowing myself to have dreams. I've always believed I could do anything if I have the right tools and a willingness to work hard enough for it. Maybe I'll become just another nameless mediocre advanced pianist or maybe kismet will work in my favor. Heck, Grandma Moses became a famous artist in her 90's. I'm not being unrealistic, I'm simply opening myself to possibilities.

gooddog

I really hope you do achieve whatever it is you want to achieve on the piano. I kind of realized the important thing is to be okay with it if you don't get there. I have certain things I want to do in music too, but I can't beat myself up for not getting there, esp if I am working hard to get there. If you really love something you'll keep on doing it regardless of outcome.. and the joy that one can receive from music is available to everyone regardless of their level of proficiency.

I guess in the end it's best to set aside any expectations we have on what we can or cannot do...and treat whatever achievement we get as fruit of labor, product of joy you receive from enojoying music.

As you should. But "nameless" and "mediocre" are not synonymous . You may end up nameless (or perhaps fameless would be more what I mean) but that doesn't mean you have to be mediocre. I decided long ago what sort of pianist I wanted to be. Fame didn't really have anything much to do with it.

etcetra and currawong, you've both captured what I was trying to say. I've always played and worked hard at it just for the pleasure of learning and making beautiful music. I'm very much one of those "enjoy the journey" people. It's only very recently that I've been finding out what I have. What has changed for me are my priorities. Now that my kids are raised, my top priority is still my marriage but number 2 is now the piano. (Unfortunately, I have to continue working at my job). I'm not heavily focused on a long term goal; I've just opened the door to it. I won't be crushed if nothing comes of this, but I'm no longer closed to the possibilities.

In response to the thread: Our society has made the mistake of believing that potential is the sole province of the young and that we fade away as we age. This is so wrong. As we get into our 50's, 60's, 70's and beyond, we are healthier and longer lived than generations before us. Changing and prolonging careers is becoming common. The body may be a bit more creaky, but the mind and its potential are just as vibrant as they were in our youth. We've experienced loss, hard work, profound joy and sadness. Our experience, and perspective allow us to have a deeper understanding of the music. We have more patience and more appreciation of what is precious. Put all this together with talent, time, training and luck, who knows what can happen?

Your relegation of your mate to the piano scrap heap strikes me as brutish. It is evident that he suffered a blockage, that's all. Very talented people, "naturals", can experience that as well, and do. The reasons are not evident. Life is often complex, you know.

A blockage can dure a long time.

I've seen this occur in every realm of activity that I know, even activities a greal deal more simple that playing a Saint-Seans concerto. Many people do have periods where balancing their checkbook seems an unsurmountable task.






I don't know who says that it is just a question of hard work. I don't remember having read that idea in this thread, and I don't have the impression that etcetra is defending this idea.

There are many excellent musicians, capable of deeply emotive playing, who are not a Horowitz or an Argerich.

Music, like love, is a human characteristic. It is not reserved for a handful of lucky souls.

But this gets into questions of why some students practiced more than others. Obviously, if you are talented at something, doing whatever it is that you are talented in will be gratifying in ways that it won't be if you aren't talented in that area. So, lots of practice and talent go together in ways that do not mean that practice creates talent.



And so...? Most people with a huge talent in an established art still have to do all the groundwork, and they often are incredibly focused at gaining as much knowledge as they can. That drive to soak up as much as they can is a manifestation of the talent.

But it should also be mentioned that Mozart himself said things that would lead one to think that composing was the easiest thing in the world for him.

And finally, working as hard as Mozart will not turn just anyone into another Mozart. If that were true, we'd have many more Mozarts.



He's talking about a preference for artistic depth achieved the hard way, over being facile. I don't think that has much to do with the topic. And frankly, the quote reads to me like a bit of sad self-flattery, from a very badly messed-up person who was a wonderful jazz musician in spite of everything.

Wr,

As far as practice goes who knows. If you are implying that talented people practiced more because it was easier and more enjoyable for them, that is not necessary of case. There are plenty of good (jazz) musicians who wasn't good enough to be accepted at good schools, but that didn't stop them from trying. Some of them practiced through years and years of frustration and not being accepted.

I don't know how much you know about Bill Evans. yes he had drug problems, but if you watch his interviews and read up on him. he was very articulate and intellegent and very modest person. To me you calling Bill Evan's quote a form of "self-flattery" tells me more about you than Bill Evans.

landorrano,

Yes I am not saying you can get there ALL by hard work, or that we can all play like Horowitz or Keith Jarrett. Thanks for actually understanding my point!!

Of course there are exceptional talents out there, and we can't expect to do what they are able to do.

As far as I know majority of (jazz) musicians believe that the had modest talent at best, and the rest was just result of hard work. I've read Pat Metheny, Bill Evans, Dave Liebman saying the same thing. So I guess I tend to value hard work more than talent... and you don't need exceptional/genius talent to do things at a high level.

To me talent just seems overrated. There are plenty of late-bloomers are there, and early promise never translates to success later on. one thing I learned from college from my teachers is that you never know what happens to people after college.

I heard one of my teachers told me my jazz teacher was actually pretty horrible when he was in college, and everyone thought he just didn't "have it". In fact, he was so horrible back then that nobody could believe he was able to do what he is doing right now.

I guess the point is that nobody is really fully capable of judging anyone's talents. In some ways growth is a mysterious thing, when we get blocked, we never know how long we are blocked.. and we never know when breakthrough would occur, it might occur tommorow, or it might never occur at all

this is from Dave Liebman's article

GENIUS OR WORK?
In my opinion the only pure genius in music was Mozart. He was different from day one, he had it hooked up. EVERYBODY ELSE WORKED THEIR ASS OFF!! EVERYBODY!! Bird worked, Trane worked, Bill Evans worked, even Miles in his way worked-I can tell you that. Of course each person has their own way of practicing and their own goals but it is not about genius or incredible talent only (of course you have to have some degree of that). It’s about commitment—I can do this, I can get better, I can be at least as good as that guy over there. Everybody in this room can get better. If you really wish to get better, whether you are a professional, an aspiring student or play for a hobby. Whichever way, it is the same. Whatever level you are on, it doesn’t matter; you can be better than you think if you put time in and are serious about it. It’s how you organize your time that is crucial.

This may be true in jazz, but not in classical music. Tere have been numerous threads at PW about this, and to the best of my recollection no one has been able to name a single world class pianist who didn't start out very early and was not a terrific pianists at a young age.

Denying the existence of talent or "innate gift" is denying human physiology. We are determined to some extent by our genes. Why do people accept this concept when it comes to some physical features, such as eye and hair color but not to more complex phenotypes such as aspects of brain function. Does anyone really believe that we are born with tabula rasa brains ready to be loaded with anything and without the hint of an operating sytem or a bit of pre-programming that allows the brain to receive and process information? Wouldn't we be a lot less diverse if that were the case.
The fact that all acoomplished people "work hard" cannot be considered, not even remotely, as an argument against the existence of talent. Now the environment (exposure, early practice,listening to music at home etc) plays an enormous role, and perhaps for practical purposes, it can obviate the need for that extra advantage called talent, but it all really depends on your standards of outcome evaluation. If you place a good orchestra violinist in the same bin as David Oistrakh or Vadim Repin or Jasha Heifetz, then yes you can consider talent overrated. But one needs to examine high achievement at a higher resolution. Nowadays many factors greatly facilitate our ability to develop skills and go very far in achieving proficiency: widespread access to good instruments and instruction, easy exposure to music, improved standards of living and increased leisure time, are but a few factors. But that does not "debunk" the idea of "talent". Neither does the existence of a genetic predisposition towards a complex activity deny the rest of the popualtion the ability to learn a skill.
I will add, with some trepidation, that this resistance to the idea of talent especially in the music arena is almost peculiarly American. I don't know where we get it. Something about our national psyche. We are quite responsive to the idea of "yes we can" (uhummm) and I think that is a "good thing", but it is not a free-out-of-genetics jail card.
Take another instance of very high performance: do you really think that anyone is cut out to be an excellent surgeon? Hundreds of doctors and surgeons are graduated every year and most are very competent But not all are capable of performing the most complex procedures with equal success. Yes, experience matters, but if you do not have that extra something (a facility with 3-dimensional visualisation, good judgment.. notice we are not just saying plain old dexterity), you are not even likely to go as far as being able to obtain the 'experience". If you needed a complicated procedure, would you go to any doctor with a degree?? Would you not want to go to the one who is most talented and whi has the best results? Sure, the hospital he or she practices at, the type of training etc all go into the assessment, but there is no question that some are more talented than others. You just need to compare them under more "extraordinary circumstnaces" and not "routine procedure".

You might need it to do things at the highest level—like, for example, Horowitz and Jarrett.


Another member, in another of these interminable discussions about this selfsame topic, once opined, "People who write such things about talent generally do not have any." That statement may contain bluntness and hyperbole, but I think it distills a certain truth about the subject.

The desire to minimize the importance and impact of talent can certainly seem like a mechanism (1) to protect and bolster the self-esteem of those who may lack it, and (2) to sustain the motivation to achieve notwithstanding one's assets or imperfections. There's nothing wrong with promoting a serious work ethic, but people who have natural gifts don't seem to share such a preoccupation with the theories of natural ability versus hard work that downplay talent.


It's simply untrue that "early promise never translates to success later on," and highly doubtful that "the only pure genius in music was Mozart." (I added italics to emphasize the kind of absolute terms that raise the red flag of skepticism.) Liebman made clear that his statement about Mozart was just his opinion, but I can't imagine any basis for an assertion that Mozart was unique in his capacities as a musician.

Steven