Any person can play piano, yes or not?

[adieu to the piano]

Sometimes i think, when I´m whit the students that not all the persons can learn piano what do you think yes or not?

[richard black]

Not everyone can learn to play the piano well, no. I suppose you could probably teach anyone to play a simple tune, but some folks just don't seem to have the right sort of hand-to-eye co-ordination.

[popdog]

I'd say nearly everyone could learn to play the piano well.  There are some exceptions of course, but I suspect they're uncommon.

[hyrst]

With the exception of specific disabilities, I think everyone can learn to play something that makes musical sense.

I did have my doubts.  I have one 8 year old student who has been painfully slow to do anything.  She couldn't even really get single notes to sound for about 12 months.  I tried everything I could think of but she couldn't even move one finger at a time.  A couple of months ago, I was beginning to give up and thinking maybe it wasn't always possible - but we both persevered.  Over the last 2 months, she has started really developing at quite a good rate.  It just suddenly seemed to click. 

I am glad we persevered.  It is so exciting after all this time. 

Maybe it just takes time for some people - but that doesn't mean they can't do it.  Not everyone can learn quickly and easily, though.  Not everyone really wants to, either.

[dan101]

Playing isn't all that difficultbut playing well is an accomplishment. Mediocre performances are common in music; it takes a lot to be extraordinary.

[thierry13]

Anybody can play decently. Few can really play well.

[nyonyo]

Anybody can play decently. Few can really play well.

Not many can even play decently. Playing decently is the next level, play well is even higher level.

I found intellegence has strong correlation with the quality of playing. A smart person  and not a smart person  learn from the same teacher and practice the same amount of time, the smarter guy will play better.

Look at Chris Shih (the winner of that you tube competition), he is an extremely smart individual, that is why his piano playing is also incredible. And there are many other people who play piano really well are very smart.

I wonder, I have never known anybody who is not smart and play piano well...Do you encounter many of these people...I don't any not smart people play piano well.

[thierry13]

Not many can even play decently. Playing decently is the next level, play well is even higher level.

Not anybody can play decently if they don't practice 8 hours a day. But I think anybody who practices 8 hours a day can play decently. The problem is that very few people who are not talented will spend 8 hours a day at the piano, so we don't see those cases. But anybody CAN play decently if they put all they have into it.

[enderw20]

With the exception of specific disabilities, I think everyone can learn to play something that makes musical sense.

I did have my doubts.  I have one 8 year old student who has been painfully slow to do anything.  She couldn't even really get single notes to sound for about 12 months.  I tried everything I could think of but she couldn't even move one finger at a time.  A couple of months ago, I was beginning to give up and thinking maybe it wasn't always possible - but we both persevered.  Over the last 2 months, she has started really developing at quite a good rate.  It just suddenly seemed to click. 

I am glad we persevered.  It is so exciting after all this time. 

Maybe it just takes time for some people - but that doesn't mean they can't do it.  Not everyone can learn quickly and easily, though.  Not everyone really wants to, either.

Hyrst you must be one hell of a teacher to not give up after a year, not to mention the encouragment you would had to have given to an 8 year old and thier parents not to give up after showing so little progress, there is a need for more teachers like you.

[nyonyo]

Not anybody can play decently if they don't practice 8 hours a day. But I think anybody who practices 8 hours a day can play decently. The problem is that very few people who are not talented will spend 8 hours a day at the piano, so we don't see those cases. But anybody CAN play decently if they put all they have into it.

I agree with you, people who practice 8 hours a day should be able to play decently. But to be realistic, who have the time to practice piano for 8 hours unless those who make a living from playing piano. I like to play piano (I do not make a living from playing piano or teaching piano, thanks GOD), but I will have no desire to practice 8 hours every single day. Practice 8 hours a day is becoming a job. It is very tiring. But, I will practice hard for a competition.

[Petter]

I like to play the piano because it makes me feel relaxed. I don´t care if Im good or bad. Any person can play the piano.

[teresa_b]

I agree that with lots of practice most people could play "decently" if you mean getting the notes right and not sounding bad.  If you mean by "decently" that they could play with a good degree of musicality, I tend to be a little more pessimistic. 

I disagree that the correlation with intelligence goes both ways.  I think low intelligence may cause problems in understanding and producing music, but then again, there are rare people who are mentally retarded but have phenomenal musical skills.  Also, there are many people with high intelligence who seem to have a "tin" ear, and could not manage to play with any depth of feeling or musical understanding. 

I tend to think the "multiple intelligences" theory is pretty applicable here, and musical intelligence may not necessarily correlate with IQ very well. 

Teresa

[nyonyo]

I tend to think the "multiple intelligences" theory is pretty applicable here, and musical intelligence may not necessarily correlate with IQ very well. 

Teresa

I have to agree with the multiple intelligence theory. Originally, I said that I have never known somebody who is dumb but play piano well. Actually, now I remember, I have a friend who plays piano well, but she is dumb in many aspects of life including math too. I also know one of people who often participate in this forum who has DMA in piano, but he has no clue how to survive in the real life of piano industry. I often gave him idea, because he totally cannot think how to survive.

[thierry13]

I have to agree with the multiple intelligence theory. Originally, I said that I have never known somebody who is dumb but play piano well. Actually, now I remember, I have a friend who plays piano well, but she is dumb in many aspects of life including math too. I also know one of people who often participate in this forum who has DMA in piano, but he has no clue how to survive in the real life of piano industry. I often gave him idea, because he totally cannot think how to survive.

Multiple intelligence is bullshit. Being intelligent is being able to do any mental operation well. If you can be good at only ONE thing at a time, it's because your brain has to focus really on something in order to be good at it. So that's simply less intelligent. It's a theory to boost the self-esteem of less gifted people. I'm not saying either that somebody who is only concentrated on one thing is less intelligent, maybe that person COULD be good at anything, but you can't prove that. You can be sure only when someone is good at nothing BUT a precise activity.

[teresa_b]

Multiple intelligence is bullshit. Being intelligent is being able to do any mental operation well. If you can be good at only ONE thing at a time, it's because your brain has to focus really on something in order to be good at it. So that's simply less intelligent. It's a theory to boost the self-esteem of less gifted people. I'm not saying either that somebody who is only concentrated on one thing is less intelligent, maybe that person COULD be good at anything, but you can't prove that. You can be sure only when someone is good at nothing BUT a precise activity.

Excuse me, but before you call something bullsh*t, have you even read Gardner's book (or any other) on Multiple Intelligences?

 Nobody ever said people are necessarily GOOD at only ONE thing.  I did mention savants as exactly the type of person you cite--severely mentally handicapped in most ways, but with amazing musical abilities.  These people are highly unusual, of course.  But there are many people who have little musical talent (not that they COULDN'T play "decently" with a lot of work), who may be gifted engineers, for instance.  They may have many other talents, but lack musicality. 

There is some correlation between types of intelligence that are measured on IQ tests, but sometimes "intelligent" people have much greater abilities in one area than another--say, poetic expression vs mathematics. 

IQ tests were developed early in the 20th Century by Binet, who was trying specifically to measure the potential of those who were then called "feeble-minded".  According to his testing, people within certain IQ ranges were classified as "morons", imbeciles" or "idiots".  The tests were never intended to measure degrees of so-called "normal" intelligence.  While they are predictive in general of how well someone will do academically, they in no way prove that "intelligence" per se is accurately described by one number on a linear scale. 

Teresa

[slobone]

I agree, Teresa, and anybody who still believes that there's actually a single "thing" called "intelligence", and that it's actually what the IQ test measures, needs to read Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man as well as numerous other authors.

[thierry13]

Excuse me, but before you call something bullsh*t, have you even read Gardner's book (or any other) on Multiple Intelligences?

 Nobody ever said people are necessarily GOOD at only ONE thing.  I did mention savants as exactly the type of person you cite--severely mentally handicapped in most ways, but with amazing musical abilities.  These people are highly unusual, of course.  But there are many people who have little musical talent (not that they COULDN'T play "decently" with a lot of work), who may be gifted engineers, for instance.  They may have many other talents, but lack musicality. 

There is some correlation between types of intelligence that are measured on IQ tests, but sometimes "intelligent" people have much greater abilities in one area than another--say, poetic expression vs mathematics. 

IQ tests were developed early in the 20th Century by Binet, who was trying specifically to measure the potential of those who were then called "feeble-minded".  According to his testing, people within certain IQ ranges were classified as "morons", imbeciles" or "idiots".  The tests were never intended to measure degrees of so-called "normal" intelligence.  While they are predictive in general of how well someone will do academically, they in no way prove that "intelligence" per se is accurately described by one number on a linear scale. 

Look, I never said IQ tests were valid or anything. I don't think you can really measure intelligence this way. Yes, I DID read Gardner's book, that's why I permitted myself to say what I said about the theory. Who is more intelligent. The guy who is as good a musician as he is an ingineer, or the skilled ingineer who is an incompetent musician? Sometimes, you have to consider some have worked to develop their skills and others simply didn't work, you have to put those into balance. You can't just say he's good he's bad ... when the "good" works several hours a day at it and the "bad" none. Gardner's arguments are very weak and can explain many, many, many other things before explaining anything like "multiple intelligence".

[teresa_b]

Look, I never said IQ tests were valid or anything. I don't think you can really measure intelligence this way.

So...if you believe multiple intelligences are not at work, you would believe intelligence is one entity that could thus be measured.  How would you measure it? 

 

Yes, I DID read Gardner's book, that's why I permitted myself to say what I said about the theory. Who is more intelligent. The guy who is as good a musician as he is an ingineer, or the skilled ingineer who is an incompetent musician? Sometimes, you have to consider some have worked to develop their skills and others simply didn't work, you have to put those into balance. You can't just say he's good he's bad ... when the "good" works several hours a day at it and the "bad" none. Gardner's arguments are very weak and can explain many, many, many other things before explaining anything like "multiple intelligence".

You certainly have a right to your opinion, and I agree that certain types of intelligence are correlated, which does show up on testing.  However, I think Gardner's arguments are for the most part reasonable.  I don't think, though, that your example makes any sense.  Asking "Who is more intelligent" assumes these two people are to be placed on a number line again--the very thing multiple intelligence theory says is impossible.  And yes, if you work very, very hard at almost anything thing you can become "decent" at it--which I agreed with anyway.  The key is, someone with a great deal of native talent in music will get much better with the same effort than one who is not gifted.  That same non-gifted musician might do much better at engineering than the gifted musician would, with the same amount of effort.

It is true that we tend not to put the same degree of effort into something we have more difficulty with in the first place.  But why do we have difficulty in some areas and not in others?  Could it be that intelligences are modular, so to speak?

[zheer]

  If any person could play the piano, then most people would. Most people can play a tune/pop song. But not everyone can play a Rach concerto.

Anyway playing piano is no big deal.

[richard black]

Anyway playing piano is no big deal

Now he tells us! And to think of all the years we spent learning to do it......

 

[tds]

I wonder, I have never known anybody who is not smart and play piano well...Do you encounter many of these people...I don't any not smart people play piano well.

i can play piano well-does that mean i can be smart? half the time i only play piano decently-does that mean half the time i am medium smart?

all in all, i think people are smart-coz they make me happy.

[aewanko]

Sometimes i think, when I´m whit the students that not all the persons can learn piano what do you think yes or not?

Yes. As long as they pound their pianos until it's broken.

[gyzzzmo]

Anybody (povided they have hands+attached fingers) can play piano yes. Getting good at it depends on mentality and external factors i suppose.

[hyrst]

Thank you, Enderw20.

[zheer]

Now he tells us! And to think of all the years we spent learning to do it......

 

  When we start learning the piano it apperas to be a big deal, but I find these days that it's no different to learning how to ice skate or what have you. Don't get me wrong we are blessed with music.

[lostinidlewonder]

Can everyone be a great painter? Can everyone be a great sculptor? No of course not. Just as not everyone can play the piano at the highest level.

Sure I can learn drawing art, I can draw stick figures and maybe the sun and birds in the sky drawn with the letter m. So too can people play easy pieces on the piano and maybe develop a little more. But there is certainly a point there the student stops learning efficiently and that to make more change to their ability requires more dedication (often which they are unwilling/undisciplined  to give).

Talented students for me are students rate of learning doesn't flatten out as I apply pressure to their ability. I certainly can see the less talented students flatten out in their progress, usually it is because of discipline with time issues. Students who are very organized and allocate time for everything I have found are excellent piano students talented or not. Those who just play for fun and do it here and there always progress slowly. Those who face problems but work on it daily never fail, those who practice half a week sporadically get the limited reward and frustration they deserve.

[teresa_b]

Can everyone be a great painter? Can everyone be a great sculptor? No of course not. Just as not everyone can play the piano at the highest level.

Sure I can learn drawing art, I can draw stick figures and maybe the sun and birds in the sky drawn with the letter m. So too can people play easy pieces on the piano and maybe develop a little more. But there is certainly a point there the student stops learning efficiently and that to make more change to their ability requires more dedication (often which they are unwilling/undisciplined  to give).

Talented students for me are students rate of learning doesn't flatten out as I apply pressure to their ability. I certainly can see the less talented students flatten out in their progress, usually it is because of discipline with time issues. Students who are very organized and allocate time for everything I have found are excellent piano students talented or not. Those who just play for fun and do it here and there always progress slowly. Those who face problems but work on it daily never fail, those who practice half a week sporadically get the limited reward and frustration they deserve.

So, do you feel that discipline and practice can "make" the artist?  Or is there an innate talent that must also be present for them to go beyond mere technical accomplishment to produce fine art?

Teresa

[lostinidlewonder]

So, do you feel that discipline and practice can "make" the artist?  Or is there an innate talent that must also be present for them to go beyond mere technical accomplishment to produce fine art?

Teresa

I really think talent only highlights the rate at which you can master your music.  Ignoring talent, with discipline and consistent practice you actually work at a high level in your musical development. It just reminds me of the "tortoise and the hare" fable. Talented hares will lose if they are lazy, and the untalented slow tortoise will win if they never give up and keep going.

However like most arts not everyone can achieve the highest level. In select pieces they might be able to play like masters, but to be able to play at the highest level and learn at the highest level and be able to do this with hours and hours of memorized playing, this is not something everyone can achieve.

There are limitations to ones IQ at musical pattern recognition, limitations to their ability to learn new muscular memory routines, to how well they listen to sound and the sound they produce out of their instrument, how well they can judge comfort/discomfort in their hands while they play and make changes to actively promote efficiency, etc. The biggest limitation is time, if there where 1000 hours every day, then everyone could study to become a master pianist. The reality is that we have limited time. So some tortoises even though they practice hard every day, if they do not learn to increase their rate of learning, they might never achieve the highest levels with multiple pieces.

I would have to also say that some people cannot play pieces at a high level of mastery no matter how much they practice the piece. This usually highlights the fact that the piece they are trying to master is too hard for them and they have not previously solved the many problems they face in easier music (or are unable to relate what they have learned in the past to what they are currently learning).

I find the more piano music you memorize in the past the more you can relate to in future pieces and the rate of your learning increases. This relationship from applying knowledge from what you have previous mastered to what you will learn is a complicated system which I find not everyone can do efficiently, however a good teacher will notice what the students miss out when trying to apply their knowledge of past pieces to learn present/future music.

I find my best students all know how to apply knowledge very well, they can see how new pieces emulate what they have played before and they notice the small changes and differences. This requires you have a great sense of fingering and technique at the keyboard to start with. So the fingering becomes almost immediately understood and the groups highlighting the muscular memory are instantly observed and their efficiency scrutinized. So lessons rarely relate to how to learn your music but rather the sound produced.

Being able to finely alter your music requires a great amount of technique and control. Like an artist painting a portrait, there are so many technique used to improve their picture, like a Van-gogh cross pattern, or a Da vinci background and subject blending... I don't even know their real technical names!

The same applies in piano music, the shades of sound in piano can be very complicated to understand, the mastery of fingering at the keyboard can have so many avenues that it confuses a lesser pianist who tries to determine the best way, determining the most efficient/effortless method to produce the sound on your instrument can also be a highly complicated system that not everyone can appreciate.

Even great pianists with inefficient technique cannot be saved because they have burnt into their minds the way to do it, and for them it is easy to do, however physically a waste of energy. But this highlights a fact that you do not need the highest level of technical efficiency when playing the piano to play it at a high level. It certainly might not effect the sound, but the body is strained, however the listener doesn't hear the body suffering. The real greats on the piano however sound beautiful and they look so comfortable when they play, they hands move without any effort, they don't look like they ever break a sweat. Just look at Hamelin play Godowsky/Chopin Etude like its chopsticks but a lesser pianist would probably look like they where running a marathon.

[gyzzzmo]

Has 'talent' ever been proven? Or is 'talent' just a matter of having the right factors like how you got raised and other influences.

[thierry13]

Has 'talent' ever been proven? Or is 'talent' just a matter of having the right factors like how you got raised and other influences.

If "talent" would not be, Mozart wouldn't have picked up the violin at age 2 and started playing it. You can't raise someone THAT much in such a short amount of time. That is the proof that basic talent IS existent and influencial. Of course there ARE other factors, but innate talent does exist.

[teresa_b]

I tend to agree, innate talent is "something" as opposed to the notion that anyone can achieve an equally high level of musicality with enough practice. 

Lostinidlewonder, I see where you're going, although I get a sense of contradiction in your post--can just anyone truly achieve ART if they had 1000 hours a day?  Or would there still be limitations to various people's ability to produce art and not technical prowess? 

I don't think it's black and white--i.e., you have talent, or you don't.  I think there is a continuous spectrum of talent, and combined with different amounts of focus and practice, these levels of talent can be manifested as musicality.  We've all heard players that are BAD depsite a lot of practice, but there are players that are pretty good and even excellent--but they seem to be missing some "spark". 

Teresa

[thierry13]

I tend to agree, innate talent is "something" as opposed to the notion that anyone can achieve an equally high level of musicality with enough practice. 

As humans, anybody who practices REALLY hard (for some, it will take more than others) can definitely achieve something musically. Will this "something" be great? If there is a lack of talent, no it won't be great. Someone with talent will need way less work and if he does work, the talented can do great things.

[michel dvorsky]

THIERRY HENRY, FOR ARSENAL.