Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VIRTUOSO TECHNIQUE!!!

It is deceptive to say the potential is the same if the end result is the same, regardless of effort used to get there, because the amount of effort required affects the overall capacity of the person. For example, the less effort required, the more music the pianist can absorb, and that is often one characteristic of very talented young pianists - they can plow through a lot of music very quickly. And the more music they can absorb, the more cumulative knowledge about the art they will acquire.

I have to say that it strikes me as funny that the talent-deniers seem to believe in an undefined and complex mix of factors that result in a person who has what the rest of us call "talent", and the evidence for that rare mix is just as unquantified as is the evidence for the existence of talent. Exactly why the genetic makeup of a person (i.e., their innate characteristics) must be excluded from that mix is not clear to me.

I'm not sure if we take issue with the definition of those things, or the reason people have them. (Actually, as I type that, I realize you're right: it probably is a definition issue.)

On one side, it seems people believe that some individuals are born with this "gift" that allows them to succeed at whatever they do (in this case, piano).

On the other side, it seems people believe that their development and growth has led them to the place they are at, and if this development was fostered in such a way that it leads to facilitated pianistic growth, then it is a product of their life's experience rather than an innate gift.

I fall into the latter category (which, I think, is evident by my posts). It's not that I don't recognize people are born with slightly different genes; it's more so that I recognize that people are able to get where they want to go regardless of genetic makeup. (And that, to me, is the only place where "talent" might be proved to exist.)

I think the last discussion about "potential" was a great subset of the thread: it allowed me to express some of my thoughts about "potential" in a way that I had not been able to previously express.

So, now that we might agree the "potential" is the same, now we still must address the differences that cause some people to learn faster than others.

To me, it seems that the reason people learn faster is because they learned how to learn before/better than someone who learns at a slower pace. (Kind of like the idea of least resistance--those who learn more quickly have found that path of least resistance, while those who learn slower are on a parallel, albeit, resistive path.) Is there any potential for agreement on this idea?


I think this is a very important idea to clear up. Thank you for bringing it to light. I highlighted part of your quote in bold, and I would ask of this conclusion: does it? Or does it simply affect how much time it takes to reach the same capacity? I use as evidence the part highlighted in italics.

There is, of course, no denying the part that is underlined. I think we can all agree on that. My above comments merely address a timing issue, and not a quantitative one. I just wanted to point that out.


We did not entirely exclude it. What we said was that, if your genetic makeup prevents you from being able to reach the potential of a concert pianist, that you have a handicap akin to missing a hand. The idea there was to prevent exclusion based on physical characteristics, since we already determined that "talent" does not reside within the realm of those "physical characteristics".

If you disagree with this conclusion, I (for one) would be very interested in hearing your arguments.

Derulux,
You are "determining" conclusions here based on your own presuppositions (ie. that talent is independent of any physical characteristics or genetic endowments other than a disability so severe as to make the performance impossible or close to it) and then assuming that the issue is settled. Your argument is circular: by excluding everything other than learned or acquired skill as a factor in performance, you then argue that performance can only be based on acquired skill! It's a tautology. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I presented my arguments already. I'm not convinced by yours and I don't expect you are by mine either. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The conclusions I draw are based on conversation. Since no one has refuted the point, or in other cases, accepted the premises, I thought the matter settled. By all means, feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. I'm as happy to entertain logical thoughts as scientific evidence. What I'm afraid I won't entertain is emotion-driven belief. There's no argument against it. "It's what I believe, and that's that." I'm perfectly okay with someone believing in what they believe, but I'm equally okay disagreeing with them when I don't believe the same thing.

Wow this thing is still going on. Right when I was going to start another thread on an interesting topic I've been thinking about... Derelux seems to be taking on all comers. I would say he won the "talent" debate. No one certainly was able to beat my points especially Hakki, Polyphonist and the boys. Indeed better men have tried and failed but this person puts the nail in the coffin... Can we all be Mozarts?

lol

LOL I doubt that very much, but I'm certainly up for the discussion.

Nice article. I absolutely love this line: "...the intuitive teaching methods that became almost universally accepted hindered technical development...."

Couldn't agree more.

I really shouldn't have to explain this...

If we were all immortal, it wouldn't make any difference, because time limits would be irrelevant. But since we aren't, it does.

And taking it a bit further, as a subset of our lifespan, the years in which we are young are also limited, and those are the years in which we can learn things at very rapid rates relative to how fast we learn later in life. So the amount of time it takes to learn matters the most when we are learning the most, when we are young.

If it takes pianist A two years to learn a particular Beethoven sonata starting when they are twelve, and it takes pianist B two weeks to learn the same sonata at the same age, the potential capacity of pianist B can be extrapolated to be much greater than that of pianist A. Neither pianist has an eternity in which to accomplish whatever they are going to accomplish.


"We"?

At any rate, I don't remember anything like what you describe, and I am not going to reread the entire thread trying figure out what it is you might be alluding to. Whatever it is, it seems to be couched in purely negative terms, as if there cannot be any genetic advantages, but only disadvantages.

Since I don't know what you are talking about, I can only guess about its nature, but based on that guess, I will point out that genetic influence can be quite subtle. The field is still in its infancy, as far as what genome sequencing reveals. I had mine sequenced (just the SNPs, actually), and was surprised that studies revealed various things about me that I never would have previously thought of as being "physical" at all.

You are taking into account things which have been proven to be wrong. Adults learn very differently from children (for the most part), but they certainly don't learn slower. Here's one great article on the cognitive differences between adults and children:

http://www.exploreadultlearning.co.uk/cognitive-differences-adults-children-learning.html

Here is another from FSU: http://www.fsu.edu/~adult-ed/jenny/learning.html. Read, especially, the paragraph on "Intelligence and Aging." This sentence in particular: "It has been difficult for educators and researchers alike to give up the stereotype that young equals sharp and older means dull."

The biggest problem for adult learners is this one: "The greatest problems with memory for older learners occur with meaningless learning, complex learning, and the learning of new things that require reassessment of old learning. (1991)"

For most adults, they've either learned incorrect piano technique, improper practice routines, or both. Going back and fixing it as an adult requires a reassessment of learning, which is extraordinarily difficult the older we get. However, the ability to learn is still there in spades--unless, of course, you're taking the hypothetical situation of an adult who has never heard music. In that case, you do have a very strong argument. But I don't know a single adult who has never heard music.

Here's an article from eHow about the differences between pedagogy and andragogy: http://www.ehow.com/about_6368845_children-vs_-adult-learning.html. I think this is critical to your assumption that children learn faster. In the realm of teaching piano, most instructors only know one way: pedagogy. The teacher says, and the student does. But for adults, this approach doesn't work. Perhaps that is why so many believe the old paradigm to be true--when, in fact, it is the teacher's failures at understanding adult learning that cause the problem.


You don't have to. I did provide an executive summary immediately subsequent to the sentence you must have read.


This much, my friend, is quite obvious. And what I mean to say by that, is that it is clear you read for the sake of refuting, rather than for the sake of understanding.


I would actually like to do this when I can afford it. I am very interested in what the results would reveal. There was a great article I read about two years ago on the subject of genetic disorders and the reliability of genetic testing that turned me on to getting "tested". It was a hard copy article I don't have anymore, and I can't remember the name of the author. If I do remember, and you're interested, I'll shoot it over. (Might have been Reader's Digest, but I'm leaning towards one of the scientific journals I read regularly.)

There are many scientists now saying we'll have the entire genome mapped in the next 15-20 years. Wonder what we'll do then...

Adults most definitely learn certain kinds of things slower and/or much less well and/or almost not at all.

Derulux, what do you think causes different tastes, interests and personalities?

Absolutely, wr. Which is why I keep beating on the same drum about children who start lessons at 5 and are able to play very advanced pieces, and give public recitals by 8 or 9. As you said, we are all limited by time. And no child could accomplish such a feat within a few short years, or, to use your example, learn a Beethoven sonata in two weeks simply by "working really hard". After all, children do have other obligations: school, homework, and most important, play. So even if an average child spent 24 hours a day practicing, he or she could never achieve what these prodigies do. And I doubt these prodigies are spending inordinate amounts of time on piano (unless they choose to, or are being abused by their parents.)

I would ask my friend, Derulux, how do you account for savants? These people are developmentally disabled, yet have a prodigious talent within a narrow sphere. Would you deny that their talent is "natural", "innate", "<insert word of your choice>", and would you continue to insist that their aptitude was still somehow (mysteriously) acquired? If you accept that there are savants, why can't you move a bit farther down the spectrum, into what might be termed the "normal" area, and admit that there are prodigies; people who are developmentally normal, yet have an extraordinary facility in music, chess, mathematics, etc.? You act as though there is no evidence of these natural gifts, yet there are plenty of examples. I don't understand how you can cling to your position, even with ample opposing evidence staring you in the face.

I won't go back and forth. I'll just point to the studies. Most of what has been proven so far (at least that I have read) has to do with the way the information is presented, not the subject/"thing" itself.


I think this might be an interesting thread to create.. I don't want to completely change topics, so if you have a cyclical nature in mind behind the question, let me know what angle you're taking and I can draw it full circle from my perspective.

Preliminarily, I do think a lot of it has to do with what you're exposed to. I think it is difficult to find interest in something you've never been exposed to.


I've been wondering about that myself, through the entire course of the discussion, even though it wasn't specifically brought up. My ideas are still formulating, so this discussion may be more developmental than preconceived.

More than a decade ago, I had an idea that "disabilities" were, largely, a sign of a particular genius in an adjacent area. It was a similar idea to weightlifting: if you lift your biceps until they are massive, but never touch your triceps, you will develop an issue of balance that will lead to injury. When the muscle snaps, it never rebuilds in quite the same way. I thought of the brain like that--that people were showing signs of over-development in one area, but not its opposite, and, eventually, the brain "snapped" so-to-speak. I started writing a book on the topic, but it's sitting on a shelf somewhere, as yet unfinished. The research I did was very intriguing, but much of it is no longer readily available to my memory recall.

Why these people over-develop so quickly in one area escapes every study done on them (or at least, the ones I found and read). It seems to me that they learn how to learn that particular subject very quickly, and take an unnatural interest (borderline obsession) in it, which helps to fuel their motivation.

I met a man, quite recently (February, I think), who was Asperger's. He knew nearly everything about classic cars going back to 1900, but though the facts were there, he was clearly missing the ability to extrapolate ideas based on the information. He couldn't understand why those cars weren't in production today, and why we didn't see them on the road anymore, because they were "great cars". His fixation was impressive, really, but I got the sense that that was all he knew.

If someone were able to teach this person how to learn other subjects, or were able to instill a sense of interest in another subject, would he be capable of learning it, and would he actually take the time to learn it? I don't know the answer to that (I'm not sure that anyone "knows" the answer), but I do believe the answer would be yes.

I'm not sure if that example is on par with what you mean, so I'll use another one. Temple Grandin. She's high-functioning autistic. Through her life experiences, Dr. Grandin saw the world a little differently, and through that difference, was able to create a device called a "hug box" in order to calm autistic children. How did she invent it? She grew up around cows, saw that the cows were calmed when in a similar device, and one day, went into it herself. It apparently calmed her, and she thought others would be able to be calmed in a similar manner. (She has since gone on to other major successes.)

So, I believe a lot of it is in that distinct ability to "see things differently" than everyone else. Why does this ability develop? A product of experiences, an ability or disability in certain areas, a sum of exposure, interest, motivation, dedication, questions that pop up in the mind.. there are a million possible reasons. Picasso certainly "saw things differently."

Is this difference what you might consider "talent"? If so, I'm not convinced, but this is a new direction we haven't previously taken the discussion, and I'd be interested to follow it..

It's not a topic change, because these things are, like talent, dependent on the individual's brain.




True, it is impossible to be interested in something you've never been exposed to. Someone with the talent to become a great musician will never be a musician at all if music wasn't exposed to them.

BUT...

There's a difference between being exposed to a potential interest and actually taking on that interest once exposed to it. Not everyone who is exposed to books will love reading.

There's a difference between being brought up the way Mozart was and actually becoming a Mozart-level musician once brought up that way. You see?

It would be interesting to extend the more-time-to-learn-something-means-you're-less-naturally-gifted argument to actual virtuosos. Horowitz claimed ("claimed" being the operative word) to have practiced around an hour a day, whereas Claudio Arrau and Richter and others claimed to have practiced ten or fourteen hours a day at intensive points in their careers and several hours per day as the standard. We could take a very conservative estimate and say Richter practiced ~4 hours a day on average and compared to Horowitz's professed 1 hour. I imagine you can see where I'm going with this -- You could argue that Richter is rather a slow learner by this measure. If Horowitz practiced, say, 30,000 hours over his lifetime, it took Richter a shabby 120,000 hours to do the same. Anyway, however fast learners they were we don't compare the greatness of virtuosos based on "the time it took them." We end up more concerned with the practical consequences of whether their version of the Mephisto waltz was dazzling and wonderful.

Re: savants, there was another NYT article about child prodigies in math/music (sorry to keep bringing the New York Times into it). Child prodigies were studied across these multiple domains and it was found that in music, the children had IQs around the average; but one of the standout traits cognitively was that around 40% of them were on the autism/Asperger's spectrum. Children with autism frequently take a fanatical interest in a particular category of knowledge (e.g. how washing machines work, the Titanic, music) and acquire uncommon expertise in their obsession. But to me, when a seven year old child regales me with some obscure professorial information about the Titanic, I would attribute it to the fact that they were obsessed with the Titanic and read encyclopedia articles about it and watched PBS shows about it, rather than attributing it to the child's innate capacity to accumulate Titanic related facts. The fact is, it's not normal for a tiny child to feel like practicing the piano or violin for 5 hours a day during the early childhood period where muscle memory, etc. is being established. Most parents can't entice their toddler to quit throwing their toy off the edge of the high chair, much less to sit at the piano for long periods of time and learn a complex instrument and be engaged with it. To me it's fairly unsurprising that a child with a genetic pre-disposition toward excessive interest would acquire a skill like music exponentially faster than a typical child.

Here's a scenario you never hear:
"My 3 year old son spends hours and hours at the piano. He is fascinated with music and I just can't get him away. It's all he wants to do. I just can't break it to him that he simply doesn't have any natural talent for it. He tries and tries and can never learn Lightly Row."

I believe this is so much infinitely more important to creating art than your genetic raw material. For me, what makes Glenn Gould great is the choices he makes musically, to emphasize a particular note, or bring out a melody that was hidden in the music, or produce a stirring emotional effect that I hadn't encountered before in that music. The childhood wizardry stuff is great for him and everything, but it's not the place wherein the art lies, or the virtuosity for that matter (to me).

I think Horowitz was talking about much later in his career when he played infrequently and tended to play certain works repeatedly. In addition, Richter had one of the largest performing repertoires of any pianist ever, so that requires more time to learn than a smaller repertoire. So I think the comparison with number of hours is extremely flawed.

I think that's important is that both of them could starting from a very young age age probably learn pieces far more quickly than most people, even most professionals at a similar age.

I believe in the existence of prodigious and inexplicable gifts, not attainable if you’re not born with them. Yet, when it comes to a practical outlook on one’s own life and working with what each person has, the “gifted/ungifted” notion is mostly useless.

Anyway, the love of music is an extraordinary gift in itself—who knows why we love music? Where did it come from? Why do we find it intriguing and enchanting? – and so I don’t begrudge the hours of hard work and practice at all; I love music, I love working hard at it. Maybe it’s even more interesting to figure it out bit by bit, than to have it all handed over on a silver platter of instinctive brilliance.

What I find surprising now, is that the more I understand about music, the more I am able to understand. Innate capacity, whether prodigious or not, may not be a fixed quality.

Depends on what your goals are.

Notice I said, working with what you have. That should be a realistic guide for setting your goals.