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

I don't agree that through hard practice and dedication most of the 'difficult' repertoire is within reach of most people; and I doubt if I am the only one who thinks that way.

I do believe that hard work under a good teacher can make reasonable amateurs of most, after a number of years (that number being variable according to the person's abiliity).

yes, I agree. It of course depends on how one defines "difficult" and how one defines "play". I've had people tell me they can "play" the Waldstein sonata but in hearing it they are nowhere near the tempo it needs to be played nor are they pulling off the technical and musical demands of the piece. They might be hammering out the notes in some facsimile of the piece but are nowhere close to mastery. I am not at all sure that most people can reach professional level or that "most people can play practically anything" . I wish!

Sophia

I grew up in the Bible Belt and most of my relatives live there. I know people who are convinced the earth is 6,000 years old (not 10). My mother's take on global warming? "Well, the Bible says that in the last days the world will heat up." I don't *think* I know anyone who believes the earth is flat, but I'm not sure.

I grew up in small-town Kansas. Oddly, back 30-40 years ago, it didn't occur to our parents to try to prevent us being taught evolution (they might have said, "that's not what we believe" but you were expected to learn it for school). Apparently the separation of church and state worked better back then

Except I believe VERY few people are tone deaf and really can't sing in tune. Most of them just BELIEVE they can't sing...or have been TOLD they can't sing well...which is a self-fullfilling prophecy.

I'm going to give an example which may well blow the thread up for good. Let me just say right here that the important factor in this example is NOT race or genetics...it's cultural belief and expectations.

Black church choirs. I grew up attending many religious functions, the more enjoyable of which were gatherings of choirs from many area denominations. These choirs were made up of the rankest amateurs...almost no one had any formal voice instruction. Some folks had sung in school music classes and that was about it.

There were certain choirs that everyone really looked forward to hearing...the ones from the few black churches in the area. After watching and participating with many groups, and hearing the members from both black and white choirs talk about their experiences and participation, I came to the conclusion that the reason music was so grand in black churches is that, rather than thinking "Oh, I can't sing"...folks in black churches just opened their mouths and SANG. They expected to be able to sing, and sound good...they weren't self conscious and worried and afraid to be heard...so they sounded fantastic.

I'm not saying talent doesn't exist...but believing you can - or can't - do something is a HUGE factor for participation in music for the general public. If you think you CAN do something, if you have some trouble with some aspect, you will work on it and straighten it out. If you think you CAN'T, at the first sign of trouble you will drop the activity completely (like with me and sports and math )

OK...flame away...

In terms of singing hymns or Happy Birthday, I think part of the equation is exposure and familiarity.

I've seen teenagers auditioning for musicals who couldn't sing a scale even when the piano played along with them. They weren't necessary unmusical or tone deaf...many of them had never heard a major scale before.

Pianoloverus, that brings to mind a painful memory. During jr. high school I auditioned for a part in the school musical. Everyone but me knew the music and sang their best. I had a pretty decent soprano but didn't know the music at all and was sightreading the music and the words for the first time. Under those circumstances, I did fairly well. That fact was never acknowledged and I didn't get a part. It still steams me. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! Isn't it funny how we hang on to old, unresolved resentments.

Tone deaf means the inability to discriminate between pitches - inability to tell that, for example, C and D are different. I accept that it exists, but I believe it's extremely rare. I have never met anyone who was tone deaf. On the other hand, I've met hundreds who can't sing in tune. It's as others have said, familiarity - and also knowing how to find and use your voice. That's what some people have never done. In my previous life as a classroom teacher I taught hundreds of little bullfrogs. Not one was truly tone deaf, and all improved in their ability to sing in tune with instruction and patience.

And P.S. - thanks Monica for addressing my questions. I guess I'd be surprised if that extra something could be measured anyway . But interesting to know that Seashore is still around! (well, his tests, anyway )

Excellent point, ProdigalPianist! You'll get no flaming from this quarter. I started my academic career many years ago working with Robert Rosenthal (he of the well-known "Pygmalion in the Classroom" experiment and my dissertation advisor) on the nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies. I think everything you have said is right on target.

Nor from me either. Appreciating that we all have different sets of abilities, strengths and weaknesses (many of which are modifiable with training) does not in any way mean that we should not fully explore everything that we can do and achieve through passion, hard work and persistence.


Sophia

Amen.

So learned and innately unstupid one, how do you account for the difference?

The vast majority of us would agree that it takes a combination of both talent and hard work to be a good pianist. Where the disagreement lies is in the degree to which one matters more than the other. The bottom line is that we do not have reliable methods for quantifying the degree to which one is more important than the other for piano playing or other similar endeavors. Research in this area is riddled with biased and weak methodologies. The following post describes some of the problems with the Ericsson article Monica mentioned previously:
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...tic%20Expectations%20for.html#Post936206

Regarding the question raised by the original poster, it is difficult for any of us to predict how far you can go in achieving proficiency playing the classical repertoire. In general, pieces that you refer to such as the Chopin Etudes and Ballades are extremely difficult to play well, particularly if you are talking about the more difficult etudes. I would consider any pianist who can play such pieces well to be quite accomplished. It should be noted that there are many technically less challenging pieces that are very rewarding to play.

It should also be noted that if someone claims that he can play (for example) Chopin’s 4th Ballade, this does not necessarily mean that he can play it well. I know someone who “plays” really difficult Chopin pieces but lacks the technique to play a Bach invention properly. He probably should be working on pieces at the level of Bach’s Anna Magdalena Notebook. However, his view is that the codas of pieces such as Chopin’s 3rd scherzo and the Polonaise-Fantasie op. 61 are where the action is. When he plays one of these pieces, it is often difficult to determine what he is actually playing. I would not recommend this approach but chacun a son gout.

Great post Otis, it's nice to see some refreshing thoughts on this subject.



There actually are some relatively decent methods for determining how much of what we call "musical talent" is inherited: By what are typically referred to as "twin studies" and "adoption studies.'

These methods have been used quite extensively, and across different countries, to study all manner of traits ranging from intelligence to height, happiness, and even income.

From the Wikipedia entry:

"Twins are invaluable for studying [nature vs. nurture] questions because they disentangle the sharing of genes and environments

...

Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g. height), others an intermediate level (e.g. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism."

This is one of the most interesting areas for me in the "talent" discussion. You are right that musical expression of a generic kind can be taught to many, maybe most, people. I think it is easier to teach the relatively tangible mechanical aspects of playing the piano and reading music. But still, the basics of musical expression can be taught and many people seem to feel it as a fairly normal part of learning music.

However, to me, that's just the rudiments, and it is not what I think of as musical artistry. It's more like musical craft.

It's not so difficult to get someone to play a nicely expressive Chopin prelude, if they have the technique. What is difficult is for someone to play a Chopin prelude in a way that transports the listener (especially a listener familiar with the music) to a state of mind they've never been to before. Or maybe play something very familiar in a way that makes it seem new and fresh, as if just written. That's the kind of thing that I think of as real artistic talent, and I don't think it can be taught, although great teachers can nurture it. Some of that kind of playing relies not only on specifically musical qualities of the player, but other parts of the personality and life experience, too. I think there are some extremes in musical expression that can't be expressed by a player that hasn't been there, or pretty close to there, in real life. And that can't be taught.

As far as I know, there's not a lot of study of that kind of artistic talent. It would be hard to even define it in order to study it. But millions of people have experienced it, both as performers and listeners, and think it is quite real. And at least for me, I tend to think of "talent" in terms of potential for that sort of artistry, as well as in the more measurable sense of aptitude for the more generic aspects of making music.

Well said, wr. I think you said what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but much more eloquently.

I agree, good post, very nicely said, wr.

Leaving aside the obvious point that people aren't dogs -- well most people, anyway -- I wonder what part of my post lead you to think that I am denying a role for heredity in musical talent? I think, in fact, I said the exact opposite of this.

What I did say, and you did not address, was that the role of innate talent is impossible to quantify. It's impossible because people who show early talent will be treated differently than those who do not, and will find practice more rewarding.

Therefore, whether innate talent is influential in adulthood -- absent the influence of environment -- is unknown. Many people assume it is, but there is no evidence (so far as I know) to support this assumption.

I assume it's unknown for dogs too, whether they play piano or not.

I sense a certain convergence of opinion and would whole–heartedly endorse WR’s post. I am re-posting just to reiterate my position in the debate and clarify my own views for those who although probably disinterested, have obviously misunderstood me.
I am simply saying that those with average ability have the physiological tools to progress very far at learning the piano when starting as an adult. They are limited, not by their innate ability (?talent) but by environmental factors such as time spent practicing, psychological barriers etc etc and, as the aging process continues, physiological barriers.
I believe that an average adult is, under ideal conditions, equipped to at least respectably fail their ABRSM diploma (ie pass grade 8 and get to the point where it is not considered absurd to sit it). At this point a lack of musicality might prevent passing the diploma. To my mind this is outstanding progress, and would equip one to play very difficult pieces to a level where a non-expert listener would be impressed. It would enable one to play in a Cocktail bar for money and not starve to death.
This position seems entirely compatible the views of Mary Rose and Sophial – it’s just a question of defining what’s “good”. I understand Monica to be saying that for most adults to get to “good”, they are limited not by their talent but factors as outlined above.
I wholeheartedly endorse this view.
We are a little backward here in Cornwall and last night I had to ask my particularly stroppy teenage daughter what “meh”, meant. She sullenly shrugged and left the room snorting “meh”, I think because she couldn’t think of anything intelligent to reply to the question.
However my detractors will be delighted to hear that in the car on the way to school this morning, when I tried to discuss the issue of how far an adult beginner pianist can get, the same daughter said “Dad – it doesn’t matter how much you practice, you’ll always be crap”.
I’m just trying to prove her, and some of the rest of you, wrong.

But was she referring to your musicality or your technical proficiency?

The mention of reaching Grade 8 in technique while lacking in musicality made me realize that the converse problem is probably equally plausible: being possessed of great musicality (or the potential for it) while so limited in technique as to be unable to render it in any music save for the least complex technically.

Steven