Starting over as a beginner, but serious about a career

[hastur]

Not true. That would be regarded as pretty slow. Far from truly prodigious. Many display abilities that even professionals never acquire, within their earliest years.  Artistry takes time to mature, but there are countless examples of prodigies who have the technical apparatus for concert-level performance of difficult repertoire in a tiny number of years. That's without going into the neurological issues that mean young people can learn quicker. Later in life the most intricate skills simply cannot be ingrained as easily, if at all. 10 years a is a meaningless figure. Prodigies don't take that long and even 20 years may not be enough for an adult to reach a seriously advanced level.

Putting a spin on reality to downplay quite what a head-start most professionals started with can only provide false hopes. I wish you nothing but the best of luck if you're aiming high while staying realistic- but I'd be very careful not to distort reality for the sake of providing hope. There's no call for letting yourself become downtrodden with negativity. But it's all too easy to use dubious arguments as a way of trying to side-stepping issues that ought to be seriously considered.

Perhaps I can then be persuaded into accepting your idea of prodigies. But this would make them very few and far in-between indeed. Mozart I feel would be one person quite worthy the title, what with his talent for transcribing things he hears to paper quite excellently and other things. (A rather useful ability to have, when pursuing music) But media and people in general take the term very lightly I feel, giving it to just about any kid who picks up an instrument quick enough.

But yes, some of the things Mozart could accomplish are truly peculiar and extraordinary, a lot of which I'd like to suggest a diagnose within the autism spectra could explain, but some of them quite extraordinary indeed. I will give you this. And there are a few other people throughout history whom have showed equally difficult to explain abilities which when thought of rationally present no logical procedure of achieving through simple practice.

But the above-mentioned are mostly tools for achieving a goal easier (in this case becoming a musician of consequence). The artistic expression, technique, and virtuosity that makes a concert pianist are all things that can be achieved with aforementioned ambitions and dedication. But some have an easier path than others, no doubt.

[nyiregyhazi]

Perhaps I can then be persuaded into accepting your idea of prodigies. But this would make them very few and far in-between indeed. Mozart I feel would be one person quite worthy the title, what with his talent for transcribing things he hears to paper quite excellently and other things. (A rather useful ability to have, when pursuing music) But media and people in general take the term very lightly I feel, giving it to just about any kid who picks up an instrument quick enough.

Of course, Mozart was rarely talented indeed. But if we take the idea that they study for 10 years and become competent by 14-16, we'd be talking of something really rather ordinary indeed. Among concert artists, that wouldn't be regarded as especially prodigious. And this is all before we even get into the fact that the brain is more receptive in these younger years, than if you start learning late in life. Even if it were more about work than talent, those who work hard rarely had anything less than a solid foundation by their late teens. Anything else is literally unheard of to me (and I mean literally).

[hastur]

Of course, Mozart was rarely talented indeed. But if we take the idea that they study for 10 years and become competent by 14-16, we'd be talking of something really rather ordinary indeed. Among concert artists, that wouldn't be regarded as especially prodigious. And this is all before we even get into the fact that the brain is more receptive in these younger years, than if you start learning late in life. Even if it were more about work than talent, those who work hard rarely had anything less than a solid foundation by their late teens. Anything else is literally unheard of to me (and I mean literally).

I'd suggest that most people who start late don't have the balls to sacrifice the security of a full-time day job or other "regular" profession instead of pursuing a career in music. And the way I see it, pursuing a career in music is a poor choice if you want piles upon piles of money. Few who make a living out of their music make anything but a rather frugal one.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'd suggest that most people who start late don't have the balls to sacrifice the security of a full-time day job or other "regular" profession instead of pursuing a career in music.

Sure. But that in no way means that it's possible to leave it late, yet achieve a professional standard. It just means that we have no conclusive data to draw upon- at least statistically. But what we do have is plenty of scientific evidence about how learning is more limited in later life. I don't think many people are dumb enough to think it's a way of getting money. But I have no doubt that people fantasise about a level of respect that they are unlikely to acquire. If it were all about the music- why even perform? Why give up all, if the odds of even becoming good at it are slim? There's a difference between a child who has shown promise and has time on their hands and an adult who gives up all in a bid to force themself to become good at something.

[brogers70]

But what we do have is plenty of scientific evidence about how learning is more limited in later life.

For example?

[nyiregyhazi]

For example?

This is quite interesting.

https://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=fa/critical-period3

It's encouraging to learning, of course- but it's important to make a distinction between throwing everything away in a bid to become a concert level pianist and spending enough time to learn a language.

I read another article that I don't have to hand, but it made some interesting points about how adults learn selectively- due to an acquired bias that will affect their learning both consciously and subconsciously. It's the part of the brain which sets people in their ways and makes them as good as deaf to information that contradicts pre-conceived views.

Younger children just retain what they are shown without bias. Considering how many of the most widely used approaches involve explanations that are totally at odds with reality, it might explain why kids learn more easily. They just get on with moving as they are shown to- whereas adults are likely to be more confused by explanations that are at odds with what is possible. Or they attempt the explanations more literally and hit a wall beyond which they never progress.

It's far more common to hear adults say "I don't want to change what's already working"- despite the fact that what they are doing frequently isn't working terribly well at all. They pick something out because it helps at first and rapidly begin to strive to exclude alternatives that might be essential to them. Kids are generally much more open minded than any adults I have taught.

I think there's a real catch 22 here. Is anyone who's single-minded enough to want to spend 10 years becoming a concert pianist open-minded enough to be able to learn openly- rather than be held back by biases and preconceptions? I found it pretty damned difficult to throw away a great many of the ones I had acquired. Becoming a concert pianist requires total single-mindedness. But if you haven't first acquired the tools of moving well (in the years before your mind closes up) perhaps that's exactly what holds you back from learning.

[richard black]

About the prodigy thing - most teachers could spot most of the pupils who are likely to make a career as a performer in the first year of lessons. It's not a subtle difference. Looking back, I was a prodigy (if anyone spotted it, they never made anything of it, for which if anything I'm rather grateful): on the usual single lesson a week with the usual local piano teacher, I played my whole first book of piano pieces in 4 days. Now, married to a professional piano teacher, I find most kids are more likely to take about 4 months. I happen to have a social circle including quite a few piano performers and most of them had a rocket-like start of that nature.

Simple question: has anyone here with any experience of teaching (their own, or someone else's) ever come across an adult beginner who got off like that? Because I've never heard of one. That's not to say it's not possible, nor that it's impossible to get to soloist standard after a slow start, but observation tends to suggest otherwise.

[davidboddy]

 Sorry to jump in here, but I just joined this site yesterday primarily because, as in your topic, I too am attempting to play piano once more after a seven year lay off and wondered if there could be support and encouragement from like minded people out there. I find the comments honest and useful and being well past 30 I am playing once more for sheer pleasure and to prove that I can achieve a reasonable level.

[arturgajewski]

Very good example of how learning in later years is harder than when young is language. Just look at any third graders as they start learning some other language than their native one. Try to start learning a new language when your in the 40's. 

[richard black]

Very good example of how learning in later years is harder than when young is language.

Unless of course you have been in the habit of learning languages all your life. I've met adults in their 40s, 50s, 60s, who can learn a language really quickly, but they're all people who spoke at least half a dozen languages before their mid-20s.

[brogers70]

Very good example of how learning in later years is harder than when young is language. Just look at any third graders as they start learning some other language than their native one. Try to start learning a new language when your in the 40's. 

At 43 I learned Twi, a tonal West African language, well enough to get around and to give little speeches. At 48 I learned Indonesian well enough that I told my Indonesian secretary to speak with me only in Indonesian. At 50 I learned Khmer well enough that I can teach classes on malaria diagnosis in Khmer. I can read or speak 11 languages, but at 25 the only foreign language I knew was French. Everybody says that it's harder to learn languages (or music or mathematics) once you get past a critical age, but I don't believe that it's true. At least not as true as it is claimed. As an adult you have lots of skills that you didn't have as a child, even if you've lost some of the sponge-like qualities of a three year old's brain. If you find approaches to learning new stuff that take full advantage of all the tricks of learning that you've accumulated over decades, then you can learn all sorts of things at 50 that people tell you you have to start at 10. I doubt the original poster will become a concert pianist, sure, but I do think that an adult beginner can get to a much, much higher standard than many people seem to think, as long as he uses all his adult skills to find the most efficient way to learn, and works hard and sticks with it.

[nyiregyhazi]

At 43 I learned Twi, a tonal West African language, well enough to get around and to give little speeches. At 48 I learned Indonesian well enough that I told my Indonesian secretary to speak with me only in Indonesian. At 50 I learned Khmer well enough that I can teach classes on malaria diagnosis in Khmer. I can read or speak 11 languages, but at 25 the only foreign language I knew was French.

Would it be fair to say that you have a good memory in general? I'm skeptical as to whether many people could achieve such a thing. Language is primarily an issue of memory- which you presumably had developed in other areas than language and likely have a natural gift for. To play the piano to virtuoso level involves so many different skills and aspects of intelligence, that I think it would be a greater feat to learn late than languages.  To learn piano from scratch demands the development of various coordination issues- which very few things are likely to have provided much of a head-start for. While the general memory skills that acquire a language can be developed by many things in life, much of what goes into piano playing scarcely relates to anything you might have already developed elsewhere.

[keypeg]

Very good example of how learning in later years is harder than when young is language. Just look at any third graders as they start learning some other language than their native one. Try to start learning a new language when your in the 40's. 

If a third grader is taught a new language in the way that adults approach learning a new language (also how it is taught) then the third grader would do badly.  In fact, the way foreign languages are taught in the school system, students usually do end up with something awkward and difficult.

We approach things differently when we are older, and we can choose not to do that.  If the approach is different then the results will be different.

Try to start learning a new language when your in the 40's. 

My 6th and 7th languages, and in my 50's.  Since I know how to learn, and how not to try learning, these are a lot easier, and acquired more quickly than languages 3, 4 and 5.

[keypeg]

Language is primarily an issue of memory- which you presumably had developed in other areas than language and likely have a natural gift for.

Language learning is no more acquiring a collection of names.  I had some private students I had wanted to learn to speak their own thoughts fluently and without an accent.  The obstacles that prevent these two things from happening have the same root as what slows down music learning.  So the solutions are in some of the same areas.  A child takes on things directly and immediately.  Adults conceptualize. They draw on what they already know, matching, and then make the new thing fit with what they already know.  In essence they filter out what is there, and replace it with what they know, and add concepts to the mix.  If you can get away from that, then you will learn differently.  (Not to mention that how language is taught and learned is wrong.)

Take pronunciation.  You listen to the foreign sound and then translate it to something you know, and then pronounce that.  In fact, you probably don't know how to listen and you literally don't hear the sound - you have interpreted it.  To truly listen is a raw experience, and the physical act of pronouncing is also raw and earthy.  Babies blow bubbles and do bronx cheers for the pure pleasure of seeing what they can produce.  They experiment with the sounds they can make, and imitating what they hear without a filter.  If we can learn to truly listen and hear, without constantly reining ourselves in and filtering what is there, then the results will be different.

This same filtering and tendency to complicate things happens in music.  In both music and language we catch on to concepts very fast, and we learn faster than kids on that front when we do.  But we don't make room for the raw experience, to let it be what it is, and let our bodies and ears teach us.  We are constantly getting in the way.  These are actions, not abilities.  Actions can be changed.

[m1469]

Does anyone have any suggestions for where I should start regarding technique, repertoire, instruments etc?

A great teacher, a great work ethic, malleability, resilience, and a great attitude.  Of course your question is very complex and unanswerable.

But, in a sense, I started over, too, at a point.  Okay, I've been playing all my life, actually.  Okay, I've started over a few times by some definitions.  Okay, I've always loved it.  Okay, I've had very little formal training.  Okay, I've had HUGE setbacks.  Okay, how do any of those things actually define me?

I don't think any of them form a point A leading to point B, I'll tell you that much.  A little section of my own story?  In 2008, I took a step out from under a rock, out from inside some abyss, faced some life-sized and seemingly insurmountable fears, and got on an airplane to go have a first lesson with my out-of-state teacher.  1 year later, the economy tumbled.  1 year after that, my husband lost his job of 12 years and shortly thereafter, I went to my first lesson with my in-state teacher.  Okay, backup again, in 2008, when I stepped onto that airplane, I was just starting to learn some Grieg lyric pieces, a Chopin Prelude, and a Bach Prelude.  In many ways I had stopped playing for a few years before that.  In many ways I had never really begun.  In many ways I had never been separated from the piano.  I can tell you something, I had no clear idea on what in the world I was getting myself into.

3 years has been both Centuries and the flash of moments, all at once.  Deserts, huge oceans, rough terrain, okay, some beautiful and sublime things, too.  I'll tell you, I am so, so grateful to my teachers .  But, okay, it's impossible to tell this story, you know?  Do I recommend explicitly to have a piano career?  No.  What I do recommend explicitly is to follow your heart and face your fears.  

[brogers70]

Would it be fair to say that you have a good memory in general? I'm skeptical as to whether many people could achieve such a thing. Language is primarily an issue of memory- which you presumably had developed in other areas than language and likely have a natural gift for. To play the piano to virtuoso level involves so many different skills and aspects of intelligence, that I think it would be a greater feat to learn late than languages.  To learn piano from scratch demands the development of various coordination issues- which very few things are likely to have provided much of a head-start for. While the general memory skills that acquire a language can be developed by many things in life, much of what goes into piano playing scarcely relates to anything you might have already developed elsewhere.

No, I have a lousy memory in general. My kids used to trounce me at "Concentration" and other memory games. Learning languages later in life, like learning music later in life, requires that you take advantage of the skills you have as an adult - the ability to identify what's important and what's peripheral, the ability to break down a big messy task into achievable goals, the ability to stick with something over time, the ability to make plans and adjust them. Adult learners have weaknesses, too - discomfort at being incompetent at the beginning of the learning curve, for example, and the fact that many methods of learning are designed for younger students. Find an adult who really, really wants to learn piano (or vector calculus or Swahili) and show him how to take advantage of the cognitive skills he as acquired over a lifetime and he'll do very well. There may well be some neurological limits on learning some things late in life, but my impression is that people overestimate those limits by far and end up limiting themselves needlessly.

[keypeg]

@m1469, thank you for your post.  I didn't know which part to quote, it would have been the feeling behind all of it. 

[keypeg]

... and the fact that many methods of learning are designed for younger students.

I have mixed thoughts about that.  Each thing that is brand new and we want to learn has some basic skills that have to be mastered, regardless of the age.  There are some things that can be adapted to adults.  But other things I think will actually cater to those things which are weaknesses, because they will have us miss necessary steps.  When you are working with physical learning and training your senses then this is especially so.

I looked at an adult method book and a children's method book by the same publisher.  The children's book had children exploring intervals, listening for them, exploring them, all couched in cutesy fun activities.  There were physical activities such as - I think it was turning your hand into a bird's beak pecking the notes in order to get wrist action going (), in any case, it taught an element of technique.  The adult book had none of that.  It gave concepts and theoretical overviews.  It went quickly through various levels of music, used pieces that adults love to play.  It "taught" a bit about the composer and period through a few broad words.  This book definitely catered to how adults typically learn and think.  But the adult was not exposed to what is behind music which makes you master music.  Both the exploration of intervals and the technique set-up are more sophisticated and more important for eventual musicianship.

We learn by experiencing things in their basic aspects as they really are.  The experience builds the concept.  If we start with an intellectual explanation, then we will mold our experience into what we expect, and already we are blind and deaf.  We have to experience what an interval is, what it feels like to use our bodies various ways, not what we think it should feel like.  Young children explore naturally.  They hang upside down from monkey bars, catch snowflakes on their tongues, and see how many grapes they can squish into a cup.  If we don't do the equivalent in learning, then we will interpret the experience and filter out what's really there.  This is what is really behind the statistics of such studies.  How are these people learning?  Recently more than one adult student has cited choosing "children's" methods over adult ones.  We need to learn what the kids learn, and get back some of the ways we did learn as kids.

[brogers70]

I have mixed thoughts about that.  Each thing that is brand new and we want to learn has some basic skills that have to be mastered, regardless of the age.  There are some things that can be adapted to adults.  But other things I think will actually cater to those things which are weaknesses, because they will have us miss necessary steps.  When you are working with physical learning and training your senses then this is especially so.

I looked at an adult method book and a children's method book by the same publisher.  The children's book had children exploring intervals, listening for them, exploring them, all couched in cutesy fun activities. 

We learn by experiencing things in their basic aspects as they really are.  The experience builds the concept.  If we start with an intellectual explanation, then we will mold our experience into what we expect, and already we are blind and deaf.   How are these people learning?  Recently more than one adult student has cited choosing "children's" methods over adult ones.  We need to learn what the kids learn, and get back some of the ways we did learn as kids.

You make some good points. I've trimmed your quote just a bit for length. I'd say that

(1) just because a book includes "for the adult beginner" in the title, does not mean that it does a good job playing to the strengths of the adult learner.

(2) Of course anyone learning to play the piano at any age needs to have a series of physical and sonic experiences. An adult oriented approach does not mean that one simply intellectualizes everything. An adult can systematize their physical and auditory experiences and experiment with the best ways to learn things in a way that children cannot. I think you may be overestimating the extent to which having a system makes one "blind and deaf." One needs commonsensical flexibility at any age. But an adult will learn better, I think, by finding ways of learning that take advantage of adult strengths.

(3) When you compare children with adult learners there are all sorts of biases that enter into the comparison. Most children who start learning the piano quit or never attain any substantial competency. Likewise most adults. So you cannot compare the gifted child prodigy concertizing at 14 with a retired guy who thought it would be cool to learn to play the piano but then decided he'd rather play golf. You have to compare him with the 5 year old who started taking lessons and then decided he'd rather play flashlight tag. Maybe one kid in a hundred or one in a thousand gets to the point of playing the Beethoven Sonatas tolerably well. How sure are you that the proportion in adult learners in lower than that?

(4) There's another selection process that creates the impression that adults have trouble learning music late. Clearly, some amount of naive talent and inclination is required. Except in very poor countries, a kid with talent, motivation, and an inclination to learn music will likely get involved in music as a child. So when you look at an older population, it's already been depleted of the 0.1-1% of its members who are likely to be really good. So you get the impression that older folks cannot learn as well as kids, because the children with potential never make it into the "adult beginners" pool. That's a different effect than a differential ability to learn between kids and adults.

I'm aware of a few studies that tried to look at differences in the size of the motor cortex responsible for fine finger movements in people who had learned an instrument at a young age compared to non-musical people, and there was an association with greater brain space given to fine motor control. Even that study has potential biases. So, when somebody said, earlier in the thread, "Of course there's lots of scientific evidence that learning is harder when you are older," I just wonder how good the evidence really is, or whether it's not simply an impression we get from striking individual cases of child prodigies in music (or math or chess).

[nyiregyhazi]

deleted

[nyiregyhazi]

"Most children who start learning the piano quit or never attain any substantial competency. Likewise most adults. So you cannot compare the gifted child prodigy concertizing at 14 with a retired guy who thought it would be cool to learn to play the piano but then decided he'd rather play golf. You have to compare him with the 5 year old who started taking lessons and then decided he'd rather play flashlight tag."

That's totally illogical. If we're talking about achieving excellence, you're changing the wrong side of the comparison. We should be comparing a child who excels to the point of reaching excellence with an adult who does the same. But that just doesn't happen with adults. Why that doesn't happen we cannot say for definite. But do you think no adults ever start off feeling totally serious about it? Do you think enthusiasm makes you unique?

"Maybe one kid in a hundred or one in a thousand gets to the point of playing the Beethoven Sonatas tolerably well. How sure are you that the proportion in adult learners in lower than that?"

Simple. You hear of plenty of young learners who do that. I've never personally heard of even one adult beginner who did. I'm sure there are some who reach "tolerable", but not that I've personally encountered.

"So when you look at an older population, it's already been depleted of the 0.1-1% of its members who are likely to be really good. So you get the impression that older folks cannot learn as well as kids, because the children with potential never make it into the "adult beginners" pool. That's a different effect than a differential ability to learn between kids and adults."

So does that argument mean that you're among those who would have been good as a child? If so, the argument is voided- unless we presume that the argument defines you as being among those who had no potential to start with? Honestly, I find that to be a baffling argument. The idea that anyone with the potential to do well will necessarily have started young (a rule that you're obviously willing to believe you are the exception to) simply does not hold.

Anyway, I really don't want to sound negative. I hope you do extremely well- but I don't think you should underestimate how much harder it is to start late, or necessarily go to such lengths to deny it. You don't have to bury your head in the sand to be positive. If you waste time making rationales for how you might be able to reach an extremely advanced standard, it may just breed disappointment. Just enjoy the improvement you're making and seek ways of maximising it- and see what happens.

[keypeg]

Brogers, I think (?) that I agree with the tenor of your post.  I remember the first time I saw "information" about adults vs. children which was a few years after I had my first lesson.  It was an article trying to advise adults.  It said that we don't have the "dexterity" of a five year old (the kids who need fat crayons because they don't have fine motor control yet) and that an adult beginner should expect to go half the speed of a seven year old.  I had just done an exam preceded by a seven year old, and my teacher had said "What you have to remember is that it takes a child much longer.  It took this child 2 years to reach what you have in 6 months."  I passed "with distinction" btw. and I had not made extraordinary efforts to get there.

I am actually not interested in whether anyone at any age can become a concert performer, but whether students are able to reach their potential.  If there are things being done to prevent that, then this should be turned around.  I have highlighted some behaviours and some teaching approaches that I believe can cripple progress.  If this is so, then those practices would create negative results.

In regards to the "adult books" - what I have seen in them would prevent someone from getting the skills needed to become a fine musician.  They gloss over skills, training the ear, and are aimed for "instant results".  They avoid giving the needed tools.  When you look at the books for children then you see what is missing in the adult books which are created for a different market.

[brogers70]

So does that argument mean that you're among those who would have been good as a child? If so, the argument is voided- unless we presume that the argument defines you as being among those who had no potential to start with? Honestly, I find that to be a baffling argument. The idea that anyone with the potential to do well will necessarily have started young (a rule that you're obviously willing to believe you are the exception to) simply does not hold.

Nyiregyhazy - maybe I was unclear. I'm not especially writing about myself. I'm 52, I've been playing since I was 40. Only for pleasure and my own entertainment. I do play better (he says modestly) than many people who start as adults, but I'm not the original poster, and I have not the slightest desire to give up my day job. That would be very unrealistic, I'm nowhere near good enough for that. I only object to the blanket claim that learning is harder for adults. That's the wrong way to think. Adults have strengths that kids don't (and weaknesses that kids don't, too). If you're 35 years old and your heart is set on learning to play the piano so you can play some favorite fugues from the WTC before you die, and you don't care if it takes 10-15 years and a lot of work, then go for it. Your chances aren't bad, if you are willing to put in the work, and if you find a teacher who doesn't automatically set really low expectations for you because of your age.

The guy who started this thread seems pretty odd to me. In the first place, if I were considering a major, risky career move like that I wouldn't go around looking for validation from a bunch of anonymous folks on the internet. And second, completely apart from the question of inherent learning problems for adults, if you want to enter a highly, highly competitive field, giving your competitors a 20 or 25 year head start is not a good idea. But I'm not that guy. I'm just a guy who thinks that you really can teach an old dog new tricks.

[coffee_guy]

see I am a bit confused. I am 30 years old and just started playing piano. I have been playing guitar for 16 years and (not bragging) better than most guitar players I know.

I am approaching the piano very motivated, but I also know I will never be as good at it as I am guitar. Why? Because I cannot make up for 16 years of not playing in just a few years.

What I am hoping is that I can play the piano in a way that satisfies the people who listen to me play, most importantly, myself. I also want to pass music on to my future children and hope I can show them more than just guitar and bass.

I have no intentions of being a paid professional musician, nor a concert pianist. I think those goals would be far to lofty for anyone in my age group. I am just hoping that after 3-5 years of dedicated practice the average person will have no clue that I have not played my entire life. Even this goal is somewhat lofty in my honest opinion.

[keypeg]

"Maybe one kid in a hundred or one in a thousand gets to the point of playing the Beethoven Sonatas tolerably well. How sure are you that the proportion in adult learners in lower than that?"

Simple. You hear of plenty of young learners who do that. I've never personally heard of even one adult beginner who did. I'm sure there are some who reach "tolerable", but not that I've personally encountered.

I'm trying to think this one through.  There are hundreds of thousands of students in the world.   Teachers don't usually report how their beginner students are doing.  How would any of us know whether there are many young beginners or adult beginners who play Beethoven Sonatas?  How can we know what is happening in private studios?  The only thing we can know for sure involves ourselves or our children, or friends, or a teacher would know about his own students.

The big red herring for me is still how students are taught, and how they approach their learning - and these things are also intertwined.  Unless you factor this in, then you cannot talk about ability.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm trying to think this one through.  There are hundreds of thousands of students in the world.   Teachers don't usually report how their beginner students are doing.  How would any of us know whether there are many young beginners or adult beginners who play Beethoven Sonatas?  How can we know what is happening in private studios?  The only thing we can know for sure involves ourselves or our children, or friends, or a teacher would know about his own students.

Well, I've encountered no shortage of pianists who can play a reasonable, if not professional Beethoven sonata. I've never heard of even one, who started in adulthood. I wouldn't say that makes it impossible, but I've never personally encountered it. I think you mentioned Bach Preludes and Fugues before. That's one thing I'd be even more skeptical about. Generally, I think later starters can use their enthusiasm to play chordal lyrical pieces reasonably well. If they're musical, it can come through. However, things like a fugue are much more difficult to overcome. Willpower does not help. A feel for the physical technique is almost everything. If the technique to play such a thing healthily (rather than with an exceedingly forced style of awkward movement) can be acquired by someone who only begins in adulthood I think it would be exceedingly rare.

[scottmcc]

I started playing when I was almost 30, although I dabbled some when I was a teenager.  I won't claim that anyone would ever pay money to hear me, but I think I can do a passable job with some of the Beethoven sonatas and at least of the fugues from the wtc.  So there. 

I do believe that it is nearly impossible to reach a professional level for anyone, regardless of when they start learning, and exponentially more so for adult beginners.  There really is a critical period for acquiring certain skills, and in my mind it is somewhere in childhood.

Then again, I learned how to be a surgeon in my late 20's, and most people think that the dexterity required for that is pretty involved (although I think most of it is easier than playing piano well).

To the original poster, take a look at the abrsm syllabus.  It's online for free and you can just put yourself through all the grades.  Shouldn't take more than a few months if you are truly on the road to a career in music.

[pmwpmw]

Thomson, to answer you question, get a copy of the Chopin etudes. Learn the first page of each of the 24 (probably don't bother with the 3 posthumous ones). Settle with 2 that you really like and work on them to completion. In the meantime, play in small concerts/music festivals and guage your ability to move the audience with whatever moves you!
If nothing moves you, you have a problem. If you can't excite you audience - at least some of the time - then you aren't excited your self. But I'm sure that isn't the case. PW

[thompson_321]

Thomson, to answer you question, get a copy of the Chopin etudes. Learn the first page of each of the 24 (probably don't bother with the 3 posthumous ones). Settle with 2 that you really like and work on them to completion. In the meantime, play in small concerts/music festivals and guage your ability to move the audience with whatever moves you!
If nothing moves you, you have a problem. If you can't excite you audience - at least some of the time - then you aren't excited your self. But I'm sure that isn't the case. PW

CHOPIN ETUDES?? I'm going back to the beginning with SIMPLE PIECES! What's your problem? Why can't you just be honest and helpful? Is this really how the world is? Stuff piano street if it's full of passionless human beings like yourself. You may be a brilliant musician, but when it comes to being a real person, which is just as important, FORGET IT.

[pianoman53]

Dude, he was trying to help. Geez..!

[thompson_321]

Dude, he was trying to help. Geez..!

Sure he was. And cut out the 'dude'. Don't dumb yourself down, not even for me. You are a classical musician.

[thompson_321]

Dude, he was trying to help. Geez..!

Stuff piano street. I'm going elsewhere. You're absolutely pathetic.

[thompson_321]

Hate me if you like, but can you honestly say that you asked yourself any of those questions and found an answer you are comfortable with? Difficult questions are the most important ones to face, if you're serious about this. You might think I'm just being rude, but you owe it to YOURSELF to stop and consider them.

I'm finished with the likes of you. Have a nice life.

[sucom]

Hi Thompson

CHOPIN ETUDES?? I'm going back to the beginning with SIMPLE PIECES! What's your problem? Why can't you just be honest and helpful? Is this really how the world is? Stuff piano street if it's full of passionless human beings like yourself. You may be a brilliant musician, but when it comes to being a real person, which is just as important, FORGET IT.

I'm really confused here.  To be honest, pmw's advice about Chopin Etudes was really great advice! He comes across as someone who knows what he is talking about.  And the Chopin studies are really, really helpful!  And yet, you're saying you want simpler pieces and this is where I'm getting confused, because if you truly had the skills required for a top teacher, and have the talent you say you have, you wouldn't be looking at playing 'simpler' pieces.   You would already be able to play them, or at least some of them. 

I think there is genuine confusion here about the standard you have reached and this is what could be causing all these unpleasant posts here.  What standard are you, exactly?  If you are honest about the standard you have achieved already, then the rest of us who are willing to offer help will be in a better position to offer advice that is relevant for YOU.  Without this knowledge, it's pretty darn impossible to suggest pieces or where your next step should lead.  At the moment, all that is coming across is that you appear to have some kind of personal issue and I mean this in the nicest sense of the word. 

[pianoman53]

Sure he was. And cut out the 'dude'. Don't dumb yourself down, not even for me. You are a classical musician.

Yaow, bro, chillax...
...

Seriously? The.. no, not even in the 60th where the classical musicians this lame. "Don't say dude, you're a classical musician?" Omg!

Gah!

You're 30 years old, you have an education, yet you're whining about not haveing one. You're constantly changing your mind, about what you're going to do in the future. Once you where whining about your teacher, then about not getting into a good school. Then you're getting accepted into a good school, with a good teacher, and you start whining about that too! Now you're just being the biggest brat ever, and telling us (the people who've helped you a cazillion times) that we suck?! You're the one who isn't good enough for doing even the most simple recording, and to prove your "gift".

You'll probably come back in like two days saying "Sorry, I have to learn how to control my temper", and then start asking yet another question like "I'm about to launch a professional career. What is the best piece to show how great I am?". Get a freaking grip over yourself, and either:
a) Leave us the hell alone if you don't want our help..
or
b) Go to a freaking shrink to get whatever compensating issue you have out of your head, and start acting like a real person.

Stupid jerk..!

[richard black]

Oh dear, we all failed to sort out our good friend 321's life and now he hates us.

Sh*t happens.

But never mind, the sun's shining.

[nyiregyhazi]

You'll probably come back in like two days saying "Sorry, I have to learn how to control my temper", and then start asking yet another question like "I'm about to launch a professional career. What is the best piece to show how great I am?". Get a freaking grip over yourself, and either:
a) Leave us the hell alone if you don't want our help..
or
b) Go to a freaking shrink to get whatever compensating issue you have out of your head, and start acting like a real person.

Stupid jerk..!

While it's rather frustrating to see sincere advice met with such rudeness, I don't think there's any value in being rude back. It's probably best to simply ignore him, rather than add fuel to his fantasies of being cruelly trodden upon by the world at large. No doubt the reason he reacted so badly is because he's such a long way from playing Chopin Etudes and cannot come to terms with that. This guy clearly needs professional help- if he's going to stop trying to protect his fantasies and come to terms with reality.

[bissrok]

Seems pretty clear to me that 321's just trolling. And, so far, it's workin' out pretty well for him.

It's like if I went over to a guitar forum and said "Hi guys. I'm 38. I only know a C chord, but I'm going to be a rock star. What are your thoughts on this?" and then being surprised when you're gently advised to use some common sense... He's either deluded or screwin' with you.

[revanyoda777]

Here are some good places to start

Major and minor scales

Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach - J.S. Bach (start with the Minuet in G major, then work your way up)

Little Preludes, Two part inventions - J.S. Bach

Preludes and exercises - Muzio Clementi

Moonlight Sonata mvt 1 - Beethoven
Country Dances - Beethoven
and also the Gavotte for French Suite no. 5 by Bach.

About the Chopin Etudes. You don't necessarily have master any of them, just getting a page from some of them are really congenial and are a big help in getting technique or musicianship to a higher level. It doesn't hurt to aim high, and explore new things!




Notebook

[xerula]

Can anyone give an example of a well-regarded concert pianist who began as an adult? I recall reading somewhere about a violinist in the 1800s who retrained as a pianist at the age of 20 and was moderately successful, but that's the only instance I can think of amongst the hundreds of biographies of pianists I've skimmed. And I'm sure that guy was by no means a total novice when he switched instruments.

Brendel is fond of emphasizing that he was not a child prodigy, but he began lessons at six and was already giving successful solo recitals and winning competitions before the age of 20. And every other concert pianist I can think of was a formidable pianist in childhood too.

This seems relevant to the debate you guys were having, that an adult beginner has never become a successful concert pianist even once in the entire history of the instrument. I am familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's thesis 'Outliers' and the principle of 10,000 hours or ten years work ensuring the mastery of anything, but it clearly does not apply to music-making at the highest level. In my own history as a pianist, with private teachers and at music colleges, I have seen so many adult learners making a go of it, and no matter the fervor of their passion, their commitment, their self-belief, their intelligence and theoretical insights, or the astonishing brilliance of the music they assured us they could hear in their heads, not one of them ever gave a single successful public recital at a real concert venue, let alone made a career of it.

Not to discourage anyone from playing, but you gotta be pragmatic.

[m1469]

Can anyone give an example of a well-regarded concert pianist who began as an adult? I recall reading somewhere about a violinist in the 1800s who retrained as a pianist at the age of 20 and was moderately successful, but that's the only instance I can think of amongst the hundreds of biographies of pianists I've skimmed. And I'm sure that guy was by no means a total novice when he switched instruments.

Brendel is fond of emphasizing that he was not a child prodigy, but he began lessons at six and was already giving successful solo recitals and winning competitions before the age of 20. And every other concert pianist I can think of was a formidable pianist in childhood too.

This seems relevant to the debate you guys were having, that an adult beginner has never become a successful concert pianist even once in the entire history of the instrument. I am familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's thesis 'Outliers' and the principle of 10,000 hours or ten years work ensuring the mastery of anything, but it clearly does not apply to music-making at the highest level. In my own history as a pianist, with private teachers and at music colleges, I have seen so many adult learners making a go of it, and no matter the fervor of their passion, their commitment, their self-belief, their intelligence and theoretical insights, or the astonishing brilliance of the music they assured us they could hear in their heads, not one of them ever gave a single successful public recital at a real concert venue, let alone made a career of it.

Not to discourage anyone from playing, but you gotta be pragmatic.

That's not pragmatism, that's the description of an eight-hundred pound gorilla - don't feed the gorilla, methinks.

[keyboardclass]

The 19th century geezer would be Harold Bauer.

[xerula]

That's not pragmatism, that's the description of an eight-hundred pound gorilla - don't feed the gorilla, methinks.

Or unveil the elephant?

I guess what I mean by pragmatism is taking an attitude of "I'm 30, but I will practice as if there are no limits to my potential," while not quitting your day job and not assuring everyone you're about to hit the big time.

In my case, I'm actually 32. I only recently got my DipABRSM, and I'm plotting for an FRSM one day, and a professional debut when I'm, oh... 70? I was a very bad pianist until I was about 22, but I was also a bad pianist when I was five, so at least I have a long history of physical contact with the instrument. Which makes all the difference. (As you can see, I nurture my own delusions.)

[xerula]

The 19th century geezer would be Harold Bauer.

So he was. Thanks. I looked him up and it seems he had a more successful career than I recalled.

[keyboardclass]

In my case, I'm actually 32. I only recently got my DipABRSM, and I'm plotting for an FRSM one day, and a professional debut when I'm, oh... 70? I was a very bad pianist until I was about 22, but I was also a bad pianist when I was five, so at least I have a long history of physical contact with the instrument. Which makes all the difference. (As you can see, I nurture my own delusions.)

Sounds like you just may make it!

[m1469]

Okay - but, why would anybody who has something that others would wish to sit and listen to *EVER* start with "I'm (insert age)"?  Wrong premise altogether.  It really goes for anybody who'd wish to be an artist (more than just a "pianist" trying to have a career) that one must start with "I've got something inside of me which needs to be expressed" - who needs another virtuoso or any other artist of any sort with nothing to say, no matter what age they are?  The very moment thought drifts into "I'm 32" "I'm 5" "I'm 68" ... whatever, it's started on the wrong footing.

This is not to say that I suggest people go ahead and sell everything and give up jobs altogether, etc..  But, if you're going to set out on a journey, at least start the right way - you can't let that gorilla talk you into thinking about the wrong stuff.

If one wants to talk about chances and these things which are not directly and actually relevant to what's inside of each of us, what are the chances that anybody has got something to say, whether they've got the means to say it or not?

[xerula]

Hi m1469... I was not seriously suggesting that anyone should sit down at a piano with their age at the front or back of their mind. You ignore the other half of my statement: "I will practice as if there are no limits to my potential".  I mean, come on, perhaps I chose my words clumsily, but the context here was a discussion about adult learners going on to have a concert careers. Merely acknowledging that this is unlikely does not mean the entire foundation of your musical development is poisoned. We are saying the same thing - forget about the 'career' side of things, be a musician for the sake of music, to share your own personal musical vision.

As for not feeding the gorilla, I don't see that there is a gorilla for me to feed. I look reality in the face and that is part of who I am as a musician.

[m1469]

Merely acknowledging that this is unlikely does not mean the entire foundation of your musical development is poisoned.

It is indeed poisoned if that's the foundation of a person's musical development.

We are saying the same thing - forget about the 'career' side of things, be a musician for the sake of music, to share your own personal musical vision.

I don't recall you saying that, and I don't recall me saying that, either, though I guess it's easy enough to say  .

As for not feeding the gorilla, I don't see that there is a gorilla for me to feed. I look reality in the face and that is part of who I am as a musician.

Well, congrats, I guess!

[nyiregyhazi]

"It is indeed poisoned if that's the foundation of a person's musical development."

And it's at least as poisoned if someone is contemplating professional playing before having even attained solid competence. It's not negative to feel that such a person should be brought out of their delusion.

[pianowolfi]

Or unveil the elephant?

I guess what I mean by pragmatism is taking an attitude of "I'm 30, but I will practice as if there are no limits to my potential," while not quitting your day job and not assuring everyone you're about to hit the big time.

In my case, I'm actually 32. I only recently got my DipABRSM, and I'm plotting for an FRSM one day, and a professional debut when I'm, oh... 70? I was a very bad pianist until I was about 22, but I was also a bad pianist when I was five, so at least I have a long history of physical contact with the instrument. Which makes all the difference. (As you can see, I nurture my own delusions.)

But why are you "skimming" hundreds of pianist's "biographies" then, with the goal to prove everyone's unsuccessful career in case of being o30 or o40 or whatever? Why would you do that instead of "skimming" the 88?
Are you the reborn thompson 321? Guess guess, guessing game, guessing who's a troll or gorilla, it's maybe all the same.