Young Talent

[Pumpkinhead]

Recently, I attended the MTAC convention in California. Being a student, I played in one of the festival recitals, and attended the concerto competition.
What really surprised me was that an 11 year old competed with Hungarian Fanatasy by Rachmaninoff. That is one very difficult piece, and I've no idea how he managed that! If people do play such difficult music at an early age, how do thet learn it? Do they practice for long hours each day for a whole year?

[bernhard]

In the UK they have a nationwide competition which is televised called “Young musician of the year”. Usually the “young musicians” are 18 – 19 years old. But this year, there was an 11 old boy (maybe the same?) that surprised everyone by his playing. He did not win, but in my opinion he should have, at least to justify the name of the competition!

In any case, his age raised the same question from the media and general public. Everyone concluded he had to be a genious, a prodigy. It had to be the only possible explanation. Besides he must practise several hours a day.

You see the true explanation is far more frightening and unacceptable. Labelling such youngsters geniuses who practise day and night is very comforting. It means that this is something out of reach for common mortals.

The alternative (and correct) explanation is very uncomfortable: anyone can do it if they follow the correct procedures.

This particular boy started learning the piano at age 5. So by age 11 he had already been playing for 6 years. You can get through medical school in 6 years. You can do a maths/physics/biochemistry etc. degree in 3-4 years. Are you going to tell me that piano playing is more complicated or more difficult than a medical degree? If you are in medical school how many hours a day do you devote to your studies? Do the same and in 4 – 5 years you will be at the top level in piano playing. But most people do not apply to their piano studies the same intensity that they apply to other areas of their lives where they excel.

Application , of course is not enough. You must have a efficient map and follow it.

This boy’s mother is a piano teacher. Do you think he gets 30 minutes lessons per week? I will bet anything with you that this boy has lessons everyday, possibly more then once a day. In all likelihood his practice is closely supervised so that he does not waste time acquiring bad habits. His exposure to music is enormous, since he comes from a musical household. His accomplishment does not surprise me in the least. Anyone under the same conditions would get more or less the same results.

One last and perhaps very important thing: He manifested an interest in music early on. He was not forced to play the piano. He started lessons on his own request.

It is not the number of hours a day that count. It is the results you get. Aim to get results in a short time and you will.

There is far too much mythology surrounding piano playing. Think about any area in your life you have excelled. Piano playing will require the same amount of commitment – no more nor less.

Unfortunately there is a mass culture of mediocrity, and most people have never experienced excellence in any aspect of their lives. Hence the surprise.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Antnee]

I think the thing that makes a young prodigy is not the 'talent' the kid has but the motivation. When I was five, I know I would not know how to 'percieve' a piano the right way or even know why I was playing it, let alone enjoy the music that I could make. But some kids are so forced to play, that they start to really get the hang of this 'piano thing' and they keep it up because people keep telling them that what they are doing is amazing. They really don't know why they play the piano until they reach a later age. That's why so many kids quit. They Don't understand the whole piano thing and they see no point in playing it. But, by the time little prodigies get into their late teens, they realize why they play and their music becomes more emotionally complex.
Until then , little prodigies are like little programmed typewriters. I once saw a little chinese kid play debussy's Gradus ad parnassam and it was like a little machine was there. The only good thing thing about child prodigies is that they have wonderful technique when they are older, but not necessarily musical aptitude.

-Tony-

[Pumpkinhead]

Thanks a ton bernhard. Now that you say that, I guess it isn't as earth shattering. After hearing so many talented kids at that comp, I was bummed that a 16 year old, such as myself, couldn't show so much improvement, so late in the game. I am learning the Scherzo in B flat by Chopin, but when I'm 17 and prepared, others will be light years ahead. I guess propper technique and a crap load of practice can get you far. In all honesty, could that piece win a competition, if played well?

[xvimbi]

This particular boy started learning the piano at age 5. So by age 11 he had already been playing for 6 years. You can get through medical school in 6 years. You can do a maths/physics/biochemistry etc. degree in 3-4 years. Are you going to tell me that piano playing is more complicated or more difficult than a medical degree? If you are in medical school how many hours a day do you devote to your studies? Do the same and in 4 – 5 years you will be at the top level in piano playing. But most people do not apply to their piano studies the same intensity that they apply to other areas of their lives where they excel.

Er.. I don't think that comparsion is correct. It does not take only 4-5 years to get through the disciplines you listed. There is elementary school and highschool before people go to college and/or University. Although much of that could be shortened if all one wanted was to become a physicist, it will in the end be a lot more than 5 years. However, there are child prodigies in physics too. There are people who had accumulated work worthy of a Nobel Prize by the time they were 19 years old. Not everyone can do this, no matter how streamlined the training is, because one cannot practise certain intellectual capacities. These kids had not only the right environemnet, but also an undeniable talent. Yet, a lot of intellectual capacities can be practised in a more or less mechanical way. A famous example is the Polgar sisters, who were raised by their parents with the single goal of creating outstanding female chess players. The experiment was successful, as Judith is among the ten best players currently alive.

[f0bul0us]

This is the single thread to ever grace the piano forum.

This particular boy started learning the piano at age 5. So by age 11 he had already been playing for 6 years. You can get through medical school in 6 years. You can do a maths/physics/biochemistry etc. degree in 3-4 years. Are you going to tell me that piano playing is more complicated or more difficult than a medical degree? If you are in medical school how many hours a day do you devote to your studies? Do the same and in 4 – 5 years you will be at the top level in piano playing. But most people do not apply to their piano studies the same intensity that they apply to other areas of their lives where they excel.
1. Don't compare playing the piano to obtaining a doctoral degree, because you can't.
2. I refuse to accept that these "prodigies"(a word extremely used in poor context!) understand why their "interpretations" (you can't even call them that because there is no way to understand how to sight read, play, and fully understand all the composer's intentions after ofcourse reading that big ass history textbook.) make sense to the music world.
This boy’s mother is a piano teacher. Do you think he gets 30 minutes lessons per week? I will bet anything with you that this boy has lessons everyday, possibly more then once a day. In all likelihood his practice is closely supervised so that he does not waste time acquiring bad habits. His exposure to music is enormous, since he comes from a musical household. His accomplishment does not surprise me in the least. Anyone under the same conditions would get more or less the same results.
3. If I can remember back to the days of biological dihybrid crosses, there's no direct evidence that what his mother can do on piano is "passed down" to him. Human genetics have limits, if your mom or dad learns how to speak a language through school or any type of tutoring (even if the language is native to your mom or dad) there is no way to prove that the child will somehow understand the language.
4. Yes his exposure to music is great. So great that his exposure to school work (or lack there of) suffers? We'll never know! But, I would like to know what hapens to all the "prodigies" we hear so much about. It seems as if they're discovered at a young age, then never heard of again.
There is far too much mythology surrounding piano playing
5. And everything you said is completely factual? Where's the mythology in your post? Is it all mythology?

But some kids are so forced to play, that they start to really get the hang of this 'piano thing' and they keep it up because people keep telling them that what they are doing is amazing.
True story:
At my last piano competition, there was an 8 year old Korean girl performing the first movement of Chopin's second Sonata. She was entered in my class (senior division) with a 19 year old playng Rachmaninoff's second concerto (first movement) while at the same time playing the orchestral melody throughout out. I played Liszt's sonata in B minor. The 19 year old came first, I came second, and she came third. The awards were handed out, and to my surprise while both our parents (mine and the 19 year olds) were applauding with the rest of the crowd the 8 year old's parents just sat there with their arms folded, grinning...

[faulty_damper]

I agree with Bernhard.  If the child just started learning how to play a month before this competiton, and played the Hungarian Fantasy, then I'd really be impressed.  But the kid Bernhard was refering to has had over 6 years of learning and practice.  That's 6 years with a person who's teaching him and has daily supervision and most, if not all of his time, was spent practicing and not BSing.

The surprise we got with the 11 year old is that after 5-6 years of piano lessons, the most difficult piece we got through was Chopsticks and Happy Birthday, and the sheetmusic still had pretty pictures in it.  So when we see someone so young playing something beyond our most difficult repetory (chopsticks, etc) on sheetmusic without pretty pictures in it, we just think he's a genius.

Unfortunately there is a mass culture of mediocrity, and most people have never experienced excellence in any aspect of their lives. Hence the surprise.

Ditto, no sh*t.

[faulty_damper]

3. If I can remember back to the days of biological dihybrid crosses, there's no direct evidence that what his mother can do on piano is "passed down" to him. Human genetics have limits, if your mom or dad learns how to speak a language through school or any type of tutoring (even if the language is native to your mom or dad) there is no way to prove that the child will somehow understand the language.

Here is a controlled expirament:

Flatworm 1 is placed in a maze.
It runs the maze until it gets really good at it.
Then flatworm 1 is fed to flatworm 2.
Flatworm 2 runs the maze faster.

Back to the quote, it was never mentioned that his musical talents were passed down to him genetically, just that his mother was his teacher.

[bernhard]

Thanks Faulty.

This is the single thread to ever grace the piano forum.

Meaning?

1. Don't compare playing the piano to obtaining a doctoral degree, because you can't.

Yes, I can . I just did it in case you haven’t noticed. However I agree that the degree of difficulty is different. Obtaining a doctoral degree is far more difficult. Piano playing (not composing) is more similar to juggling.

2. I refuse to accept that these "prodigies"(a word extremely used in poor context!) understand why their "interpretations" (you can't even call them that because there is no way to understand how to sight read, play, and fully understand all the composer's intentions after of course reading that big ass history textbook.) make sense to the music world.

Yes… And?…

3. If I can remember back to the days of biological dihybrid crosses, there's no direct evidence that what his mother can do on piano is "passed down" to him. Human genetics have limits, if your mom or dad learns how to speak a language through school or any type of tutoring (even if the language is native to your mom or dad) there is no way to prove that the child will somehow understand the language.

The point was not that piano ability was genetically transmitted. The point was that by having a parent who is a piano teacher you have the benefit of a piano teacher in the home. You have the benefit of observing other students. You have the benefit of exposure not only to a variety of musical experiences as well as observing the process by which students learn music. Have you noticed that all Chinese children learn to speak Chinese? How come? Because they are exposed to an environment where Chinese is the prevalent language. Genetics has nothing to do with it. (Genetics determines that humans have the ability to learn a language – which one is down to the environment) And if your parents are bilingual, you will also be bilingual if they bother to communicate with you in both languages. Not because of genetics. And what do you mean there is no way to prove that the child will understands the language? Talk to him/her! Askhim/her questions, watch the answers. There is your proof.

4. Yes his exposure to music is great. So great that his exposure to school work (or lack there of) suffers? We'll never know! But, I would like to know what hapens to all the "prodigies" we hear so much about. It seems as if they're discovered at a young age, then never heard of again.

Kissin, Arrau, Yehudi Menuhim, Joseph Hoffmann, Mozart, Liszt, etc. etc. etc. All prodigies. What happened to them? They were heard again and again.

5. And everything you said is completely factual? Where's the mythology in your post? Is it all mythology?

Yes most of it is factual, from many years of experience.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[f0bul0us]

Thanks Faulty.



Meaning?


Yes, I can . I just did it in case you haven’t noticed. However I agree that the degree of difficulty is different. Obtaining a doctoral degree is far more difficult. Piano playing (not composing) is more similar to juggling.


Yes… And?…


The point was not that piano ability was genetically transmitted. The point was that by having a parent who is a piano teacher you have the benefit of a piano teacher in the home. You have the benefit of observing other students. You have the benefit of exposure not only to a variety of musical experiences as well as observing the process by which students learn music. Have you noticed that all Chinese children learn to speak Chinese? How come? Because they are exposed to an environment where Chinese is the prevalent language. Genetics has nothing to do with it. (Genetics determines that humans have the ability to learn a language – which one is down to the environment) And if your parents are bilingual, you will also be bilingual if they bother to communicate with you in both languages. Not because of genetics. And what do you mean there is no way to prove that the child will understands the language? Talk to him/her! Askhim/her questions, watch the answers. There is your proof.


Kissin, Arrau, Yehudi Menuhim, Joseph Hoffmann, Mozart, Liszt, etc. etc. etc. All prodigies. What happened to them? They were heard again and again.


Yes most of it is factual, from many years of experience.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Lol, I meant single greatest ***

Ah, k, I thought you meant it like "the boy's mom is a piano teacher so automatically what she knows gets passed down to him". You were vague!

And what do you mean there is no way to prove that the child will understands the language?
Now you misunderstood me, I meant that if a parent learns another language throughout their lifetime the child won't pick it up as if both parents spoke the language that one parent learnt.

Mozart, Liszt, they're all part of the "freak" periods, where everyone was unusually gifted.

[rhapsody]

When I saw a concert last year, a 12 year old boy came up to stage, bow, sit, and play mozart concerto no 22 (if I'm not mistaken), and I was amazed by his interpretation (no expressions, seems comfortable and cool), he manage to give the lightness and clarity to mozart (which I always expected). And guess what, his mother is piano teacher (I can see u smile, Bernhard )

In my deepest heart I always envy the so called "child prodigies" (being late bloomer my self) I always wish my parents introduce me to the world of music early on, but NOT, I have to bear the shame of going into annual concert in my music academy and play the boccherini's minuet on violin (It's my major instrument) and I was the only adult (so to speak) in that concert.
I have to be gratefull to my piano teacher who taught me a new way of learning, I play some moderate difficult pieces like rhapsody in blue or the moonlight, and clair de lune, those are my consolations

But looking at these children, I can't stop to think that they also may suffer from high tension on having to practice ALL the time, even though sometimes they don't feel to. I quote this from violinist Irvy gitlis: "When people discover that a child is 'prodigy' a whole tirany begins, everyone keep fussing about practising."
Michael Rabin was a prodigy, but the whole world was stunned by his tragic death (Over dosis to drugs), then adult musician start to realise how this kid is under a lot preasurre. I also have a female friend who play piano since her childhood and now she it at PreConservatory level, but when I asked about piano, she seems un interested, and she said "I only played piano 'cause my parents told me to, and since I already come this far, can't stop, but I don't get over excited to piano".

Ironic isn't it

Still I envy them  
(sorry on the mispell)

andrew

[Baron_Clavier]

>"And what do you mean there is no way to prove that >the child will understands the language? "
>Now you misunderstood me, I meant that if a parent >learns another language throughout their lifetime the >child won't pick it up as if both parents spoke the >language that one parent learnt.

Vague point. There are trilingual and even quadrilingual children. They acquire the languages because they have been exposed to them over time at an young age.
It has been shown that these children are better at languages in general, even in later life than single -language speakers, again due to exposure in early life.

It's the same thing with music, studies have shown a connection between musical exposure at early age and musicality.

>"There are people who had accumulated work >worthy .f a Nobel Prize by the time they were 19 years >old. Not everyone can do this, no matter how >streamlined the training is, because one cannot >practise certain intellectual capacities.

Interesting point.
I read a book a couple of years ago about "geniuses"/talent. It examined the myths and common factors between highly talented individuals in different disciplines.
One of the main 'facts' was that there is a 10-year barrier: all the geniuses had spent 10 years of deep daily training and learning in their subject of interest.

-Baron

[faulty_damper]

work >worthy .f a Nobel

My God!  You're using Dvorak keyboard layout!  

[ahmedito]

I dont want anyone to take this personally...

Over the years, Ive come to find that a mark of an immature pianist is total  and automatic disbelief and discreditment of child prodigies, or extremely talented children..... "hes not musical", "hes not that good", "he is too young to understand that work".... you know what I mean.

I believe that an immature musician (usually in an adolescent age group) thinks he is the best in the world.... or really believes someday he will be.... I dont know about that, but when faced with someone who obviously has such a great advantage, his first reaction is usually of disbilief and anger, as we have seen on some of the posts. Face it! an 11 year CAN play that stuff, and I think Bernhard is right, someday this may prove to be the normal level. Piano technique and teaching has improved enormously as the years go by.

[Baron_Clavier]

@Ahmedito

Your entirely correct.
I remember watching "The European contest for young musicians" (or something, held each 2nd year) some years ago.

Among the contestants were a polish pianist, 12 years old and the youngest. He played the third movement of chopins 1st piano concerto splendidly. It made an impression. The fact that there are so many brilliant young pianists out there was one footnote of my decision not to pursue a career as a concert musician.

Children have emotions as well, and are often more in touch with them in my opinion. Musical insight can be acquired through experience but there isn't an age limit there.

[scarbo87]

"pumkinhead" could you please email me privately.

Thanks!

cgardels@earthlink.net

[newsgroupeuan]

It's mainly enthusiasm. For example Menhuin,  when he was a child he was so eager to play violin he broke his toy one,  in order to get a real one.

[liszmaninopin]

It's all these prodigies who make me wish I had started at 3.

I've been studying for 4 years (starting at 12), and am at a reasonably advanced level; do you think that if I (or anyone else, for that matter) had started at 3, that would mean that I would have been playing all the stuff I do now at age 7?  That would be weird...

Of course I believe that these kids have an innate talent-but I would venture that most of us here, with enough interest and enthusiasm in the piano to visit a forum to discuss it, probably have the capability to make just as much progress.