Actually, it does make it so.

But at any rate, there has been more than one extended discussion of this stuff here at PW, and I don't remember anyone mentioning any scientific studies of musical interpretation as art. Perhaps you can cite some.

Here's a somewhat recent review with an extensive bibliography:

Clarke, E. (2004). Empirical methods in the study of performance. In E. Clarke & N. Cook (Eds.), Empirical musicology: Aims, methods, prospects (pp. 77-102). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

For a review and bibliography of studies from psychology see:

Lehmann, A. C. & Gruber, H. (2006). Music. In K. A. Ericsson et al. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 457-470). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

To excel at both, diligence, dedication and practice are required.

In sports, I really think one as to be genetically predisposed for his/her particular event or sport. Hard work can certainly overcome many shortcomings but only to a point--there are physical and age limitations.

I've been seriously involved in Long Distance running and racing since my early 30s (I'm 56 now). Even at my peak racing age, maybe 38-40, there was only so much progress I could make in my race times no matter how many miles or how hard I ran. I didn't "come" from High School Cross Country or any other competitive aerobic base. Has I got older, the miles and injuries started to pile up although I did manage to run a PR (personal record) 3:14 in the Marathon at age 47. These days I'm happy just to get out, clear my mind of the piano and music, run with friends and stay fit. Point being there is more a physical and age limitation, at least with progressing in running then playing the piano.

The Kenyans, who are considered the elite runners in the world, start as children often running 10K to and from school. Couple that with the fact they are born and live most of their life at high altitudes and grow up on a diet of very low fat. I guess they are somewhat predisposed but maybe no more than a child whose parents maybe play in a symphony orchestra or are pro jazz players.

I didn't start really seriously "studying" the piano until I was around 24. Certainly too late to have any Concert Solo aspirations in the Classical world but then again that was never my intent as I'm more a Jazz guy. With a lot of hard work and experience, hopefully I've reached a level that compares favorably with many other pianists that I look up to in the Jazz world.

I will say that for me one (piano/jazz/classical) fuels the other (running) and vice versa.
Although these days I find it easier to practice the Chopin Etudes for an hour and fifteen minutes then to go for an 8 mile run.

I read most of it. To my sensibilities, the experience of doing that went from "okay, I'll keep an open mind" to "uh-oh, they are measuring what?" to "what do they think they are learning from this, other than stuff we already know (e.g., expressive playing isn't robotic, or, there are certain conventions in musical expression)?". I'm sorry, I know they are totally serious, but to me, it's like counting the brush-strokes and numbers of colors in a van Gogh and expecting the result to reveal why people find something sublime in his work.

Physiologically there are links between all forms of music performance and sport. But on a purely athletic scale I'd say that drumming leads. Although playing a wind instrument like trombone is not really on the same level as an art it definitely demands more physical stamina than piano.

Playing one Scriabin etude for example would easily require much much more stamina than many sports to wit, golf. The question is what about the legs and this is where organ playing can trump the piano as an athletic activity. Some pedalling exerciss can be in themselves extremely athletic.

Where musical physicality should be focussed however is not as an end in itself but as a way to enhance the expression of a piece. This does require that the physicality be subject to the artistic statement. Therein, the beauty lies.

In fact, when you look at a van Gogh, you are only seeing brush strokes and colors. Sublimity is constructed in the mind of the beholder, and the experience is not uniform with all viewers. Some folks just don't care about van Gogh but find other things very sublime. It doesn't seem odd to me to study reactions to brush strokes and colors as a way of conceptualizing cognitive processes. "Why" is only one question for study. "How" and "what" and "when" and "if I do this, then people often say that" are equally valid approaches to research, and they seem to me to mirror the cognitive strategies by which we constantly make sense of the everyday world.

From Kreisler:


From LimeFriday:


OP's question perfectly answered, IMO.