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

But it's not an either or. It's both.

I certainly agree!

Well, yes, but what we have here is someone asking for evidence that the "nature" part even exists!!

When Yehudi Menuhin played some concerts at a very young age no one made comments like "he must have practiced a lot or his parents enocuraged him or he had fantastic teachers". They said things like "An angel came down from heaven".

Double post deleted

Yeah, I remember that. I'm not sure I'm the one who responded with that remark. We are basically the same as chimpanzees, too, with very few differences--yet those differences are critical.

If we want to side-track into a discussion of brain chemistry, intelligence, etc, I'm okay doing that. But let's start another thread for it. I think trying to discuss "talent" alongside those other topics might be difficult to follow.

Unless you are considering "talent" to mean "intelligence" or "brain chemistry", in which case I think you may have much more solid ground on which to stand. I'd probably even support that proposition, depending on the angle you took.


I didn't suppose you thought that. I think our conversation has been pretty academic and enlightening, at least for me.

I think these "greats" have a unique combination of intelligence, approach, and determination that gets them where they want to go. I don't classify this as some "innate" thing they've had since birth, but rather something they learn and develop as they grow. One possible exception is genetics--which I partially conceded to Joel--but I'm not sure I would necessarily classify genetics as "talent". Is this a meaningful direction to explore? If so, I'd be happy to do so..


I'm glad you brought up love. Hasn't that been proven to be a base chemical reaction in the brain? I think there was one (hopefully facetious) study that linked "love" to "attachment disorder". I'll have to find it.. not for the sake of a serious discussion, but for humor.

On a more serious note, I wish I could say what that evidence would look like. As yet, I've seen nothing that could qualify, so I can't even say "we're on the right track here." Maybe the genetics discussion is heading in the right direction? I'm not sure..?


Thank you. Yes, I know--sometimes I say some pretty unpopular things for the sake of academic discourse.


I think you bring up some very good points here, but I'm not sure that they help you. When we consider "great" pianists, we are also technically considering "popular" pianists (in that they are well-known). For one to reach the performance stage and gain that popularity, one has a MUCH better chance by starting at a young age-- from a sheer marketing perspective. So, I'm not sure that even that could be considered an isolated incidence.

I'm a little short on time with this response--I would like to get into more details with you. But I quite literally have to run out the door. I'll return later.

Update:

Thanks for the patience, and sorry I had to run out mid-reply. I like very much the, "I know it when I see it," idea because it implies that there is an actual reason, but that we don't consciously recognize what that reason is. This is the first step towards realizing that there is something special going on. Unfortunately, I think most people stop there, call it "talent", and then call it a day. But we can dig so much deeper--we can discover exactly what it is we "see". Perhaps, if it were to seem interesting enough, we could start a thread to analyze the skills and background of some famous pianists and see if we can't find some common denominators? I should think this might be an intriguing academic study for those interested.


I would argue most famous pianists fall into this category. How old was Yuja Wang the first time she touched the keys? I think we can say she is just now coming into the pinnacle of her art, and broaching the horizon of broader fame. Of course, her musicality will evolve and change as a result of her experiences and maturity. But she's certainly well on her way. According to the bio I have on her, she started at six. She's now 26. That means, she's worked her tail off, and persevered for 20 long years to get where she is today.

I think what we see is a very young, 26 year old "prodigy" pianist, who is just so "talented", the industry couldn't deny her. But what I tend to see is someone who started on the right track at six, worked her tail off for twenty long years, made the right industry connections, had a little luck, and broke onto the music scene after a long road of sheer perseverance and determination.

We have some darn good players in this forum. They may never be as famous as some of the biggest names, but that doesn't mean they aren't every bit as good a pianist. And while I don't want to speak for any of them, I'm sure many of them would agree they have their own struggles at the keys.


I believe very strongly in the bio-psycho-social model. I've presented already that I believe we are not discussing failures in the bio model, because I qualify that under "missing a hand," or some other kind of handicap that prevents one from playing "normally" or without "undue difficulty".

That leaves us with psycho-social factors in determining how these "prodigies" come about. I believe (very basically) that these children enjoy what they are doing so much, that for the most part, they do not want to do anything else. Their family/friends environments enforce a strict and correct practice regimen that develops their enthusiasm into solid results. And they have such a desire for success that they will accept nothing less. They learn how to learn at a very young age, and adhere to that winning formula throughout their careers.

There are all kinds of theories and research about love and brain chemistry, some more conclusive than others, and none quite covering all types of love. For example, I don't think anyone so far has tried to figure out the brain chemistry involved when I say I love the C# major P&F from WTC I.

But anyway, AFAIK, none of the researchers have claimed that their work is evidence that love, heretofore only a myth, actually exists.

Well I have more talent than JoelW and Polyphonist put together.

The notion of talent isn't useless because it does or does not exist. Its useless or as Hakki puts its "not meaningful" because what is the usefulness in telling a student they need talent? You guys can't possibly be teachers because my goodness don't let a beginner struggle in front of your eyes because you'd promptly kick them out the door and hang a sign on your door saying "Talent Only" making them feel like a defective member of the species. Lack of talent shouldn't discourage a human being from working hard to become an excellent musician but saying it's necessary for success can prevent people from working hard and its psychologically destructive. Every time a student hits a road block they'll think about how untalented they are.

Who cares if talent exists? All you can do is all you can do but all you can do is good enough. You don't tell someone they are NOT talented because that can be discouraging and you don't tell someone they ARE talented because that might make them refrain from working hard. The thought of talent shouldn't take away your dreams. It makes me sick when I hear people tell other people what they can and can not do. My teacher was told he didn't have the hands of a pianist and years later he becomes a Bosendorfer artist traveling all around the world.

Read Malcolm Gladwell's book on Outliers it'll shed some light on TALENTED PEOPLE

I'm really done with this thread because I've learned one thing: Don't ask for advice here at piano world (and especially encouragement) because if you even have to ask for advice you probably don't have the talent: "And don't worry we are telling you what you need to hear and truth hurts but us noble righteous holders of the truth are here to help. You want to do what? Did you start when you were 4 years old? Oh you didn't, well I'm sorry you have no chance. You can be a mediocre pianist however. Maybe you can work to play at a sleazy strip club if you really push it."

We already ripped Gladwell to shreds here some time ago - check the archives. And it's not just us snooty types here at PW - even the researchers whose work Gladwell used for his ideas have said he misrepresented their work.

Just because Polyphonist and I disagree with your view doesn't warrant such a comment. I'd bet dollars to donuts I could outplay you with one hand.




I have met some people in my life, even in my own extended family, who lack absolutely any talent, yet they have a strong desire. It's very difficult to watch them attempt to follow even a 4/4 beat, getting transitions correct, following simple queues, etc. People like this don't have a chance at ever becoming competent musicians at any level. Simply lying to them isn't going to help them at all. If someone has no talent, it's best to tell them in the nicest way possible. I'd also like to say that telling a talented person that they're talented won't affect their work ethic IF they are truly passionate, because they will be self-driven. People who are truly passionate don't need an outside source to make them work, IMO.



This is rather appalling. People do say stupid things like this. One of my friends many years back had a piano teacher who told him his hands were too chubby to ever be a pianist. Try telling that to Art Tatum! It has nothing to do with talent and should never be said. I'm glad your teacher is successful.



I'm sorry you feel this way, really. But believe me, no one is trying to discourage you here. We were just simply discussing whether talent exists. We weren't trying to tell you that you had none! I know PianoWorld can feel a bit hostile at times, but don't let this scare you off.

Well, of course she's worked her tail off for 26 years. But that's like saying Horowitz worked his tail off for 86 years, and Rubinstein for 95 years. The "working one's tail off" business is a given. But it will never turn someone with only average talent into a great pianist.

I shouldn't have used the word "pinnacle", because no one reaches the pinnacle of their art in a few years. But many pianists have made their public debut at a very early age, an age so young that no combination of parenting, pedagogy, perseverance, or determination can explain it. Here are a few examples of some famous debuts:

Martha Argerich - Age 4. Orchestral debut at age 8
Claudio Arrau - Age 5. Could read notes before letters.
Daniel Barenboim - Age 7.
Glenn Gould - Age 4. Passed conservatory final exam with highest marks ever at age 12. Attained "professional standing as a pianist".
Horacio Gutierrez - Orchestral debut at age 11.
Helen Huang - Debuted with Philadelphia Orchestra at age 8.

Sorry, but "sheer perseverance and determination" will never have you playing a concerto before you reach puberty. I don't care whether we call it "talent" or not. Call it anything you wish, but whatever it is, it's innate, it's special, and it cannot be learned. These children are quickly recognized, because you simply have to give them a piano, and a little guidance, and they take off like rockets. Do they work hard? Of course. But their natural in-born ability allows them to progress at a rate that is exponentially faster than their peers. They don't have to be whipped into practicing because piano playing becomes as easy and natural to them as learning to read, or learning to ride a bicycle, so they can't get enough of it. It's in their wiring, plain and simple. Can I prove it? No. I would just say it's empirically evident.

I am not sure I could ever love Bach enough to claim that of a P&F. (Oddly, I am drawn more to his works for instruments other than the piano.) But this would be a heck of a study, to find out why you love Bach so much. Yes? I agree with everything you said except that.


I would never recommend doing this. All your tips will be $1, and God only knows what condition they will be in..


I disagree with this (naturally--haha). I think their learning curve is certainly steeper, because they either weren't exposed to, or didn't learn, the mechanics of music prior to their expression of desire. But that doesn't mean they can't do it. We can teach monkeys to clap to beats; we can teach humans. Those who have already learned it are certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think that indicates "talent" or "ability". I think it simply indicates the latter group hasn't even started down the path yet.


I'm taking this out of context on purpose. Thank you.


I think you should have started and ended your argument here. It encompasses quite a few things I have been saying since the start. A self-motivated learner, who understands how to learn, who has significant exposure to the music they are learning, and who enjoys what it is they are doing, will certainly outperform a student who is whipped into it. "Talent"? Nah. They simply didn't have to try to discern the beat of the music from the crack of the whip.


I know, I took your quotes out of order. Sue me. You're absolutely right with this statement, of course. There are other mitigating factors. Discipline is one of them. I wonder if those children you mentioned (who are all fabulous adult pianists today) played video games, sports, or were otherwise "distracted". I wonder if they had the discipline to learn the piece exactly the way they needed to, and not to try to play it too fast too quickly, or to settle for a single mistake in their playing. I wonder if they were surrounded by classical music, immersed in it, drowned in it, so that they had to learn to breathe it if they wanted to survive. I wonder, of course, because I do not know. But I would say it's evident there were other factors involved besides the "unknowable" and "unmeasurable".

Oh,dear.... Please read CAREFULLY, I am saying nothing more than I am a snobe with my own copy, sorry and all that, it is there, in the text, if you see and understand, I did try to make that easy to spot.

"because someone developed the knowledge/ability of how to learn, they are more "talented" than someone who has not developed the knowledge/ability of how to learn?"

No! HE really isn't saying that at all, you simply haven't understood, I'll try to give you a clue, where does "developed" come into it?.
I refute your last sentence as I actually understand what Matthay is saying.

I do very much like the word "snobe". I may adopt it for, as you say, its "poshness".

I believe I know where you're going with your "developed clue", and I still disagree, but I shall take my argument up with Matthay, then, since it is he who said it and not you.

Why is that so difficult to watch? It seems a tiny bit funny to try to imagine "the nicest way possible" is to tell someone they have no talent and should stop trying? If you're going to devote serious time to this thread, can you at least type up a transcript of what that conversation might look like because I sort of have to know.

It just comes across as slightly socially awkward to put someone in their place by telling them to stop working so hard because they will never be competent at what they are trying to achieve. Regardless of whether you're the final authority on whether they can or not (and who knows, maybe JoelW of The Internet really is the final authority.)

Good evening. Once again, I don't believe that anyone is saying that "sheer perserverance and determination" will make a prodigy or a virtuoso of any kid.



It seems that every one of these pianists comes from a musical family. (Excepted Helen Huang, maybe, for nothing is written in this regard in the biographies on the web.) Several of them were taught by their parents. Glenn Gould, according to wikipedia, "Before his birth, his mother planned for him to become a successful musician, and thus exposed him to music during her pregnancy".

1) Find a good teacher (you already have I think, so that's good !).
2) Practice with metronome. Because it's important to be precise rhythmically. And also without metronome. Because it's as important to do without and also to perfect rubato playing.
3) Read manuscripts slowly, and after a while read "beyond what is written". Takes a while. And it takes even longer to be able to sight read, so start at your level, even if it's beginner. Sight reading is often the most difficult aspect because it doesn't bring gratification quickly. But don't worry, all those things are a lifetime process.
4) Practice, practice and practice the aspects of music that can be studied and improved by most people : technique, use of forearm/arm weight, precision, repetitive exercises, etc.
5) Practice also the aspects that are much more difficult to teach as they are linked at least partly to innate abilities like : sense of rhythm, expressivity (both rhythmic and dynamic), improvisation, etc. If those abilities are not innate, they can always be "learned" in other ways - but will have limited results for a long time compared to someone who has them in an innate fashion.
6) Never think you don't need to improve and/or that you are a virtuoso. This might be the most important one.
7) Play, play and play. And don't forget to have fun while you do.

Of course, there are also many other things... Just thought to write a few important ones.

Well, it only makes sense that musical talent is more likely to appear in a musical family, and it can be for reasons other than nurture. One reason may be that it largely determined by DNA. But the other, more obvious one is that a musical family is where the talent may be recognized, and most importantly, have the means of expression that is required. It's hard to discover if a child has a talent for playing the piano if there's no piano around.

The quote about Gould ties in with something I was thinking about - do things that happen in the womb count as innate or nurture? In a way, it might seem obvious to be nurture, but I think that in terms of talking about talent in the usual sense, I would consider it innate, because whatever influence of that kind is there, it is part of the person at birth.

Well I hope you're not thinking of becoming a teacher (at any level).

Since when do teachers have to lie? If a student has very little to no talent and isn't progressing whatsoever, why waste their time and money if I know full-well what's going on?

I hold this view mainly for parents who are pushing their kids to play piano.

I do however believe that if someone is truly passionate and has a desire to work hard, even if they have very little potential, it is right to let them pursue their interest. If I were a teacher and someone came to me desperate to learn, I wouldn't ever deny them that chance.