|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
75 members (bluebilly, accordeur, BillS728, aphexdisklavier, bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, 16 invisible),
2,119
guests, and
357
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356 |
Originally posted by SideShow: Some small percentages you give for talent
...because, as Piano&Violin noted, that's what the scientific research indicates. If you have the chance, look up that article on expertise cited on the first page of this thread. Then read Benjamin Bloom's book, "Developing Talent in Young People," and then for the coup de grace read the 900-page "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance." These sources show convincingly that (quoting from the Ericsson article), "experts are always made, not born. These conclusions are based on rigorous research that looked at exceptional performance using scientific methods that are verifiable and reproducible...the journey to truly superior performance is neither for the faint of heart nor for the impatient. The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifices, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve expertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in 'deliberate' practice--practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and comfort" (Ericsson et al., 2007, p. 116). Elsewhere in the article they say "The only innate differences that turn out to be significant--and they matter primarily in sports--are height and body size."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Monica, I understand these two books you mention are very interesting.
Would they be worth while reading for a person who's focus is on piano learning, i.e. would they possibly help destroy prejudice which might hold development and progress back, or might they be considered a little time consuming and too much of a "time eater"?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 129
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 129 |
Without coming off too harsh,
This is a recanting of the obvious with references. Of course hard work is required to get to the top of any discipline/art/expertise. As unjust as it might seem, some even with hard work and fortitude will just never get it. So many things have to come into play to make master.
Talent Environment to foster the talent into skill Financial means A personality capable of the acute focus/obsession to stick to it.
I am not talking about a competent artist, but those considered at the top of heap. With a medium level of intelligence and a lot of hard work, almost anyone can get to a level of competence.
As many will agree, you must start developing the talent at an age before the hardwiring sets in. Those of us on the older side know how hard it is to learn once you get past a certain number of years. You still can learn, but it sure takes a lot longer.
Here is a thought to ponder. Is the notion of tone deafness real? From my teaching experience, I have found that it is a myth. I have yet to find a nut I couldn't crack yet. Some just take a lot longer.
Flame suit on.
Schimmel 213 NWS, Yamaha MOTIF XS8, Roland RDX700, Roland Jupiter 6, Akai S3000XL sampler (just for fun)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356 |
Piano&Violin, the Handbook is dense reading and written for researchers in the field. I wouldn't take the time to go through it all myself. The Bloom book might be more readable but is more out of date (published in 1985). I'd suggest asking your library to get through interlibrary loans if they don't already have them and then just skim them for the relevant parts.
Actually, my main advice would be to buy the Levitin book, "This is your brain on music," and read his chapter on expertise. It's up to date and very entertainingly written, and the rest of the book is also quite enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 156
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 156 |
I'm with you, experts are made, without doubt. Still, I think talent is very important. Talking of sports ... I always admired Michael Jordan. That man worked hard and without doubt some other athletes worked as hard as him. Still he was the greatest (of all time, open for discussion ) That is talent, the ability you are born with to do certain things better than someone else. According to my dictionary: talent = natural capacity to do a certain thing. It's without doubt that this can differ a lot between 2 persons, even of same height and size. Yet, it needs to be said that the only way to success is hard work
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546 |
Hi Monica No argument that it takes stuggle, sacrifice and practice even for the innately talented. But note the title of the article "DEVELOPING TALENT in Young People" -- it's developing and nurturing something that is already there. People don't spend 10,000 hours doing something they have no aptitude for-- the process weeds out those who are not making progress. Part of the difficulty with discussions like this is they tend to polarize into "either-or" thinking: nature vs nurture when of course it's both working synergistically. I don't think there are any studies of a sample of people selected at random and subjected to 10,000 hours of piano practice to see what happens-- but I'd hazard a guess. If there is an underlying continuum on a bell-shaped curve of "talent" or "aptitude" for piano playing, I would bet that after the 10K hours, we'll still have a bell-shaped curve, or probably one that is stretched out even further on the top end. Everyone will have moved up and gotten better,and many might even now be in the "expert" range however we define it, but those on the top end of the "talent" distribution will have moved up proportionally even farther than those at the low end. Talent and hard work will interact synergistically to produce greater levels of achievement, and no great surprise there. Hard work might get you a music degree and a job, but without the underlying equipment (think "great pipes" in a singer) it won't get you people flocking from around the globe to hear you sing or to play the piano, a la Martha Argerich. This is not to discourage all of us mere mortals (and I count myself firmly in that group)who have more persistence and work on our sides than sheer talent from doing what we love.
Sophia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546 |
posted by MonicaK:
Elsewhere in the article they say "The only innate differences that turn out to be significant--and they matter primarily in sports--are height and body size."
I also think sometimes we underestimate the physical side of piano playing-- while not a sport it definitely requires high levels of neuromuscular coordination and control. Body size and height might not be what turns out to be significant in piano playing but I'll bet there are likely some innate brain organization and neuromuscular attributes that provide an advantage in playing music. Again, not to say these things can't be improved and developed but there might be some underlying hard wiring that is part of the "talent" package. Just mho.
Sophia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Originally posted by Brian Bennett: As many will agree, you must start developing the talent at an age before the hardwiring sets in. Those of us on the older side know how hard it is to learn once you get past a certain number of years. You still can learn, but it sure takes a lot longer. Yes and no. Concerning motor activity, it's absolutely correct that there's a time when it develops and that, ideally, you should start learning piano or whatever other skill at that time. Because, at a later time you must first unlearn the motor skill that's been learnt (though probably unconsciously)and then learn the new skill. And it is likely that this process will take longer the older you get, i.e. because you've got more solid habits to unlearn. Intellectually, and in general, there's no proof that the learning process will take longer as you get older. It will take some effort to get back into a learning routine if you didn't learn for a number of years - if it were physical exercise you'd call it bring your muscles back into shape - but apart from that there's no reason why it should take longer, except that this is the general belief. And, of course, at some point during life, there are factors depending on the physics and aging of your body. Monica, Thanks for the info on the books!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
SideShow: Physical differences yes. I have "huge" hands and can reach C to G on my left hand. Don't think THAT many people can do it... So playing chords and octaves comes... natural. But playing something like the flight of the bumbblebee is rather hard for me, while my older teachers daughter, only 11 had no trouble playing it! I don't think that anyone can deny physical differences, but again, I'll take anyday a kid who studies but has small hands, and appears to have little talent, to a talented kid with big "pianistic" hands that does not study.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356 |
Originally posted by Piano&Violin: Originally posted by Brian Bennett: [b] Those of us on the older side know how hard it is to learn once you get past a certain number of years. You still can learn, but it sure takes a lot longer. Yes and no.
...Intellectually, and in general, there's no proof that the learning process will take longer as you get older. It will take some effort to get back into a learning routine if you didn't learn for a number of years - if it were physical exercise you'd call it bring your muscles back into shape - but apart from that there's no reason why it should take longer, except that this is the general belief. [/b]Here's a relevant quote from the Ericsson article: "Research has shown that musicians over 60 years old who continue deliberate practice for about ten hours a week can match the speed and technical skills of 20-year-old expert musicians when tested on their ability to play a piece of unfamiliar music."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356 |
Originally posted by sophial: Hi Monica No argument that it takes stuggle, sacrifice and practice even for the innately talented. But note the title of the article "DEVELOPING TALENT in Young People" -- it's developing and nurturing something that is there. People don't spend 10,000 hours doing something they have no aptitude for-- the process weeds out those who are not making progress. Part of the difficulty with discussions like this is they tend to polarize into "either-or" thinking: nature vs nurture when of course it's both working synergistically. I don't think there are any studies of a sample of people selected at random and subjected to 10,000 hours of piano practice to see what happens-- but I'd hazard a guess. If there is an underlying continuum on a bell-shaped curve of "talent" or "aptitude" for piano playing, I would bet that after the 10K hours, we'll still have a bell-shaped curve, or probably one that is stretched out even further on the top end. Great post, Sophia... I agree (almost) completely with you. You are absolutely right that we need the study you described to draw any firm conclusions. But when I do your thought experiment in my head, I predict a different outcome: I don't think we'd have a normal curve any more, for the reason you mentioned earlier, namely that people with less aptitude won't stick it out. So I envision a positively skewed and much narrower distribution, with most people after 10,000 hours looking a great deal alike, and only a few individuals in the low end, with even fewer outliers in the upper end... the Argeriches and Horowitzes etc.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Thanks, Monica, it's always great to have the "professional backup"! Though, I do have a collegue who used to teach piano who said that adults learn the piano faster than kids as the rule, probably because of their dedication, time they can practice and intellectual ability to understand complex things faster, at least compared to a young kid.
Sophia, I am sure that piano or any other instrument is no different in that some people would hate it and do not more than necessary and others love it and to as much as they can, and in addition that, even with equal conditions and dedication you find one is great and the other one rather poor.
In addition to the visible learning process there are so many other factors involved. Such as seeing someone play the piano as far as you can remember - there's something a kid learns already from that, or being concerned with parents who don't get along, the child himself suffering from poor health and a million other things. There's really no black and white where you can put people!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
Let's just keep in mind that talent does exist in some form, or some %, and it will help. I don't really doubt that. I am not arguing that we all are "tabula rasa", but that it is not really important. Sophia, great post.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546 |
Originally posted by Monica K.: Originally posted by sophial: [b] Hi Monica No argument that it takes stuggle, sacrifice and practice even for the innately talented. But note the title of the article "DEVELOPING TALENT in Young People" -- it's developing and nurturing something that is there. People don't spend 10,000 hours doing something they have no aptitude for-- the process weeds out those who are not making progress. Part of the difficulty with discussions like this is they tend to polarize into "either-or" thinking: nature vs nurture when of course it's both working synergistically. I don't think there are any studies of a sample of people selected at random and subjected to 10,000 hours of piano practice to see what happens-- but I'd hazard a guess. If there is an underlying continuum on a bell-shaped curve of "talent" or "aptitude" for piano playing, I would bet that after the 10K hours, we'll still have a bell-shaped curve, or probably one that is stretched out even further on the top end. Great post, Sophia... I agree (almost) completely with you. You are absolutely right that we need the study you described to draw any firm conclusions. But when I do your thought experiment in my head, I predict a different outcome: I don't think we'd have a normal curve any more, for the reason you mentioned earlier, namely that people with less aptitude won't stick it out. So I envision a positively skewed and much narrower distribution, with most people after 10,000 hours looking a great deal alike, and only a few individuals in the low end, with even fewer outliers in the upper end... the Argeriches and Horowitzes etc. [/b]Hi Monica, well in my "thought experiment" I forced them all to continue even if they wanted to quit! But you've in a sense strengthened my point which is that if the people without aptitude drop out, then we are not looking at the effects of hard work alone on a randomly selected population but of hard work COMBINED with aptitude in a self-selected group and how those factors interact. I agree, more people will look better and there will still be that upper tail trailing off into the stratosphere of elite pianists--- which is kind of what we see if we look at conservatories, music schools, etc. Piano and Violin-- absolutely, this is not an either/or, nature vs nurture issue-- which is why I'm arguing that both talent and hard work are important and synergistic. Sophia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 129
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 129 |
Retention of muscle memory and skill level is different from developmental learning. And yes if you continue to use it you won't lose it. But, as we get older the wiring is set and it becomes increasingly difficult to learn and develop the new.
There is evidence to this end that most here are familiar with. It is especially important for the the first 10 years. As an example, a child can have a significant portion of there brain removed, say the area involved with speach, and the remaining lobes will adapt and relearn. This just doesn't happen with an adult. Short term to long term memory transcription is also well documented to diminish with age. Now is "talent" a genetic/congenital trait or is it learned in the early early years? Can any child become a protege' given early internvention? That to me is the real question.
Schimmel 213 NWS, Yamaha MOTIF XS8, Roland RDX700, Roland Jupiter 6, Akai S3000XL sampler (just for fun)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
Moving back- a number of posts came in before I could quote Monica: Originally posted by Monica K.: Elsewhere in the article they say "The only innate differences that turn out to be significant--and they matter primarily in sports--are height and body size." But this still doesn't explain why two students -similar background and age, same teacher, same Chopin Etude- produced such radically different results. I'm not talking hypothetically. I was there; I had the same teacher. One student innately grasped the technical and musical challenges of the etude and brought it up to speed in a matter of weeks. The other student, try as she might, never could approach the proper tempo without the etude completely falling apart in a circus of botched notes and rhythmic insecurity. (She seemed able to play it accurately and musically at a slow tempo.) Most disconcerting was that this gal worked a lot harder on that etude than the student who was able to publicly perform it three weeks later.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,001
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,001 |
"you can't just take any old bloke off the street, make him work 11 hours a day and produce another Martha Argerich."
Couldn't you??
With 11 hours of exposure to the piano, and music in general, I am sure the old bloke would progress, so long as it was 11 hours of hard work, and there would be no end to the progress.
I say, like you, "an old ( as in 'any' yes?) bloke", but of course some would be impossible to adapt, but a person of considerable, even only some in fact, intellect could make this progress.
The really tricky bit would be to practise for 11 hours a day for years. That would be the difficult part, not the presence of talent.
Of course, it can't be proved right and it can't be proved wrong can it?
Also I may add as I did last time: that this is how someone without talent would see it, is it not?
Patience's the best teacher, and time the best critic. - F.F.Chopin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
Hem,
The ability to learn deteriorates the older we get...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,356 |
Originally posted by Brian Bennett: Now is "talent" a genetic/congenital trait or is it learned in the early early years? Can any child become a protege' given early internvention? That to me is the real question. And it's probably an unanswerable one, at least with any kind of scientific rigor. The Ericsson article opens, though, with an anecdote about a Hungarian couple who wanted to challenge the belief that women weren't good at chess. So they took their three daughters from an early age and home-schooled them with an emphasis on chess. By 2000 all three daughters were ranked in top 10 female players in the world, and one of them broke Bobby Fischer's world record for being the youngest person to reach the level of grand master and is currently one of the world's top players of either gender. That's not scientific evidence, but it's sure suggestive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,652
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,652 |
Originally posted by Reaper978: I would say rather that playing the piano at a top level requires the guidance of an expert teacher to provide tough, often painful feedback complemented by effective and deliberate practice. I think that is nonsense. One doesn't need their emotions and self-esteem dragged through the mud and stomped on at every lesson to become a great musician. To be forcefully pressed into a mold, perhaps, but that is your choice. [/QB] The concern with self esteem and emotions is an outgrowth of the politically correct mentality. Reality doesn't care how you feel so the question becomes who would you rather hear it from, the world at large by their complete disinterest in you or a teacher who has your best interests at heart and the courage to be honest with you. I believe one of the marks of a great pianist is the willingnness to hear all (but not necessarily act on) criticism or the strength to ignore it completely. People who constructively criticise others are doing them a favor because it's much easier to simply say nothing and turn your back. I understand that some take glee in delivering harsh criticism, most of us are smart enough to recognize that and ignore it. However even the harshest criticism usually contains some degree of truth and it's the ability to dispassionately distill the substance from the style in which it's delivered that sets the truly successful (in all endeavors) from those who would rather lick their wounds. Colin, in the interest of full disclosure I'll be honest and mention that we've had some private communication. You didn't respond well to my constructive criticism so I've chosen to not comment any more on your work. Here you've addressed a fundamental issue and I'm offering one last bit of advice. Forget your feelings and deal with what is. All emotions are choices we make anyway so if you get angry at something I say simply choose a different response. You could try being appreciative that I had the courage to tell you the truth (as I see it) so that you could then use that opinion (which is all it is) to more fully inform your decisions and actions. In other words if you can take something constructive from what I or anyone else say whether said nicely or not you will be that much farther ahead in the game. I'll offer a good example. The New England Patriots are undefeated in American football this season. Their coach, a certain curmudgeon named Bill Bellichek is notoriously parsimonius with praise. He motivates his team to "show him" what they can do. If he so much as says somebody "had a pretty good game, but there are still things we need to work on" that's considered high praise. That the team is undefeated indicates that his methods are indeed successful (as does the fact that they've won three championships in the last 5 years). The fact is praise teaches nothing (unless they tell you why they liked it which almost never happens). Criticism can teach a lot (because people will support their view if asked). The truly strong will ask, "So what didn't you like?" and will evaluate the response to determine if they need to do something different. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|