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

I think I would first ask them if they're still practicing the same way they did in their teens. Chances are, the answer is yes. To see real results, one much change the process.


Ah, got it. When you said "ramifications," I thought you were implying a negative. Thanks for clarifying.


Seriously? haha I definitely didn't know that!


Now, this is an interesting idea. I like it, but I'm still trying to work through what it means. When you say "...talent is demonstrated by the capacity one has for the learning and understanding of music," would you also say something like this: Horowitz had a greater capacity to learn and understand music later in his career than when he was a child?

I'm surprised that if you're an elite sportsman, you believe that great sportspeople are mainly made, not born. The VO2 max that anyone can achieve, given optimum training, is largely genetically determined (assuming no medical help like EPO/blood doping etc). Which is why sportspeople can transfer so easily from one sports to another and achieve elite levels in more than one. In the London Olympics, there were two British athletes who previously competed at the Olympics at totally different sports. Not to mention an elite marathon runner who came out of nowhere, who started training at well after age 30. If you want to be a great sportsperson, choose your parents wisely.....(which is not the same as 'winning', which of course also requires single-minded dedication to training and avoidance of injuries etc).

High achievement in classical music is also transferable between different instruments (e.g. Julia Fischer). The aptitude (or talent) for playing music is also largely genetically determined. The vast majority of pianists will never achieve virtuoso level no matter how much they practise, or how well they're trained/taught.

I can't think of a single great pianist where the comments or biography about him said he worked harder, smarter, or longer than the other professional pianists of his time.

I can't think of a single great pianist where the comments or biography about him said he worked harder, smarter, or longer than the other professional pianists of his time.

That's certainly true about VO2 max. However, just because you can suck wind the best doesn't mean you'll be the best at your sport. It certainly helps, yes, but it doesn't determine the winner. Same for piano--having big hands, or being able to move your fingers faster than someone else, may help, but it doesn't determine your level of musicianship. How you train determines that, and that training starts the second you take your first breath (regardless of what the eventual endeavor is).

For example-- someone who eats 5000 calories a day from birth until 5 years old, and weighs 175 pounds, will not be as good a marathon runner as a 5 year-old who ate right and trained right for those five years. Over time, these things can equalize, but the more time you spend doing the wrong thing, the longer it takes to get to the result you want.


That's because of marketing (and subconscious human desire). The community has this unnatural adherence to the belief that one absolutely has to be a "child prodigy", that everything has to be "intuitive", or that everything has to come "easy" if one is to be great in the endeavor. Reality, however, is very detached from that belief.

I was just watching one of the Star Wars movies with my kids, it made me think of this thread! You've got the Jedi, I think it's Liam Neeson, who happens upon little Annikin in a used spaceship lot. He gets out his Force-O-Meter, which goes off the scales. The master Jedi gets Annikin out of slavery and off they go to some planet to apply to the conservatory ... I mean, to Jedi academy.

I agree generally with Derelux's point of view, although not with every point that he has made in this thread.

I think that playing a musical instrument even at a virtuosic level is a democratic quality, it is in the reach of everyone with normal physical and intellectual capacities. Not all things are the same in life, the apparently rare physical (genetic) potential to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds or to press 500 pounds is not comparable to music making which is basically a form of communication between human beings rather than an individual physical challenge. Yitzak Perlman couldn't haven't run as fast as Usian Bolt, but Usain Bolt could have been a virtuoso violinist.

Playing an instrument is more like love, physical sexual love, which is something that everyone can do marvelously when they are moved. And as with love there are a million things that weigh on a person and even turn this most elementary human activity into something apparently unapproachable. And similarly someone who seems completely unable and "untalented" can in another situation be brilliant.

I have a couple of friends, the wife came upon emails of her husband's mistress (of course she didn't know beforehand that her husband was "playing around") and she was astonished to learn that her boring and passive husband was capable of passion!

I believe that genious of all forms is something that is acquired. Einstein wasn't born a genious, he became one by hoisting himself to the level of certain problems that were posed. In any field not all problems demand such an accomplishment; once certain problems are resolved all other activity is necessarily of a lesser category and everyone else is condemned to appear less gifted intellectually.

If one day someone discovers a piano gene it will nonetheless be the case (as with all things genetic) that it is only of statistical relevance, that is to say that most people with this genetic trait will not be exceptional pianists, which is rather obvious, but also that most exceptional pianists will not have this gene. It will remain useless for the piano Jedi to get out their Force-O-Meters in hopes of selecting the best candidates to be the next ____________ ( fill in the blanc as you wish )!

I'm sorry, but... Perlman is not replaceable by any random person. You don't work your way up to a gift like that. It just exists. The hard work follows after, but it's the work of cutting and polishing the diamond.

Whatever talent you have, you get to cut and polish it, but not everybody gets a diamond to work with.

A gift like what, exactly? Can you quantify it? If you can't (and since it is art and not science, you probably can't ), then it is absolutely possible for someone else to be able to accomplish the same things. In such a subjective field, there is no "right" or "wrong". That's one of the beauties of art.

It is, however, also one of the major downfalls when people start trying to have "intellectual" conversations about art. The stuff was meant to be enjoyed, not intellectualized. So, those who seek to find "reasons" usually end up with "feelings" that they actually believe are real reasons, and that is a dangerous and slippery slope.

Oh please. You can't give a shred of evidence for your claims. Your "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" mentality conflicts with your own views. Go ahead, list off every single "variable" it took, in just the right way and at just the right time to make Mozart who he was and not just another musician. I want a detailed report of EXACTLY every variable, or else your views are hypocritical. If you could give me this kind of information, we would be able to apply his situation to anyone else and make them a Mozart.

I've been only glancing at this thread since it got into what it has gotten into .....but this thing you just said is quite something.

Derulux, you've gotten lost in yourself.

Something doesn't have to be "quantifiable" for us to know that it is so. And I'm sure you know that. You've been making up supposed bits of logic as you've gone along, and this tops it.

Yes, yes, Derulux, I can; just to satisfy your desire for proof. I was looking into some research about the nexus doni neurons in the brain (in layman's terms, "gift center") and researchers have been able to photograph it while activated. Accompanying it is a brief audio description of the mechanism of action. Here. Note that this anatomical feature occurs only in the brains of truly, innately gifted individuals.

Uh-oh... look at the time, I should be practicing...

Yep, there is always a significant chance of that.

My main point here is that art is qualitative, not quantitative--as well it should be. Yet, people get into discussions about the quantitative nature of art, and that position not only isn't tenable, but I think it detracts significantly from the art itself.

This has strayed somewhat from the "talent" discussion earlier, and though we've had the discussion many times before, I thought it strong enough to discuss (in part) again, while keeping it somewhat separate from the "talent" issue.


hahahahahahahaha well played, sir.

Nexus doni! Great stuff! Neurons ... and in the brain at that! This makes the whole thread worthwhile! Even gives a motivation to keep it going ...

I have been saying this the whole time.

Yes. I think the human gestation period is approximately 9 months - give or take.


So Horowitz, Rubinstein, Ax, Perahia, Gould, Sokolov, Zimerman, etc. are simply products of "groupthink", or expert marketing? They're merely "famous"?? Surely you jest.


I can't believe you wrote this. Can you not distinguish between "innate", "naturally gifted", "genetic" from "inherited"? We don't necessarily "inherit" the talents of our parents, and we may well be endowed with gifts our parents don't have. Many parents with little or no education have produced geniuses, and many brilliant parents have produced children who have only average intelligence, or are even developmentally disabled.

I'm a prime example. My oldest son graduated from U. of Chicago in physics, and was the first (maybe only) undergrad to be allowed to spend a year at CERN. He wrote software for "collectors", which measure debris from particle bombardments, and he graduated in 3 years. Now, let's look at mom and dad. Dad could maybe pull a B or B+ in math and science if he put in an inordinate number of hours studying, and mom barely got through high school because of her struggles with math (yet she aced all the "right brain" subjects").

So how would you explain my situation? Are mom and dad just lazy asses? My son studied very little, from the time he was 5 until he went off to college. He didn't have to, because he had a natural gift for math and science. And if you think he loved math and science, he didn't. He majored in physics because it was something he was good at, and he thought he'd try it out. But as soon as he graduated, he immediately went into software development (his true love), where he remains to this day. He couldn't care less about math and science.

This personal example would seem to contradict nearly everything you've said. A kid with only above-average parents sails through math and science his entire life, with minimal study time, and minimal interest in the subject matter. Where exactly does all this hard work and ambition and nurturing fit into this equation?

As would my personal example had I gave it. I won't go there though.

There are any types of intelligence and each may impact one's artistic abilities. For example a very small number of people have memories that allow them to remember every day of their lives. While there are tricks anyone can learn and use to improve their memory the fact remains that the number of people who can remember every day of their lives is very small and most of them came by the ability without learning any memory tricks. Certainly you'd agree that having a great memory allows one to be a better pianist (all other factors being equal with a great pianist).

Other types of intelligence that impact piano playing would be ear/hearing ability (doesn't everyone know at least one person who's tone deaf?), fine motor skills (aren't some people just naturally more coordinated than others?). I'm sure there are many more aspects of intelligence that bear upon pianism and/or musicianship in general, this addresses the question at only a macro level. I can't imagine that you think everyone starts with the same intellectual abilities, the evidence to the contrary is everywhere. I would say that most people have superior ability in some aspects of intelligence

That's because you're smarter than I am. Definitely TMI, but sometimes firsthand knowledge can be more convincing. Although I doubt that'll be true in this case.

I'm convinced of this.

But if you dig deep enough you'll find coal, and if you polish it well enough you can make diamonds! It's all just guesses anyways.