Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Because children are hard-wired to be learning very quickly, and adults aren't. Additionally, we've had adults show up making claims about their ability that didn't really pan out.
wrong, childred are not hardwired, adults are that's why their ability to learn diminished. But adults can still remain a child inside and learn quicly. It's all in your head.
You're both right - children hardwire as they go along. Please nobody mention myelin re:adults or I'll scream!
But I think it's worth noting that none of the people he mentions developed a physical skill at a late age. Beethoven definitely had early training at the piano, and judging by what we know of his father and Neefe, it was fairly intense.
My main doubts about adult learning are in the realm of technique. If we take a Gladwellesque looking-backwards approach, we might ask ourselves this question:
"How did adults who developed a high level of physical skill attain that skill?"
The problem is that there really aren't any to survey. How many top-notch pianists, gymnasts, ballet dancers, violinists, skateboardists and golfers do you know who learned their craft after the age of 20 or so?
There's been some research on brain plasticity in adults that suggests that adults are less hardwired than is commonly accepted, but regardless of academic or logical arguments why adults should or shouldn't be able to go from scratch to Chopin Etude at age 30, the fact remains that in the real world, it almost never happens. (And I only say almost because I'm not sure, but I've never heard of anyone who's pulled it off.)
Originally Posted by delirious
Originally Posted by Kreisler
True, but talent also develops much differently at different ages.
all depends, what do you think about this?
Quote
The other way to look at precocity is of course to work backward — to look at adult geniuses and see what they were like as kids. A number of studies have taken this approach, Gladwell said, and they find a similar pattern. A study of 200 highly accomplished adults found that just 34 percent had been considered in any way precocious as children. He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci (“that famous code-makerâ€). “None of [them] would have made it into Hunter College,†Gladwell observed.
To be a prodigy in music, for example, is to be a mimic, to reproduce what you hear from grown-up musicians. Yet only rarely, according to Gladwell, do child musical prodigies manage to make the necessary transition from mimicry to creating a style of their own. The “prodigy midlife crisis,†as it has been called, proves fatal to all but a handful would-be Mozarts. “Precociousness, in other words, is not necessarily or always a prelude to adult achievement. Sometimes it’s just its own little discrete state.â€
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
Because children are hard-wired to be learning very quickly, and adults aren't. Additionally, we've had adults show up making claims about their ability that didn't really pan out.
wrong, childred are not hardwired, adults are that's why their ability to learn diminished. But adults can still remain a child inside and learn quicly. It's all in your head.
You're both right - children hardwire as they go along. Please nobody mention myelin re:adults or I'll scream!
You're the only one who ever mentions that, and usually nobody replies because we don't know what you're talking about.
Originally Posted by Rui725
I have a question (or two) that was sparked by another thread under "Is this child really good (Chopin Waltz in A-Flat major)".
Lets say, the girl in the other thread's video versus someone who was 35, both demonstrating same learning curve and the same repertoire within the same period of study. With the number of posts regarding "abnormal" progress of adults frequently seen here and in Adult Beginner's Forum, why would an adult's fast progress be deemed at times, dubious, and the child's be seen as talented?
Because usually these people never post their playing, and their playing is at a disappointing standard when they do. I would love to see a 35 year old playing with the same sort of technical facility as some of the child prodigies after a short time playing, especially if he or she has no previous musical background. We have to also remember that very few (probably less than 0.1%) of children who start piano make prodigious progress, but a greater number of children start piano than adults. That makes it statistically more likely for us to know of child prodigies than adult prodigies, even if the proportions were equal. Since most of us have personally encountered child prodigies and not adult ones, we are more likely to question the validity of the latter.
This waltz is not a good measure of a pianist. The girl in the video plays very well, but the notes fall well enough under the fingers in this piece so that anyone can play it with good coaching.
Compare this "salon piece" with something much more difficult, like a Chopin etude or ballade, where the notes don't fall well under the fingers, and in fact threaten to rip your fingers out of their sockets. Difficult concert pianist-level pieces like this separate the really talented players from the masses. Conservatory-bound players can play pieces like this, ordinary players can't.
"How did adults who developed a high level of physical skill attain that skill?"
The problem is that there really aren't any to survey. How many top-notch pianists, gymnasts, ballet dancers, violinists, skateboardists and golfers do you know who learned their craft after the age of 20 or so?
it's true it's hard to find examples but I think simply because when we older we usually don't have time for training anything long enough. Remember when we're kids 1 week was a really long time, now 1 year seems to pass very quickly. I think especially with piano playing when physically there is not much to practice IMO piano playing comes from the head 93% and rest are hands.
Because children are hard-wired to be learning very quickly, and adults aren't. Additionally, we've had adults show up making claims about their ability that didn't really pan out.
wrong, childred are not hardwired, adults are that's why their ability to learn diminished. But adults can still remain a child inside and learn quicly. It's all in your head.
You're both right - children hardwire as they go along. Please nobody mention myelin re:adults or I'll scream!
Kids are hard-wired to learn (and grow) in a way that adults aren't. When I say that, I am not talking about the results of learning, but about having the built-in programming that causes it to happen in the first place.
I can see it was a mistake to use such an ambiguous word as "hard-wired" without qualification. Will I ever learn not to do that?
Can you be more specific about which of the 27 Chopin Etudes you have in mind?
Originally Posted by Kreisler
There's been some research on brain plasticity in adults that suggests that adults are less hardwired than is commonly accepted, but regardless of academic or logical arguments why adults should or shouldn't be able to go from scratch to Chopin Etude at age 30, the fact remains that in the real world, it almost never happens. (And I only say almost because I'm not sure, but I've never heard of anyone who's pulled it off.)
Can you be more specific about which of the 27 Chopin Etudes you have in mind?
Originally Posted by Kreisler
There's been some research on brain plasticity in adults that suggests that adults are less hardwired than is commonly accepted, but regardless of academic or logical arguments why adults should or shouldn't be able to go from scratch to Chopin Etude at age 30, the fact remains that in the real world, it almost never happens. (And I only say almost because I'm not sure, but I've never heard of anyone who's pulled it off.)
I think he means all of them. There are hardly any people who started playing piano at 30 and play all the etudes in their 50's; there are many people who started playing piano at 5-7 and play all the etudes in their 20's.
I believe that true musical sensitivity and artistry is innate and comes from deep inside. Take Aimi Kobayashi for example. Even at age three, she was displaying a sense of musicality that is beyond (youtube Aimi Kobayashi age 3 and see what you get) and below I have posted a video of her playing Chopin's Impromptu no. 1 at age 10 (you tell me that her musical sensitivity isn't innate).
Also, I believe that age truly doesn't matter with musical talent. It's all about dedication. 8-year-olds are able to play piano all day if they want because they don't have to go to a job, pay bills, shop, etc... whereas late starting adults have less time for practicing than children and are generally far more pre-occupied with life's issues than your beginning 6-year-old piano student who will regard the piano probably as a toy and have fun with it (whether that turns into a huge gift or not is up to them). However, if you are (for example) thirty and want to take up the piano and seriously practice 10-12 hours a day, who knows you could be playing Chopin 27 etudes before too long.
I believe that true musical sensitivity and artistry is innate and comes from deep inside. Take Aimi Kobayashi for example. Even at age three, she was displaying a sense of musicality that is beyond (youtube Aimi Kobayashi age 3 and see what you get) and below I have posted a video of her playing Chopin's Impromptu no. 1 at age 10 (you tell me that her musical sensitivity isn't innate).
Also, I believe that age truly doesn't matter with musical talent. It's all about dedication. 8-year-olds are able to play piano all day if they want because they don't have to go to a job, pay bills, shop, etc... whereas late starting adults have less time for practicing than children and are generally far more pre-occupied with life's issues than your beginning 6-year-old piano student who will regard the piano probably as a toy and have fun with it (whether that turns into a huge gift or not is up to them). However, if you are (for example) thirty and want to take up the piano and seriously practice 10-12 hours a day, who knows you could be playing Chopin 27 etudes before too long.
But the majority believe that even if you practice 10-12 hours a day, a late starter is still a late starter, and the Chopin etudes would be inaccessible unless your started early, which I don't agree with.
But the majority believe that even if you practice 10-12 hours a day, a late starter is still a late starter, and the Chopin etudes would be inaccessible unless your started early, which I don't agree with.
If only there were a late starter out there who practiced 10-12 hours a day (or even half that) who could provide evidence of this theory...
My assertion is that if the etudes were as accessible by late starters, there would be a lot more 50 year olds (as beet31425 suggested) who could play them. (The more virtuosic ones.)
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
But the majority believe that even if you practice 10-12 hours a day, a late starter is still a late starter, and the Chopin etudes would be inaccessible unless your started early, which I don't agree with.
If only there were a late starter out there who practiced 10-12 hours a day (or even half that) who could provide evidence of this theory...
My assertion is that if the etudes were as accessible by late starters, there would be a lot more 50 year olds (as beet31425 suggested) who could play them. (The more virtuosic ones.)
again who would be so "stupid" as adult to practice 10-12 hours a day and "wasting" his life at piano? Only kids and teens can afford this, and that's the all secret whole thing.
But the majority believe that even if you practice 10-12 hours a day, a late starter is still a late starter, and the Chopin etudes would be inaccessible unless your started early, which I don't agree with.
If only there were a late starter out there who practiced 10-12 hours a day (or even half that) who could provide evidence of this theory...
My assertion is that if the etudes were as accessible by late starters, there would be a lot more 50 year olds (as beet31425 suggested) who could play them. (The more virtuosic ones.)
again who would be so "stupid" as adult to practice 10-12 hours a day and "wasting" his life at piano? Only kids and teens can afford this, and that's the all secret whole thing.
I don't understand your meaning of this. Doesn't seem to add to the discussion, but rather, as another has nicely placed, stifle it.
By the way, never knew doing something you enjoy is stupid and a waste of life.
don't understand your meaning of this. Doesn't seem to add to the discussion, but rather, as another has nicely placed, stifle it.
By the way, never knew doing something you enjoy is stupid and a waste of life.
I see you don't understand, have you noticed the quotes? What I meant is commitment and free time. When I was a kid I've been practicing sometimes 8 hours per day, as as adult I don't see a point to that unless my goal is to become concert pianist and make living by playing. Many kids are "forced" more or less to practice, then they got used to and they continue. Adults have too many things to take care of to practice long enough to become adult prodigy, but it's possible.
But the majority believe that even if you practice 10-12 hours a day, a late starter is still a late starter, and the Chopin etudes would be inaccessible unless your started early, which I don't agree with.
If only there were a late starter out there who practiced 10-12 hours a day (or even half that) who could provide evidence of this theory...
My assertion is that if the etudes were as accessible by late starters, there would be a lot more 50 year olds (as beet31425 suggested) who could play them. (The more virtuosic ones.)
again who would be so "stupid" as adult to practice 10-12 hours a day and "wasting" his life at piano? Only kids and teens can afford this, and that's the all secret whole thing.
It would be no waste of time. If music/playing is something you love then it's never a waste of time even if your goal ISN'T the stage. The all secret whole thing..haha..wtf?
"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach — a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy
"It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right."
There's actually quite a bit of research that says practicing an instrument (exercising the mind and body) can help prevent or delay the onset of things like arthritis and Alzheimer's.
Staying mentally and physically active is a very important part of being healthy as one ages.
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)
[quote=Rui725] If only there were a late starter out there who practiced 10-12 hours a day (or even half that) who could provide evidence of this theory...
Um, i'm surprised nobody's mentioned this but look at Richter (27), Paderweski (22), etc... Those people skipped the child prodigy part and went straight to virtuoso in less than a year.
