Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Who impresses you more?

This is like a spin-off of my last thread, but I really want to hear some answers.

Type 1: Can sight-read, play by ear, improvise, transcribe very well, but does not have the ability to play fast and difficult pieces flawlessly.

Type 2: Has excellent finger dexterity and memorization skills. Good enough to perform in front of a crowd and wow them, but cannot do the things that type 1 can.

You've already made a thread about this. Why is this so important to you?

I don't really believe that anyone who is in type 2 does not inherently have a lot of type 1 in them: How can you have excellent memorization skills without being able to play by ear or sight-read? Isn't memorization, in a sense, playing by ear? And true "excellent finger dexterity" can only come with years and years of practice; One is not born with it. It's hard to imagine anyone who has the discipline and drive to practice exercises every day build their finger muscles, yet they have at the same time had no discipline or drive to become well versed in basic aspects of theory, composition, etc well.

My friend, the topic of my other thread, is type 2 and not type 1. When I was younger, I tried to become type 2 and neglected type 1, but later changed my mind.

It seems stupid (pardon my lack of eloquence) to compare talents and say who or what type is more talented. Everyone comes with their own gifts and talents paired with their own sense of work ethic, love, and dedication. I admire everyone's talents and don't waste time ranking them. All gifts make the world a better place.

It is indeed an insipid question. It seems to me that you're wishing you could perform so you're trying to make yourself feel better by claiming you have more talent.

Both groups have talented and untalented people in them. One whole group will never be superior to the other whole group, because both of those groups include idiots and geniuses and everybody in between.

Stop judging your friends (or your enemies, or yourself, whatever), and go practice.

+1

Who has more talent- an oil pianter or a watercolor painter?

between 1 and 2, the individual that can do backflip is the more talented individual.

Talent is an indication of potential. Potential means very little in the real world. I suppose you could easily deduce the individual with the most innate talent but what would be the point. Deliberate practice trumps talent.

+1

Sight read is easy to develop. If you have decent brain, and can count.

Play by ear, improvise, transcribe have the same based premise which is hearing ability. If one do not have good hearing, it will hard to develop this skill.

In general, normal people can play at decent speed if he or she practices.
Finger dexterity can be developed, but, of course, only up to certain level. You cannot expect that everybody will be able to reach Yuja's speed.

Memorization is just a matter whether you want to do it or not. Everybody can memorize if they have to. Some can do it fast, some will take awhile to memorize.

+2

in deference to google+

you know what this reminds me of? "if you have to ask, you're in no position to know". i actually don't remember the exact wording but i'm sure i've toned down the rhetoric already.

Is it that hard for people to be impartial to the topic creator and give their opinions about the topic?
anyway, I think it is an asinine topic as well, but it's annoying to read 12 posts of 'you're jealous so stop talking about this'.

I wasn't going to write anything but I started and I could not stop! My own personal opinions is that whatever level the type 1 has to have at these additional skills to be at the same level as type 2's pure technicality is totally arbitrary. We can still have opinions about it I suppose, but it's always going to be apples and oranges. It would seem to me that any person who excels at on thing is more likely to have natural talent than someone who is well rounded...Simply because of the fact that it's easier to improve at any skill by working on your weaknesses, and if someone has managed to get so good at one aspect then they may have some good reason to keep focussing on it...it's nice to stand out at whatever you do well. For comparison, a lot of soccer players like David Beckham spend hours after normal training just to perfect their free kick technique. We could guess that's how they got so good at it, but it's more likely they are gifted and want to see how far they can take it.

Yes, it IS that hard, because the topic is nonsense and can't be answered. Your brave attempt is one of the best, but even your good answer still makes no sense. Not your fault; you had no useful material to work with.

Ok, maybe my phrasing bothered you. So I changed the question to "Who impresses you more?", which is actually what I meant. Does that sound better?

If I want to hear a piece performed well I would be impressed with #2.

If I wanted to have something improvised, sight-read, or transcribed I would be impressed with #1.

Nora the piano cat is impressive, for a cat.

A while ago there was a similar question here.

And I answered, well, since I'm more of the #2 type, but switch sightreading with memorization, the #1 type impresses me more.

But if I'm the #1 type, #2 impresses me more.

It's just a case of grass is greener on the other side.

Neither. I prefer type three who plays musically and actually says something through their playing, which you've totally overlooked in almost every post I've read from you...

Interesting. Is the point of playing piano to be impressive? *cough*Liszt*cough*. Or is it the music itself? I recently had a lesson, and the teacher commented on some quick 16th note passages in my Mozart sonata. He said that when he heard me play them, he was thinking how impressive my fingers were and how even and fast it sounded. But he said he didn't want to be thinking about that, he wanted to be listening to the music. (Hint for me to slow down a bit and get past the technical aspect of it)