Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Yet another prodigy link (this is unbelievable)

Well, let's see. I am Asian, I play the piano (though most comfortable in the Beginners' Forum), I do math well (hey, my checkbook IS balanced!), I ski (only fall a couple of times a day), I play tennis (while not nursing my tennis elbow), and my husband flies airplanes (radio-controlled ones.)

If I get 2 pet chicken, can I be counted as a prodigy?

What amazes me is not just his technique, but his musical expressiveness!

Just listened to Hannah playing Chopin's Nocturne. It's soooo beautiful it makes my heart ache.

lol but Kit Armstrong doesn't make MUSIC.
Watch his 4th Ballade. It's a joke. it's DEAD.
He should stick to origami, math, science, and being polylingual.

I think that's somewhat unkind. The young man obviously has superior skills and talent. One doesn't expect a child of 8 or 10 (or whatever age he was) to have mature interpretive insights into the great works of the piano literature. He has a whole lifetime to develop those. In the meantime, he has a technique that - if he continues to play the piano - will at least never be a hindrance to whatever interpretation he might want to put on a piece.

Regards,

Now THAT is polite understatement.

Which in the end, of course, the combination of any two would probably pay more.

he's NOT that young. He's 15. yeah he can play... he filled in for Yeffim Bronfman in Toronto a few months ago. His playing is very mechanical. It seems his musical personality and temperment just aren't up to his level of his playing.

and Bruce-what you said about technique and hindrance could definitely be debated.

he's NOT that young. He's 15. yeah he can play... he filled in for Yeffim Bronfman in Toronto a few months ago. His playing is very mechanical. It seems his musical personality and temperment just aren't up to his level of his playing.

and Bruce-what you said about technique and hindrance could definitely be debated.

sorry for the double post.

It seems to me the world is obsessed with protegies.
Music becomes a spectator sport-LOOK HOW YOUNG THIS KID IS AND LOOK WHAT HE CAN PLAY!!!!!

music isn't about that.
I couldn't care less about kids with insane levels of skill at young ages. I care about great music.

and after Arrau playing all the Transcendental Etudes at age 11.... stuff like this doesn't phaze me

He has all the WTC I preludes and fugues in repertoire.
http://www.geocities.com/kitcarmstrong/3200.html

Agreed. I don't think a child can understand music on a way an adult will.
Firstly, because children experience everything emotionally, while when you are older you don't aproach to playing so emotionally but reasonably and with head.

Well, that clarification either helps or muddies the waters; I don't know. In your thread about Claire Huangci, you raved about her technique and the tremendous speed of her playing, but you said nothing about her musicianship. Now you say you care little about technique.

Regards,

When I look at this, I think it puts to rest the argument that there are not innate differences between true virtuosos and the rest of us (well, at least me!). I don't care how many hours of practice he might have had in the first few years of his life (the proverbial 10,000 or not)-- there is somethings very different about people who are able to play like this after three or four years of training. WOW!

Sophia

About innate differences... There is simple precocity, early intelligence, which is very advantageous for a child learning to play an instrument: others will catch up only in terms of absolute IQ, not skill level with the instrument. I would guess Armstrong will have a significantly higher than average IQ in maturity as well: early intelligence and great intelligence combined. It's like first you're cute and then you're sexy. But it doesn't always go like that. It might not go like that with Armstrong. But it probably will.

Let's also consider numbers a bit... Approximately 2 out of 100 adults could get into Mensa... Let's say Armstrong is one out of ten thousand 9-20 year-old pianists in the last 20 years who grew up in a very similar 'musico-educational' environment, and let's also say Armstrong was the only one of those ten thousand who could play that well at the age of 8...

It would probably be nice to be that good and all that. It would probably be even nicer if it weren't so unusual... I hope we'll soon get into some sort of highly successful wholesale gene-manipulation phase in the history of our species. I wish...

I should have written:

I hope we'll soon get into some sort of highly successful wholesale gene-manipulation phase in the sad & muddy history of this wretched species that we call human and that is us. All those hundreds of thousands of years... I really, really, hope so...

I would be very happy if I can even play 1/10 as well as this kid.

I am not knocking this kid's talent-like I said, he can PLAY! phenomenally well, in fact. His technique, though incredible, is nothing close to Claire Huangci's. Musically speaking, I wouldn't pay to hear EITHER of them. The only purpose technique has is to serve the music. Go watch Kit's 4th Ballade. It's musically nonexistant. Not to mention, he drops the odd note just like the rest of us. If you guys like that type of playing, then all the more power to you! I wouldn't pay 10 cents to hear this kid. End of story.

I am sure one day he'll be a great pianist. Then, I will attend his concerts, and hopefully I will enjoy them. Emotionally and intellectually,I do not think he is prepared to tackle the cornerstone works of the reperetoire.


Prodigies often are pushed to learn big rep at young ages, for ex. with alot of octaves. They are taught to overcome these technical hurdles using incorrect techniques. However, they practice hard, and inevitably master much difficult rep. However, once they get older, these questionable habits are so well established, that they are often impossible to break.

My girlfriend was a prodigy, albeit not QUITE on the level of Kit Armstrong (she played Mend. concerto with orchestras at age 11, while I was learning much smaller pieces). Now, my technique is much better than hers.

The world is full of prodigies. Not all are as phenomenal as Kit Armstrong or Arrau or Peng Peng, or Sarah Chang, or Midori, etc.
If you want to pay big bucks to hear a 10 year old whizz kid play a big concerto, then you are free to do so.
Personally, I wouldn't.
Obviously this kid is a MAJOR beefcake.
He's almost an ubermensch. (speaks like 5 languages fluently, master of origami, already an undergrad at a big uni at the age of 15... etc)
I don't enjoy his playing. Others do.

Mr Kitty :

I don't disagree with most of what you say in your most recent post. I have often said that while I may admire the technique of many a young player, while I may even be amazed by it and envy that I don't possess such skills, I don't frequently go out of my way (to pay) to hear most prodigies. I think, and it seems as though we agree, here too, that many - but not all - of these youngsters do already have the building blocks to tackle the technical aspects of most works of the standard repertoire, and perhaps even beyond that. What they do with those skills and whether they become internationally acclaimed, mature artists remains to be seen and will in large measure be based on what they learn and eventually understand about the music they play.

Prodigies are more often considered as curiosities than artists, primarily on the basis of their technique, and most of us prefer to spend our money to hear artists.

On the other hand, if young performers, before they have had a chance to mature and become known as true artists, don't get support from the public when their careers are in their early stages, will they have careers? - your up-coming San Francisco performance being a possible example.

Regards,

Bruce
In my own case, I will have a career regardless of the support of kind people like yourself or not.
I agree about the curiosity/artist point you made entirely.
Most of these prodigies play in a way that is very well-taught, very well "trimmed" musically speaking by very experienced teachers, and is very "musical" (you know what I mean) but still they aren't quite "artists" per say. Some exceptions, e.g. Mozart

Lol but I am far from a prodigy-when I was 7, 8, 9, 10.... I practiced half an hour per day, lived the life of a normal youngster-played outside with my friends, went to school etc. Only started practicing like a beast in recent years

I have several friends who hear Armstrong's recent Toronto debut. Some loved it and proclaimed him a genius, others couldn't stand it.
All a matter of taste.
One thing for certain-Kit seems to play everything very "safe"-he doesn't take risks. In order to be a great artist, you have to go above and beyond playing safe. I'm sure Kit will figure this out and one day be recognized as a great artist. Then-I will look forward to hearing him play.
but I'll get free tickets cause of my connections

lol argerichfan
forgot to mention.
just cause you and I don't get paid for playing concerts doesn't mean Kit Armstrong doesn't get paid... I'm sure he clears a couple grand per concert.
Concert pianists with international fame can become FILTHY rich if they play enough concerts...