As a parent who is not musical, I have to rely on a teacher to tech my daughter how to play piano. The teachers at her piano school have said she is talented. What does that mean exactly for a 9 year old? Is it really unique to go through Alfred 1a and 1b in 4 months? To memorize pieces (harder than the Alfred books) or to play something (on a basic level) that she has heard but never saw music for? To hear notes on a piano and to name them?

My goal as a parent is to match her with an appropriate teacher and to see that my child is happy. To make sure that she has some time during the day to practice and that she has an instrument to use and that she gets to her lesson on time.

I am wondering if teachers motivate parents to support their child's music by using words like "talent".

Talent means different things to different people but it seems your daughter may have good ear. The pace she is moving through her books and her memorization are not unique though.

I never use the word "talented" unless it's true. I suspect your teacher is the same way. It's quite rare to get a talented student. Each has unique gifts to be sure, but it's rare to get the whole package in one child. For me there are several components to being talented:
1) emotionally interesting playing. Many people can play piano to a high standard, but musical playing is very difficult to find.
2) pays attention to details the teacher asks for.
3) good dexterity
4) ability to memorize
5) ability to sight-read
6) good inner pulse
7) interesting view of the world, good understanding of literature, art.
8) works hard and learns efficiently.
9) ability to communicate well
10) good tone

i have a very mediocre student who practices like a champ and is making pretty good progress. I would love it if she would 'end up' to be talented.

2 of my 4 students are pretty good.. they are sisters. the older one is really quite awesome, and the younger, would be incredible if she practiced more than 30 - 60 minutes a day.

HAy - (as they say in Kansas) Merry Christmas to you all. Happy Holidays, Hannukah, Kwanzai, etc.

General comment: I can't tell you the number of parents who have expressed this sentiment to me. Every time I hear it, I wonder, "What, are you nuts?" Parents' job raising children isn't to make them happy, it's to prepare them for adulthood. Well prepared adults generally have "happy" lives; ill prepared adults often suffer endless miseries. Well, I exaggerate some, but you get the meaning.

To OP: if your daughter's teacher is telling you she's talented, then your question to the teacher should be "What should my daughter and I be doing to develop that talent?"

Have you ever encountered anyone who fits all of this description? My goodness!

I'd be glad if my students have one or two of these abilities.

Your daughter may have perfect pitch, or was born with a good ear. She may have good aural memory (also a gift, or "talent"). But it is hardly unique for a 9-year-old kid to go through Alfred 1a and 1b in 4 months; in fact, that's sort of "normal" for that age. I've taught younger kids who moved along around that pace.

I agree with other posters' sentiment that you need to ask your daughter's teacher to help her develop that "talent." Get her as far as she can in terms of piano repertoire, and make sure she enjoys the journey.

For all of her extra curricular activities, I would rather her be happy with them than to be the mom yelling at their child to practice or to be the best and not care if she isn't truly happy. Right now, piano makes her happy. She loves to sit and play. She said out of all she does, piano relaxes her.

Without me asking, she practices throughout the day, she ensures she is prepared for her lessons.

It is the same with her other activities - I let her know I will pay for them and get her there on time, but she has to do effort and nothing is entered lightly - when she asked for years to play piano I let her know it is a 12 month commitment and requires her best efforts. When she felt ready to commit, I found a piano school/teacher.

In her main sport her coaches never say "talented" - they say she is a strong competitor, a hard worker and responds well to instruction. I suppose when "talented" is said I feel as though her effort is almost discredited.

I do think you are right though, I did not ask what additional support I could/should be providing her.

Candywoman,
Your list is easy to understand and if that was her teacher's list, I could understand better what she was saying. It makes more sense than a vague "talented".

sounds like you need to ask her teacher, " what exactly do you mean by that?"

AZN I've had about five talented students in fifteen years of teaching who would have most of these qualities. The top two both switched into violin. Many more of my students have had the potential but decided not to do what they needed to do. The most frustrating kids are the ones who really sound interesting, but who do not practice enough.

The word "talent" means "aptitude". Everyone has some degree of aptitude for learning to play piano. So to say a child is talented, is not really saying anything specific. It's just a general encouragement to the parent to continue lessons IMO.

I like this answer...

Each one of those can be achieved via good teaching and training. So how does one "get" a "talented" student? Do you mean a transfer student who has been trained well? I don't understand.

My sister and I each started piano lessons at about age eight or so. Fairly or not, our piano teacher always considered me to be the more "talented" between the two of us. Yet oddly enough, at any given point in our development she could just about every item on that list of ten things either a little better than me or a lot better than me, depending on the item and what age you're talking about.

The difference of course was her "talent" for things like practicing long hours, practicing what was assigned (instead of whatever she felt like at the moment), dealing with frustration and just generally a "talent" for giving a darn about the music. Those "talents" totally trump any supposedly innate feel or knack for playing that one might exhibit when starting out.

I think in some cases, the assessment of a young student's "talent" is basically short hand for how good a results he or she was able to achieve in the first couple years relative to the effort being put forth. My teacher used that label in an attempt to motivate me as in "You've obviously got a talent for the piano, it would be a pity to waste it by not applying yourself". In my case I took it to have the corollary "But even without working hard you can fake it pretty well".

Of course, unfair labels aside my sister does indeed have considerable musical talent that manifested itself in singing and playing not only piano but a couple other instruments beautifully to the current day. But I'm deeply suspicious of such labels as having any objective meaning.

I found this interesting, and nobody has picked up on it.

We read about parents wondering if their children are talented, pulling their kids out because they think they are "not talented enough", and older students getting despondent because they think they lack that magical ingredient which they call talent. This may be the reason why these teachers are quick to tell you that your child is talented, since it is what many parents are concerned about.

Your daughter seems to have a good attitude. She seems to commit to the activities she is involved in, and applies herself, and so she does well, and probably enjoys herself because of this. Apparently this is rare, if you read forums or talk to teachers. You will have kids where there is little support at home - t.v. blaring beside the piano, wild schedules that don't allow steady practicing, parents who forget lesson dates - or the wrong kind of pressure for impressive superficial results in the form of grades and competition wins, which alienates the child from the music. You're probably doing something very right.

You may want to know "Is there anything else that we should be doing?" or something more specific. Often teachers don't expect that kind of question. (I am a parent - my child is grown - and discovered this status quo after the fact.)

I noticed that everything you listed has to do with ear and memory. You did not mention the ability to read music. Even if there is sheet music, it is possible for someone with a strong ear and memory to memorize the music and largely bypass reading. Then this one skill doesn't develop. Any strength can create holes in other areas if you bypass them because you don't need them (but later you want to have them). If you want to ask about anything, it may be that. (Caveat: I am not a piano teacher, although keenly interested in what happens at the teaching side.)

My opinion is that it doesn't matter....whomever is going to stick out long term with the piano is the winner...

rada

My opinion is that we as teachers have a big role in the decision "to stick it out". One person gives up, another hangs in there for a year or two, another ends up sticking with music for life. We can't control this, but we can be a powerful factor.

I would agree with that, although most of the parents of my students ask, "Is s/he doing well?"

"Talent" is a relative term, impossible to define. I use it sometimes, but I probably use it more in the sense of "this child is thinking, moving ahead, getting things that most children do not."

And so on...

Thank you all for your thoughts! It is helpful to see that I ought to ask the question of her teacher.

One comment I overheard her tell my daughter is "Don't PLAY the piano, PERFORM the piano!" I'm not really sure what it means, but dd took it to mean to play any piano she passes and did an impromptu concert at a local store.

She does read music but is stronger memorizing pieces and playing from memory and messing around with her music by re-writing it to make it sounds better or different(a game she likes to play). I don't know how other kids practice but if I described what she does, I'd say she "explores" and "plays".

Again, thank you!

I would take it as a manner of encouragement unless it’s in the context of “your child is so talented I would like to recommend her to a master teacher” or something similar. I’m sure teachers use this word to mean different things and for different purposes. It depends a lot on what the “baseline” is in each teacher’s mind. For some, learning 3 new primer-level pieces a week is talented; for some others, learning 15 pieces a week is talented. For some, having the focus, the drive, the work ethic and the enthusiasm is talented; for others, being quick at learning is talented. I think after a while observant and thoughtful parents will form pretty good opinions about their kids’ abilities. I personally like matter-of-factly praises such as “you must have worked hard on this piece because it sounds so much better now”, instead of “wow you are so talented”, but the second kind could be a confidence booster for the kids if used well. In reality we hear the first kind mostly from the kids’ teachers, and the second kind from strangers.

As a parent, I also agree with you about setting the goal at “being happy”----as long as “being happy” is not the goal in EVERYTHING. Kids don’t need to work as hard as they can on everything they do. If they work hard on some things, that’s quite enough. They can have leisurely pursuits alongside one or two serious pursuits. And for most piano students, piano is indeed just a leisurely pursuit.

Just for fun...
Watching the video she was able to point out her mistakes. It was the first time she played in front of anyone but us and her teacher so she was excited and a little nervous. She just completed her 4th month of lessons.

No it doesn't work. The video is probably set as private.

I just marked it as public.

I get a still picture, not a movie.

Ha ha! I can try this, but then I will give up.

Still unavailable.

Well, if teachers say she's talented then she probably is.

You need confidence in your daughter's teacher. Find some other very "talented" kids and ask who the teacher is.

Best Wishes!

P.S. Get a teacher who is a good PLAYER as well as a good teacher.

liszt85: I think a lot of these can be taught but most students will lack in several areas. I haven't had much success teaching dexterity to those who lacked it. A person lacking imagination at seven usually lacks it ten years later, in my opinion. Imagination will be a strong point in creating interesting playing. I have heard several university professors of piano play piano in a most dull fashion. I don't think imagination can be taught. Some people just come from more interesting family backgrounds, and some are innately more curious.

When you are growing up people always tell you you can be anything you want to in life, you need only apply yourself. It's not true.

I agree with you. Keeping that in mind is what I call a "reality check".

HOWEVER:

Where things go *really* is when people tell us, often when we are small, often later, "You have no talent at X. Pick something else."

So we, as teachers, can miss the mark either way. We can be overly optimistic, producing false hopes, or we can be cautiously pessimistic and misjudge in a way that is both negative and crippling.

I moved some things on youtube and here is the upload from them. ha ha, with all of that effort, I think you will be disappointed. I have no doubt she has the best piano teacher at this school - they matched her with their strongest piano teacher.

If you don't mind a slight hijack with a technical question...

I notice in the video she moves her wrists up and down noticeably as she plays. My nephew (who is several years older than your daughter) plays exactly that same with with the up and down movement. Is that a "kid thing" or do a lot of adults do that as well?

My arms tend to stay more still, or rather most of my arm motion is side to side. Just curious.

Brent, that is something that is taught by some teachers. I have a feeling that it is taught more to children starting out than to adults doing the same. (Actually (teachers) I am suddenly curious about this.(

To the OP: Is your question actually the one in the title, or are you wondering why the word "talent" is being used by her teacher and whether that is common? Are there things you would like to hear instead in terms of feedback? In fact, are you getting anything concrete in feedback? ("Don't just play - perform." to me is not very concrete either.)

MaggieGirl, for how long was she learning or practising this piece before the performance? Is she given only one or two pieces to learn to play well over a longer period, or lots of pieces. (To get a picture)

She started with 4 or 5 recital pieces the end of October I think. As she progressed, some were put aside as too simple. The week before she had two pieces left for the recital The Blue Danube and this piece. She felt more comfortable with this - the shorter piece (her teacher let her make the final decision). She has 30 minutes a week with lessons and was halfway through the 2nd teaching book when recital prep started. She also gets photocopies of music to learn and has a new book (not a teaching book but a book of music that is just more interesting for her to play). She gets a lot of "homework" - sometimes 3 pieces and sometimes as much as 5-7. Some don't go away (The Blue Danube).

I will have to disagree with you. There is no such thing as "lacking dexterity". As long as the person has normal hands and a normal functioning brain, he/she can be taught to play the piano with dexterity. Our failures as teachers do not necessarily prove "dexterity cannot be taught to those who do not already possess it", it only points to something that we're doing wrong.

What you say about some people being innately curious may be true and that is most certainly helpful. However, I will have to completely disagree with you when you say that dexterity and imagination cannot be taught. Also, people are absolutely right in telling children that they can be anything they want when they grow up because it is true in a huge number of cases, except in the cases when it entails being financially successful in a competitive market, when luck enters the equation. So for instance, someone can be a top notch pianist (and as a child, may have been told that he/she could be a top notch pianist if he/she wanted to) but he/she may not be financially successful because that requires a certain amount of luck.

liszt85: But that's just my point. What are normal hands? I have found normal hands can lack dexterity. For instance, I taught a brother and sister for roughly nine years each. They were dutiful students but their dexterity was similar and not very good. I do not subscribe to the theory that if somebody has poor dexterity it points to me doing something wrong. If that were so, my other students would show the same problems, which they don't.

As for being whatever you want, I see more and more that a child's family life really affects his career prospects. You may believe that to be a doctor, you only need the desire and the right marks. But if you are the child of a doctor, you also have social skills and ways of thinking that your competitor (for a spot in med school) does not have. Very often, you've grown up hearing conversations about your parent's day. You may be accustomed to taking many expensive trips to far off destinations which gives you an edge socially in moneyed circles. What others perceive as resultant confidence may in fact be a well-established sense of entitlement. Plus your parent may actually help you get the spot through direct conversations with their colleague who's doing the interviewing. And of course, you will have the right amount of money to pay for your education and many perks like tutoring, a car so that you don't waste time fighting the bus system, a parking spot at the university, and a condo which your parents pay to have cleaned so that you have more time to study. So other people may get the spot, but you sure as heck have a better chance of doing so.

Being a financially successful concert pianist may require more than luck. It is a skill in itself.

Gaining an edge in a competition is one thing. Learning to express yourself musically is another. Music is not a competition, no matter how many people prefer to pretend that it is.

In fact, I am appalled and dismayed at the extent that playing piano or any other instrument is constantly referred to as a competitive activity. No wonder participation in music making attracts and retains an ever-smaller proportion of young people in our society. The whole concept of judging and awards and grades sucks the joy out of what can be a lifelong source of pleasure and uplift.

Normal hands are normal hands without deformities: hands belonging to 90% or more of the population. Give me a pair of those and a normal brain (not disease inflicted, is all I mean by that, and preferably early in its developmental stages so that other people haven't had a chance to screw with it) and I guarantee you that I can teach them dexterity. I guarantee you further that with the right exposure to the right musical environment, this set of brain and hands can be taught to play excellent piano by a highly accomplished teacher. Your failure to do that absolutely points to something that you're doing wrong because your argument that "other students don't have that issue" is not a valid one. The reason is, people are different. Dexterity is not where they are different, its in the brain that they might be different, and so it takes different teaching techniques to teach the same thing to two different people. If you've been using a generic teaching method for everybody, that's where your fault is. The first step towards success is to accept responsibility and not to blame it on the student's lack of dexterity because there is no such thing. Dexterity comes with training the brain in the right way and you've got to figure out the right methods to train two different brains. Brains are different because they've undergone different environmental exposures because they've been brought up under different circumstances. However, both brains have equal capacity to learn. It is up to the teacher to figure out the best method to use for each. So yes, it absolutely points towards your incapability, sorry.

As for your arguments about parents knowing people in high places, sure that might help. Then again, if you looked at many billionaires and their lives, you will find that many of them rose to riches from rags. If you want examples of pianists, you only need to google for a couple of minutes. Dang Thai Son for instance was born into the Vietnam War. His mother was a pianist who gave him some Chopin to listen to. That is how he started playing the piano. They lived in the mountains, running from the war. Lang Lang lived in pretty sobering conditions as well. Many many more examples. So your theory doesn't really work. People really can achieve more than you think they can, if they set their minds to it. Maybe that's the issue with your students who "do not possess dexterity"? Maybe you don't believe in them enough to make that effort to teach them slightly differently?

liszt85, are you a piano teacher?

I don't teach for a living but I teach 2 kids and an adult (just friends/acquaintances and their kids). Why do you ask? Does any of what I said depend on my being a teacher currently?

Your claim to be able to teach dexterity to any normal person would have more credibility if you had taught many students.

I have taught (successfully) in the past. I've taught many adults (peers of mine in college) with apparently little dexterity and they've done alright (but you only have my word for it, so I don't know what purposes this conversation serves). In any case, I still maintain that the reasoning given in that post holds regardless. Now, if you want to focus on the reasoning given there, maybe we'll have something to talk about. If all you want to see are my teaching qualifications, I have nothing more to say to you because its irrelevant and it shows that you are not really interested in the crux of the matter.

But liszt85, there are so many factors that go into teaching. In the case I've outlined, for instance, the boy suffered from depression for years. This was diagnosed when he was 16, but I felt he was already depressed at 6 years of age. As for the girl, she did very well until she hit puberty, and then she actually went backwards (the first case I've ever had of that). If these kids had lived up to my expectations and practiced extra amounts to overcome their dexterity issues, sure, I could have had better results. But in the real world, kids have to want to overcome their weaknesses and sacrifice something else to do so. So my original point still stands. There are only a small number of talented students who have the ten points I outlined.

A few anecdotes of people who beat the odds do not negate my point. In fact, they support it. I said one could still become a doctor but a child born into the right circumstances would have a better chance.

I "believe in" my students, but it takes something on their part, and their parents' part which goes beyond my input, and far beyond my "belief" in them.

And incidentally, I knew I couldn't be anything I wanted to be at thirteen when I was asked to pick potatoes for a day. The farmer let me go by 11:30am despite all my efforts. Years later I filled out a computer career questionnaire which resulted in the conclusion that I would be a successful potato farmer. This was hilarious to me. For your theory to be correct, I'd have to be able to be a potato farmer (ie. anything I want to be) but I'm clearly not up to the task. Desire has less to do with career success than people would like you to believe.

On the highest level, competitions lead to piano competitions, international, which turns playing the piano into something that more resembles an Olympic sport than art.

And at least one winner of such an international competition totally agreed with me, saying that he had to deliberately throw away everything that was "him" in order to win it.

I've stayed out of this topic because there are two many different ideas being explored...

liszt85, I take your word for your teaching experiences. Thank you for answering my questions. I don't understand why you would think that my interest in whether you have experience or evidence to back up your assertions means I am not interested in "the crux of the matter."

Oh, I made that assumption because its those people who usually try to go that route even if its irrelevant to the core point being made.

Candywoman, I continue to disagree with you but since its evident that I can't convince you to adopt my POV and since you can't convince me to adopt yours, I will stop here.

I normally don't post here, but this post struck a chord with me. Although I have normal / average dexterity when it comes to playing the piano, I have below-average coordination in other respects. Most physical activities were discourging experiences that I gave up on sooner rather than later.

That changed when I found an activity that I loved and a great teacher to match. After watching me for a while, she essentially said something very similar to Candywoman. Compared to other people, my muscles respond slowly and don't work together very well. If I wanted to stick with it, I would have to do a lot of extra exercises and work a lot harder than the others -- And this was just to keep up, not to excel. She said I needed to think about that and, if I still wanted to do it and was willing to work without getting discouraged, she would help me. I accepted, we're working hard, and I couldn't be happier.

Sometimes it's very helpful to be told about our weaknesses -- to know that problems don't stem from lack of intelligence or effort. And once the problem is named, it's easier to work on a solution -- or, in some cases, decide whether or not the solution is worth the effort to that particular person.

I'm sure all of the teachers here already know this and when to apply it. I just wanted to reiterate it because it can make a profound difference for some people.

I have a 5 year old student who can played back an Adele song to me after hearing it on the radio - She is also preparing for the level 2 exams, can play all her scales hands together and cam memorize extremely fast.

She also practices over an hour a day on her own....she is a pleasure to have in my studio - But I am sure there are hundreds of 5 year olds like her in this world with 7 billion people...

So, talent + hard work + a good teacher is a good equation

Good teacher + hard work + average talent is also a good equation

I would just seek out the best teacher you can find, not worry so much about the 'talent level' of your child and encourage her to study a lot if she truly shows a passion for it.

I would be happy if 1% of my students want to overcome their weaknesses and sacrifice something else to do so. The fact is, there are so many other activities out there that do not require hard work and offer instant gratification. The great majority of kids (and their parents) do not realize that piano is hard work, and you won't get good at it unless you put in the practice between lessons.



I agree with you on this point. I actually have to battle the parents more than the students, especially during my time teaching in the public schools. Most kids are fine, but for the problematic kids--as soon as you talk to their folks, you know where the problem comes from!

I think you are onto something here. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that shies away from telling people their weaknesses, which makes teaching such a difficult career because teachers must always navigate the fine line between being helpful and being hurtful.

It is seldom necessary to tell someone that such-and-such is "a weakness". The simple tact of suggesting a needed change or improvement in a positive manner instead of criticizing a shortcoming or failure as such is much more effective...

This is beginning to get into semantics.

My students definitely have weaknesses. I have weaknesses. We all do.

But we all also have strengths.

What should we say, for instance, to students who are weak in rhythm and who do not realize that this weakness exists?

Obviously rhythm becomes the "elephant in the room" if other basics are on track and developing well.

But I don't think I would say, "You have a rhythm weakness."

I would say, "We need to get this skill up to the same level as the others, because no matter what else you do right, without a steady beat, a sense of rhythm, music will remain nothing but a 'bunch of notes' until we add this."

There is something more important here, to me:

On many occasions I have been told that I have been "weak" in something, the idea being that I would never succeed, that I could only be, at best, mediocre.

In almost all cases that has not been true.

A very wise person once said to me:

Don't ever point out a problem unless you have a solution.

I think there is a great deal of truth to that.

That's what I've noticed about the best teachers (of any subject) I've had over the years. If there's an "elephant in the room" that I need to deal with, the good teachers present a solution rather than just stating the problem. And to emphasize, they say something along the lines of the "The single biggest improvement you could make right now..." rather than "The single biggest thing you need to work on..." which sounds like almost no difference at all but I'm pretty sure most people respond better to a chance for a big improvement than to hearing about a big problem.

I've been around the block a few times and am generally aware of these things. But they work anyway, at least to a certain extent. There was one music teacher I had who always, always stated things positively. Like stuck to it religiously. At one level I had to kind of chuckle at how careful they were to find a positive way to state something that in truth was really lacking. But the end result was I stayed very motivated and moving forward always with that teacher.

I think the key is being positive, and the exact words are not important.

I might say that a student has a "weakness". Or I might use a different word. But if that student feels my support, trusts me, and knows I see the "glass as half full, not half empty", it's all going to click, I think.

Also, I regularly make fun of my "weaknesses". One is that I can sight-read and nail something in almost zero time, with music, so memory comes much more slowly. And I actually memorize much faster than all my students, but it is still a *comparitive* weakness for me.

The point is that we all have different strong and weak points, and so long as that idea is presented positively, I don't think semantics play much of a role.

When I was a kid and in the Boy Scouts some of the dads helped out, going along on the occasional camp-out and such. One of them, who was well intentioned I'm sure, could not help but start out any explanation with "You're going about it all wrong. Here let me show you how to do it". But always that phrase "...going about it all wrong..." which I think of as the perfect example of how not to teach someone, especially a child!

Perhaps "weakness" was not the correct word to use. People seem to have understood what I meant, though.

I guess I was referring to the weaknesses that we are aware of, on some level -- where we feel that we are lagging behind others in some obvious way. (Clearly, perception comes into play here.) It can turn into negative self-talk, i.e. "I'm just bad at this".

When a teacher pinpoints the problem and offers to work with you, especially when other teachers have missed it in the past, it can make such a difference. Suddenly, everything seems more possible.

Of course, there are varying degrees -- Some problems can be significantly improved by a few weeks of exercises, while others take long-term intensive work. This is where some people may decide that it's worth the effort or not.

I didn't mean to imply that this needs to be talked about in a negative way or discouraging way. The best approach would depend on the individual student, and you all know your students best.



Love this quote.

But what if it's a problem that doesn't have a solution? Can we at least talk about it?? Maybe only after talking about the problem will we come to a solution.

Now, that's more food for thought.

I'd like to address the things that came up in the discussion between Candywoman and Liszt85. There was a lot there.

First there are the realities brought up by Candywoman which do exist and are real factors. Entry into a profession or even a good school may be easier if you have the right people-background, and unfairness happens. The inability to get a decent instrument or a teacher because of money will affect what you can do regardless of talent or dedication. A willing student with non-ideal parenting will have obstacles. A teacher may know exactly how to help a student, but if the student won't cooperate because of attitude, fears, interference from family or friends, it won't happen. Or a student may diligently follow bad instruction of a poor teacher.

This IS a factor. The reality is that a portion of our energy and efforts go into spinning our wheels, going in wrong directions and backtracking. We have to fight through obstacles such as the ones above, and the time we spend doing that is time that we cannot devote directly to our learning or our teaching, (depending on whether we are teacher or student). Knowing what needs to be done isn't enough if we cannot then do it. It does help to know that few people had clear sailing and even the great and famous faced idiocy.
***
The other side are these "factors of talent". People may have gifts in some areas but not in others. Somebody may have natural dexterity and easily follow instruction so that his playing sounds musical in an imitative way. Another may be so musical that what he feels will transport his playing to some degree, but he may also be "un-dexterous" so that the music likes trapped within because the body is stuck. I was once taught that we should not be passive about what is there, but rather to work with and shape it. I.e. if we "are" good readers and poor memorizers, we don't just use those things - we develop what is lacking. If we try to learn or teach good music and make that our goal, we may end up using what we have, with our weaknesses staying what they are. If we also shape our strengths and weaknesses, then this part changes.

I am relatively "undexterous". have a strong musical instinct and passion, and was untaught for decades. The result was that I forced what I felt in the music, hurt my body, and stayed limited. The job right now is to address this, by looking at what is going on more specifically. That includes learning how to balance my weight on the bench so that the strain doesn't come into my arms, move differently -- seeing what the hands alone are doing is not enough. As the body begins to function better, it starts going into more musical playing. If you are stuck physically and have to jerk your fingers loose, will you be able to play with good timing and sound?

If the problem is in how you hold yourself, then addressing the fingers alone won't do it. If the problem is that you are confused about which notes to play so that you tense up from confusion, then addressing the body won't do it. If the problem is that you see everything at once and haven't had the chance to get at the details, ditto. The people who do very well in music and were taught in childhood may have had good teachers who did not mess up their abilities, and brought out the balance of what they need. There are also talented people who were hurt by what they were taught. Some play well despite the obstacles, and some may end up having to retire early because of the strain it puts on their bodies. Almost everyone I've talked to who became a professional musician has had to address, at some later time, the weak spots that were missed and often it seems that the greater the talent, the greater the imbalance.

The point is that a large number of them come from modest backgrounds. Take all the famous (best) pianists that you know, do a little google search on their biographies. You will see what I mean. The people you observe everyday might display a slightly different pattern. The people you consider successful may very well have been born into successful families (However, I have observed many people rise from poverty to be very successful, so my experience is different from yours). At the very highest levels of success (CEOs of the most successful companies, greatest pianists, etc), you will find stories of hardship.




As 2) above says, you were untaught for decades. That is exactly why you feel you are "undexterous". You never were taught how to play with dexterity, so you believe you never had it "in you" (which is in a way true because this really is something that is learned, for the average person. There very well may be exceptions but those differences will go away with good teaching as well. So I really don't think "natural dexterity", even if it exists, is a significant factor at all).

3) would be simpler if you assumed that people started out similar, with individual differences in all these different factors. Someone might be more dexterous but the less naturally dexterous person might be a more curious type. The less naturally dexterous student might come from a family that plays music all the time in the house. So the less naturally dexterous person might even start with an advantage over the more naturally dexterous person. So there is no point comparing these things at the beginning. It is solely the teaching (and the environment in which the child grows up: one needs supportive family for example) that ensues that will decide whether or not the student will be successful.

Um, actually, I haven't mentioned my own experience. I am not sure that you caught my point which I set out carefully in paragraphs so the whole idea would not be lost. It is that one side of the learning equation involves circumstance. This is what Candywoman pointed out. It is a factor in both teaching and learning. You may know what needs to be done, but you also have to be able to do it. Simplistically, you may know that to play piano well, you need a piano. You can't practice piano unless you have one.



No, I do not feel that I never had it "in me". I tried to state that at this time in my life, if a teacher observed me play, they would see things that they might consider "undexterous". But that should not be taken as the be all and end all of what I can do for exactly the reasons that you stated. The task of the teacher and student at that point is to ask what is missing, or where is the obstacle, and then work with it. "Lack of dexterity" says nothing. I've already given some hypothetical examples.

It is true, however, that some people are more athletic or more coordinated than others. The thing is that as a teacher you start with what is there, and work with it. That is what teaching is: developing a student. We start off with:
- innate abilities
- potential which is also innate
- things we cannot do yet
- things we fall into naturally which simply needs to be tweaked
- things that we may do or approach clumsily where there is a better way
- things we sense or just seem to know so we recognize it easily
- things that we are clueless about, but once we catch on (by being taught) we can grow in that area too

Or... someone's student has the above attributes.

I think that we may well be saying the same things.

With all due respect when one is holding forth in great detail on teaching approaches, learning styles and declaring rather categorically what does and does not work in teaching piano students...

Perhaps a disclaimer in ones .sig that says NO PROFESSIONAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE might be, in fact, more helpful to the reader than having a professional teacher declare his or her affiliation. Kind of like on the TV commercials where they depict a guy in a lab coat and stethoscope but with a disclaimer in tiny print "Actor Portrayal, Not An Actual Physician".

Candywoman wasn't talking about such circumstances. Even if she was, I would still argue that with enough will power, people can find (and have found in the past) ways to overcome these obstacles.

I believe you missed my point completely as well.

How about "Plenty of professional experience being taught by good teachers?" or "Plenty of professional experience in developmental and cognitive Psychology?" or an entire array of such useful qualifications? Would that be helpful to you? Do you have something useful to say? Lets hear counter-arguments rather than ad hominem attacks (or recourse to appeal to authority).

Your points seemed the same as mine. When I write in paragraphs I am knitting related ideas together. If you take that as a whole, and if I take yours as a whole, we're saying the same thing. Note that I said "simplistically" as in over-simplification.

On second thought, nevermind. Not my problem.

Or business, that's exactly right.

That would describe many successful musicians I know. I would hope much of it applies to me! Which of these attributes do YOU lack (if music isn't your main thing, substitute ones appropriate to YOUR area of expertise and accomplishment)?

The important thing is that these attributes are not necessarily all there in someone who is starting out. You don't say about a beginning student that he doesn't "have" this or that - you develop it, and make sure you don't destroy it. The whole thing about a student taking lessons is that the student starts off not knowing things, and not knowing how to do things. The discussion is about students, not trained musicians.

1) emotionally interesting playing. Many people can play piano to a high standard, but musical playing is very difficult to find.
Can a beginner play emotionally interesting even if he feels things, if he has little control? Will it not become more interesting when he gets a couple of musical tools, so that he can also tweak it that way?
2) pays attention to details the teacher asks for
That can be there from the start. Let's hope they're the right details.
3) good dexterity
What happens if the student is not given a good setup, has a poor instrument at home, or if he is given crippling over-instruction?
4) ability to memorize
5) ability to sight-read
I understand that one can negate the other unless care is taken.
6) good inner pulse
Is it taught, innate, or both?
7) interesting view of the world, good understanding of literature, art
In a child? And if that child does not have the opportunity, such as being in a poor school so he is not exposed to things, does that mean he is untalented? Might this be substituted with "curiosity" and "inventiveness" for a small child? After all, curiosity leads to exploration leads to the rest.
8) works hard and learns efficiently.
This goes together with being taught well.
9) ability to communicate well
Again - in a child?
10) good tone
Can even a talented and dexterous student produce good tone from the start? Will he tend to get there faster since he's more likely to aim for it and is actually listening?

I teach beginners a piece called The Boatman from Leila Fletcher early in their program. Some play it beautifully and some play a stiff or loud, unmusical version of it. The former have talent, and the latter may develop talent, but do not have it at the moment.

For the seventh point, absolutely there are children who understand art/literature better than others. Some have visited art galleries, some live in very unmusical, but clean and modern, homes. (I call these kids, suburb kids. In many cases, they have not run into anything approaching an artistic life.) I agree that curious or inventive could be a separate point, but not in place of this point.

Absolutely, there are children who communicate verbally and musically in a far superior manner at six than other kids do at fourteen.

There are too many things to address, but I'll start with this one:



First, I need to state what I think is good tone: Solid touch. Well-shaped melody line. Good dynamic balance between melody and accompaniment. No sudden harsh tones. No unwanted accents or "notes that are pressed down but did not sound."

Yes, talented kids can produce good tone within the first year of lessons. However, there are two basic requirements: the student must be physically big/strong enough to muster a deep sound from the piano, and the piano must be decent.

Talented students can hear the sound they want to project, and will adjust their fingers to coax the right sound out of the piano. Some younger students will be physically limited by their light fingers and weak joints. Double-jointed students will have some difficulty getting the tone they want, no matter the age. So, "talent" in this case involves some physical requirements, too.

Thank you, AZN. That is roughly how I was thinking it would be. I am thinking first of all as talent being defined as something innate which might be brought out in lessons, but it is there in the first place. I can identify with trying to project a sound and then coaxing the fingers to do so, and it makes sense.

Besides a decent instrument and things like strength and flexibility, I imagine that teaching can be a factor too. For example, if there is poor teaching like telling a student from day one to curl the fingers, the talented student might injure himself more since he would actually be trying hard to produce the right sound by doing the wrong thing. In other words, talent is not a magic thing that makes everything go right.

Wait, so curling the fingers is wrong? I read that the fingers are supposed to be curled like holding a small ball or something. I'm asking this sincerely as I don't know, I have my very first lesson next Monday. Im expecting my teacher to flame me for flat fingers which I know is a habit I have picked up from self teaching for the last 2 months.

Sorry to hijack the thread, I'm just a bit confused.

Neil.

Your teacher will tell you what they want you to do, and whatever you've been doing you're not going to be able to change it in a week. You are paying your teacher to help you, so wait until then and they will tell you if you need to change anything. Sometimes flat fingers are appropriate, sometimes more curved. And some people's curved is tense and could cause injury, so to say "curve your fingers" on a forum isn't necessarily helpful. Same is true for flat fingers.

Understand keystring's example was not meant to be taken as specific advice for you.

It's like "keep your head still" when swinging a golf club. Sometimes that is indeed a key swing thought that will help someone quit swaying around out of control while trying to hit the ball. But for someone who is rigidly tense and nearly immobilized from fear of making a wrong move, trying harder still to avoiding moving ones head leads to even greater problems.

The idea of "developing talent" seems very strange to me.

Any discussion of talent reminds me of the famous phrase:

But I know it when I see it...


I realize we are talking about talent, not obscenity, but the idea is similar.

There is a tendency to make blanket statements about concepts that absolutely defy definition.

It seems to me that we are talking about ways to develop skills that allow people to express talent, whatever that is.

One doesn't have to be big or strong to get good sound out of the piano. I'm surprised that there are teachers who work with this basic premise, a faulty one at that. I'm not surprised then that they find that most of their students are "untalented".

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a professional teacher but I know when I see one.

I got one of those transfer students. He would curl the fingers (the final joint) inward past the vertical. Ideally, the final joint should point straight down, or even a little forward to allow the "pads" to be in contact with the key. Sometimes playing with flat fingers is correct! Curling fingers inward is never correct.

Did anyone say that? If you want to quote people, read more carefully. Don't put words in people's mouth.

Where have I misquoted you? Please do tell.

and.. it's amazing what a little time will do. My untalented student is really making remarkable progress, after the first few months of stagnation. Perhaps her brothers quitting piano contributes to her new enthusiasm.. will she ever be a piano genius? probably not, but she sure is happy with herself and her playing now.

This month is 'spanish' music month. ole!

malaguena for relative beginners is quite a nice piece.. the chords are wonderful.

I think someone famous said "The more you practice the more talented you become".
I think talent emerges from focused hard work which most students do not want to invest the time in (or students do not have the time because of too much of activites in their life) and then you find a few students who are like gems who bother to follow instructions instead of arguing with you.