A Potential Late-Starter Looking for Honest Answers

[contreras]

Hello, PianoStreet. My name is Matthew and I'm quite glad to have found a forum like this. You see, I've been entertaining an interest in classical piano for a good while now. About a year ago, I discovered the piano music of the great virtuoso Romantic composers and was absolutely blown away by the quality of the composition as well as the technical facilities required to play the pieces. Ever since then, I've considered learning to play the piano, but each time that the consideration comes to mind so do some rather unpleasant doubts. The main cause of the doubts comes from my age. I'm 19 years old. Beginning to play classical piano at such a late age seems quite intimidating when the vast majority of classical pianists appear to start when they're less than a third of my age.

I really, really would like to be able to play the works of Liszt and Rachmaninov one day, but for some reason, I can't help but think that these aspirations could very well be nothing more than excessively wishful thinking. It seems as if most, if not every pianist that I've seen/known who has the skill to play works of such technical difficulty started very early and had plenty of time to practice. I, however, don't have that luxury. I've got college and (soon) will have a job to attend to. So, that being said, I was coming to P.S. for some honest, no sugar coat answers.

Question 1: Is my goal of  being able to reach the skill level where I could play Liszt's advanced works (difficulty: Campanella and higher), despite the extremely late start feasible?

Question 2: Have any of you ever known of any late-starters (19 and up) who managed to reach a very high level of playing? (It would be nice to hear some inspirational stories.)

Question 3: If I were to start, do you have any recommendations as to what I should do? (Besides the cliche "find a good teacher", "practice with control", "practice often".)

Thanks in advance, guys.

[contreras]

Bump.

[sucom]

Hi Matthew
If you feel inspired to play the piano and you feel inspired by the music you are hearing, then go for it!  The main requirement, as an adult, is that you will hopefully find yourself enjoying playing even the easiest of pieces without being put off by expecting too much of yourself too soon. You won't be able to play advanced pieces until you have spent quite a few hours practising sometimes quite difficult techniques that will test your patience and your stamina. If you are not put off by that, and instead, find yourself enjoying the challenge, with a continuing desire to achieve greater things, there is nothing to stop you taking your study as far as you want to go.

My advice is: Don't expect too much too soon, but just remain persistent in your goal.  Every time you practise, it is 'now', and in ten years time, you will sit down to practise and it will still be 'now'.  The only difference being those two 'nows' is that you will have ten years of persistent practice under your belt and at last benefitting from it by playing music that has always inspired you.

And if it is of any help, my dentist was 35 when he took his associate teachers diploma.  If he can do it, so can you!  I wish you all the best, and good luck!

[raphaelinparis]

Question 2: Have any of you ever known of any late-starters (19 and up) who managed to reach a very high level of playing? (It would be nice to hear some inspirational stories.)

yes. This man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadi_Volodos
started seriously at 16 (ok that is not 19+ but it's close) and is a great pianist (he is one of the favourite pianists from my russian teacher who is also a concertist). He is known for his interprations of Rachmaninoff and Liszt.
so, now, young man, it is up to you.

[richard black]

I don't want ruin the party, but I have personally never heard of a pianist who managed to play pieces like that to a public-performance standard without having started young. The reply above mentions Volodos, but he started young too - he just didn't train all that hard until he was older. You can have plenty of fun starting late, but playing the most demanding repertoire like (a lot of) Liszt and Rachmaninov is the preserve of those who started early.

[pbryld]

I don't want ruin the party, but I have personally never heard of a pianist who managed to play pieces like that to a public-performance standard without having started young. The reply above mentions Volodos, but he started young too - he just didn't train all that hard until he was older. You can have plenty of fun starting late, but playing the most demanding repertoire like (a lot of) Liszt and Rachmaninov is the preserve of those who started early.

Won't he just be able to play them later than someone who started young...?

[raphaelinparis]

Volodos did not do much before 16. Not sure if what he did before 16 made a big difference actually.
After 16 he also failed several exams and was fired from some conservatories because he had difficulties to catch up with the crowd that had started the piano much earlier. But he eventually managed to make a big difference.

Matthew does not want to become the next Volodos after all, he just want to play some Liszt and Rachma, as best as he can. I wish him good luck and I am convinced that he can do it if he works hard enough and find good teachers.

[keypeg]

I don't want ruin the party, but I have personally never heard of a pianist who managed to play pieces like that to a public-performance standard without having started young. The reply above mentions Volodos, but he started young too - he just didn't train all that hard until he was older. You can have plenty of fun starting late, but playing the most demanding repertoire like (a lot of) Liszt and Rachmaninov is the preserve of those who started early.

And you are somehow magically able to meet every person on this earth, even those who do not perform publicly?  And they all deigned to play for you in private meetings, so that you can tell?

[nyiregyhazi]

And you are somehow magically able to meet every person on this earth, even those who do not perform publicly?  And they all deigned to play for you in private meetings, so that you can tell?

Well, have you heard someone who started from scratch after 18 and played La Campanella? If these people exist, we ought to encounter them from time to time. Should we also believe that somebody who plays their first game of football after 18 could feasibly reach club standard, simply because we haven't looked at every player in the world? It's not unreasonable to hope to learn one or two Rachmaninoff Preludes someday, if things go well. However, realistically it's very unlikely that the poster will get within serious reach of advanced Etudes. Is this a forum for honest advice from a place of experience or is it designed for fuelling the disappointment that can come from unreasonable expectation? He asked for honest answers. Not blind encouragement.

If reasonable expectations are not good enough for someone, learning the piano is a mistake anyway. I stress here that I am NOT assuming this applies to the poster- but anyone for whom it's La Campanella or nothing would be making a huge mistake to think about learning the piano at all. I had a student before who came for lessons. Early on he did a reasonable job of getting through the first page or two of Chopin's C minor nocturne. However, I could never persuade him to do any productive work on basics. He was only interested in "having a go" at things that were too hard (despite my attempt to get him to balance between the two- better of as he would have been putting the difficult stuff aside outright). He simply destroyed any hope of real progress. Eventually we hit a wall where he was really going nowhere at all. He was constantly starting new pieces that he was enthusiastic about but never developed any transferable skills. If you start with your sights set too high, learning late is doomed. You have to take it a step at a time. Again, not specifically aimed at the poster, but if it's all about the big pieces (rather than enjoying the progress itself), learning the piano is not for you.

[contreras]

Well, have you heard someone who started from scratch after 18 and played La Campanella? If these people exist, we ought to encounter them from time to time. Should we also believe that somebody who plays their first game of football after 18 could feasibly reach club standard, simply because we haven't looked at every player in the world?

Well, at age 19, you've still got your entire life ahead of you. I don't see why it's so unlikely for that a guy who's starting at my age to be able to play some of the more advanced Liszt and Rachmaninov at a solid level of quality. When it comes down to it, the practice hours really determine how good one will become as a pianist, not the age that they start at. Forgive me, but the whole "You'll never get serious skills unless you start early" mentality in the piano community seems quite romanticized. I could very well be wrong by calling it romanticized, if so, please present me with some good evidence as to why. It seems fairly reasonable to think that there's quite a few amateur pianists with the skill to play top-level repertoire who just play the piano for their own enjoyment, not to win competitions or play concerts. I mean, why is the existence of that type of pianist so unlikely? Not everyone wants to be the next Cziffra, some are happy just playing for their-selves and their friends.



It's not unreasonable to hope to learn one or two Rachmaninoff Preludes someday, if things go well. However, realistically it's very unlikely that the poster will get within serious reach of advanced Etudes. Is this a forum for honest advice from a place of experience or is it designed for fuelling the disappointment that can come from unreasonable expectation? He asked for honest answers. Not blind encouragement.

What are your reasons for making this claim? I'm not doubting your expertise and knowledge, but I'd just like to know what your grounds are.

[contreras]

Well, have you heard someone who started from scratch after 18 and played La Campanella? If these people exist, we ought to encounter them from time to time. Should we also believe that somebody who plays their first game of football after 18 could feasibly reach club standard, simply because we haven't looked at every player in the world?

Well, at age 19, you've still got your entire life ahead of you. I don't see why it's so unlikely for that a guy who's starting at my age to be able to play some of the more advanced Liszt and Rachmaninov at a solid level of quality. When it comes down to it, the practice hours really determine how good one will become as a pianist, not the age that they start at. Forgive me, but the whole "You'll never get serious skills unless you start early" mentality in the piano community seems quite romanticized. I could very well be wrong by calling it romanticized, if so, please present me with some good evidence as to why. It seems fairly reasonable to think that there's quite a few amateur pianists with the skill to play top-level repertoire who just play the piano for their own enjoyment, not to win competitions or play concerts. I mean, why is the existence of that type of pianist so unlikely? Not everyone wants to be the next Cziffra, some are happy just playing for their-selves and their friends.



It's not unreasonable to hope to learn one or two Rachmaninoff Preludes someday, if things go well. However, realistically it's very unlikely that the poster will get within serious reach of advanced Etudes. Is this a forum for honest advice from a place of experience or is it designed for fuelling the disappointment that can come from unreasonable expectation? He asked for honest answers. Not blind encouragement.

What is your evidence backing up this claim? I'm not doubting your expertise and knowledge, but I'd just like to know what your grounds for making this assumption are.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well, at age 19, you've still got your entire life ahead of you. I don't see why it's so unlikely for that a guy who's starting at my age to be able to play some of the more advanced Liszt and Rachmaninov at a solid level of quality."

The simple question is, why do we never hear of it? Do you think you're the only late starter with a desire to get there? You're the first to consider this? I doubt it. Where did the others go? I'm not saying this to encourage you to give up on it altogether- but if you want to get something out of playing piano your need to be in it for the right reasons. What kid starts off by asking if they'll ever play La Campanella? Progress has to be it's own reward, when you're starting out. Then you see how much further you can go and take things as they come. You cannot force becoming a pianist of that kind of level. The idea that practise makes perfect is the romanticised dream. It's not that simple.


"When it comes down to it, the practice hours really determine how good one will become as a pianist, not the age that they start at."

Based on what evidence?


"It seems fairly reasonable to think that there's quite a few amateur pianists with the skill to play top-level repertoire who just play the piano for their own enjoyment, not to win competitions or play concerts. I mean, why is the existence of that type of pianist so unlikely?"

So where are these people? We have more than enough pianists on youtube these days. I've never encountered one who started as an adult and who plays advanced repertoire.


"What are your reasons for making this claim? I'm not doubting your expertise and knowledge, but I'd just like to know what your grounds are."

Quite simply the fact I've never seen it and the number of people who I do know of who started with very serious intentions that petered out and went nowhere. I'm not trying to be negative. I think you need to be in it for the right reasons if you're serious about both starting and continuing to develop over a long period of time. As I said, I wasn't aiming specifically at you in my comments. But if it really is anything like being a case of La Campanella or nothing, you need to think about what you're really going to get out of this. Many start with lofty goals, but most of them quit. Seriously, if progress will not be it's own reward, you'll probably quit altogether. Could you enjoy progress in whatever form it comes, or would your enjoyment depend on reaching an improbable dream?

[richard black]

I would be delighted to be told of someone who started completely cold in their teens and achieved fantastic feats of virtuoso pianism, but all the evidence I've seen suggests that starting young (7 or earlier) achieves levels of dexterity that are simply denied to those who start later. I can't say that it's impossible, just the same as I can't deny that there may be a white crow somewhere.

[m1469]

all the evidence I've seen suggests that starting young (7 or earlier) achieves levels of dexterity that are simply denied to those who start later.

What about somebody in their mid-fifties who started when they were 2, went to Julliard, is playing professionally, but hasn't quite achieved that certain "level" of dexterity yet?

[brogers70]

Hi Contreras, The short answer is you'll never find out if you don't try. Your question is pretty common here and, as you can see, there are specialists here with a special vocation to whopping people who ask it over the head with a dose of hard reality. I'd say that if you will get no pleasure from playing the piano until you are playing Liszt Etudes, then you have a lot of years of dreary work without great propects of success. On the other hand if you enjoy practicing, and get some pleasure from playing easier but still serious pieces, then just get started. It's not as though you are in a position to drop everything and do nothing but piano anyway. Take it on as a serious hobby, work hard, and see how much you like it.

I started at 40. I had no experience with the piano at all, although I was a good classical guitarist when I switched. Now at 53, after working really hard at it, I can play all but the most difficult Mozart and Haydn sonatas, 6 of the Schubert Impromptus, a couple of the French Suites, a handful of Preludes and fugues from the WTC. Now I'm working on the E major Op. 14 sonata by Beethoven, the First Partita by Bach, and "On an Overgrown Path" by Janacek.  It's unlikely anyone would pay to hear me play, but they wouldn't run away screaming if they heard me either. A talented teenager who had started at 5 and then worked the same number of years I have would likely play much better. There are pieces that I love that I'm sure I'll never be able to play - the Waldstein, Beethoven Opus 111, the Goldberg Variations, but that's life. I completely love it. You have a much more detailed understanding of a piece of music by sweating over it for months than you ever would by listening to the CD.

So, while there is a non-zero chance that you will become the next Volodos, it's not very likely. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop you from really enjoying life more because you're working on the piano. Just go for it, and see how it goes. With a good teacher, I expect you could be playing some interesting, though not technically demanding music in a couple of years. Have fun.

[ethure]

Our situations sound so much similar! I don't remember if I ever worried about my age that much. actually once you start it, the age thing just flys away from your mind. all you think about at that time will be to follow your teacher's instructions, practise, little by little, day by day, that simple. my teacher said it'll be a lifelong matter once you decided to learn it, you'll always be in progress, and never would say, I've achieved the top of the moutain and nothing else needs learning any more. It gave me much determination and dedication when I started my piano learning.

quit the thought of it being excessively wishful but learn to enjoy the process as well as achievements from time to time. make the pieces you want to play as motivations rather than goals. mood and attitude can have a big influence on one for digging potential to the most extent. and potential can be such a magical thing that you'll find you may never end digging it.

getting to know some precedents can be inspiring indeed, but to face and mind your own way for your wishes should be the most right thing to do. clear all kinds of worry, doubt that disturb you as those really do nothing for the learning itself. so what if finally you prove that by all means you're unable to reach a higher level? You get the experience and you gain a thorough understanding of why you can't. the real pity and regret will be that you keep hesitating about it with the doubts and uncertainty.

I'd recommend you to blindly believe that you can one day be as excellent as those great pianists in history(I do that by listening to their videos and imagine playing with them hehehe~~), and also regard 19 as the best time to learn piano which offers you a unique position for having gained what little kids will never gain. These can help a lot to find out your advantages at this age and lead you into the best learning status, which is one key to master the skills well.

[danhuyle]

The age to start playing piano is irrevelevant. It's all about how passionate and how committed you are to learning.

[sucom]

Hi again
I agree that it's not about the age you start, but the passion and enthusiasm you put into your study.  Children are lucky because they (hopefully) receive encouragement from parents, friends and teachers, and also because they tend to be encouraged by even the smallest of accomplishments.  Not so the adult, who tends to have far greater expectations of more speedy progress and even virtuoso playing.

I think it is worth remembering that many teachers struggle to play some of the more demanding pieces and it is only those who have a 'gift' for playing that go on to achieve such a high level.  Many never reach this stage, including teachers, even after studying for years.  And the number of children who drop out of lessons is also high!

So.....no-one here can possibly know what it is that is driving you to consider learning the piano.  Maybe you have a gift which must come out at some point in your life, in which case I would say, Go for it!  Or perhaps you 'fancy' the idea of reaching the high levels seen by virtuoso pianists and have impossible expectations of what might be achievable if you work hard enough.  With this in mind, many adults will drop out of lessons, discovering that it's actually much harder than they first thought.  But if you find yourself enjoying practice and take some pride in your efforts, then continue on your quest because if you love this music and feel inspired by it, that's the most important aspect of learning the piano. It's not necessary to become a viruoso pianist to enjoy the benefits of playing the piano.  If you have a strong desire to play, then play and discover where it takes you.  You don't need the opinions of others to benefit from the joy of creating music.

And most important of all, don't be put off by the negative attitude of others.  That's their story, but you are unique and creating your own story. Stay positive and go with the flow of your inner drives.

[m1469]

Individuals manage their progress and hopes in different ways.  Something I've been working with lately is the idea of "positiveness" (supposedly vs. negativeness).  Where I am 'at' right now in life is a little more black and white than many other times in my life, and I am tending to think in or lean towards terms of binary form; ones and zeros (and that zero is not a thing, otherwise it would actually be a one).  So, in that sense, I don't believe in an actual negative force as though a bunch of zeros can gang up on a person and create something to be reckoned with.  Really, I think, we are only ever dealing  with discerning whether something is truly a one or if it's a zero (perhaps in disguise as a one), and once you find it's a zero, then it's really a zero and it's time to move on completely.

To me, then, the only positiveness is that which has substance and power behind it, and this is where a pragmatic approach is handy (and probably necessary).  I don't necessarily believe in insubstantially thinking that everything is great and happy and fine, however, I *do* believe that there are principles about life and who we are as individuals which can in fact substantially prove a sense of progress and development within our lives - and that, based on this, we can have faith.   You could also say that, in effect, whether something is positive or negative depends on what we do with it (though, OK, that's a little tricky).  

But, if my trusted teachers tell me something or give me something to work with, even if on the outer layer it is a critique, it can in fact have a positive force in my life if it has a substance to it that I can pragmatically work with and which aids in my development.  At the same time, I am very conscious of what is happening for me inwardly and how I am deeply reacting to something or somebody, and decisions are made based on that, too (so, maybe some "good" or positive things have ended up from bad experiences in the past, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep subjecting myself to something where the only positive effect was fundamentally working out of it).  

In any event, I believe that just like any living organism, it's wise to take a sturdy but flexible approach.  As a person with intellect and reasoning abilities, to sharpen throughout the entire process your ability to discern between what is actually a substantial influence or not, and then keep walking forward as you learn and develop.  

[faa2010]

Contreras, let me tell you an experience I had nearly 2 years ago (btw, I am 26 and I studied for Engineer and English teacher as part of a living)

It was 2009, and I decided to play the Fantasie Impromptu of F. Chopin.  I started to learn it "under top secret" from my teacher, and then when I showed her my progress on the first part, she didn't tell me to stop.  Au contraire, she wanted me to finish it.  Of course, the first and last part, to be honest, needed more speed and assurance, but the second part was more easible to control (and that has been the part my teacher was very interested in improving).

On December of the same year, I went with another teacher, a teacher from the National Conservatorie (who just gave me "two classes"). She told me to start from scratch again.  That didn't discouraged me more than when she told me that my teacher wasn't a teacher with a high education with music because I really appreciate my teacher and although she lacks some things in her teaching she is a fine person with class.

Likewise, time tells everything:

1. The teacher of the conservatorie has demostrated that she a little show-off person and doesn't want to do things for free (I can understand that point because no one has to devaluate his or her own work)

2. My formal teacher, despite not having high credentials, some of her formal students have returned with her to continue practicing and enjoying the piano.

3. Although I am not neither a prodigy nor a "real" piano student, I love to play piano and nobody and nothing has to discourage me to stop playing.  However, the consevatoire teacher was right in something: one must need to learn the basics and fundamentals in order to improve, like when you build a house.

I decided to stop playing the Impromptu, and started to re-learn the Hanon as well as starting to play the Inventions.  However, stop playing it doesn't mean that I won't play it anymore. I am just giving it a break so when I improve at where I have faults, I may re-learn it and play it better.

I also heard of people who doesn't have a big knowledge or background related to playing piano, however, they can play the Impromptu.

So the best thing to do is not to compare with others just to play like or better than them and put yourself under stress and pressure. Don't be blind on your own faults and recognize your limits, but also not undervaluate yourself.

[caioramos]

I'm 26, and I started playing in February this year, so its been about 8 months I started. I right away applied to the best conservatory in my city and got to have private classes with the best teacher. So you see, I had the right orientation from the start, I did not developed any bad habits since my teacher was right there. I started with 1 class a week, 50 minutes. 2 months later I got to have one more class, so 2 classes a week. All I'm doing is play piano, since the start I did Hanon and scales everyday.

Mind you, I never touched a piano before, but I'm a former guitar player, and I attended music college for 3 years. So basically I have some knowledge about theory and I knew from the start how to read music, but still, technically I never played a piano, just guitar.

Today 8 months later, I'm finishing Rachmaninoff prelude C sharp op 3 no 2. Also I'm finishing Mendelssohn songs without words op 53 no3, that has a lot of arpeggios for the left hand at presto agitato. In the beginning all I did was Bach inventions, at about April I started Mozart's 545, by July I did Debussy girl with flaxen hair, and Chopin nocturne posth C sharp.

Well, I am in a very unusual condition, because I have the support to be a musician from my parents and I gave up everything to play the piano, that means I have all day to study, and I do it everyday. Also, I asked all the piano teachers at the conservatory, and they all told me that they believe technically, age doesn't matter, you can start at age 5 or age 50, with the right practice, time, effort and instruction, anyone can get to top technical level. So what makes the difference is basically talent. You can play Chopin etudes up to speed, but if you don't have talent, your not going very far cause you cannot make a good interpretation out of it.

So I believe age doesn't matter, really. Talent matters, its what m1469 said back at her post, there are a lot of people who started really early and they did not make it for a number of reasons. But you will just find out if you try it

[stoudemirestat]

https://www.key-notes.com/

This man. Read the first page (and maybe a lot more, it's a great site).

[raphaelinparis]

So I believe age doesn't matter, really. Talent matters

well... and I assume that you think you have a good deal of it right ? 

To me, what you call "Talent" in piano is mainly a mix of:
- really loving music (that can't hardly be taught, as it is a matter of taste)
- being hard working  (every day for several years you have to manage to do as much piano as your agenda allows it, basically, and your entire lifetime has to be piano-oriented...to the point when you will truly dislike being away from your piano for more than 24 hours...)
- being efficient when you work (because the output is the product of "time spent" times "efficiency")...
- having good / very good teachers (and the money to pay them...)
- most importantly to learn the ability to listen to yourself very carefully so you can detect small errors of rythm, small differences of colour / strength in the notes that you produce...i.e. the problem is not about false notes...everybody can spot false notes...
- having enough "good taste" to produce some interesting interpretations, eventually

if you have all of that over time you can make a huge difference when compared to the average student. I'm not saying it's enough to play "La Campanella", though, but you can become a pretty good amateur pianist and have a lot of fun.

[lostinidlewonder]

.....I've considered learning to play the piano, but each time that the consideration comes to mind so do some rather unpleasant doubts. The main cause of the doubts comes from my age. I'm 19 years old.....

I believe that age doesn't effect ones ability to learn the piano (unless we are talking about extremities in age, very young or very old) If you have a natural talent for piano then if you take it up when you where a child or an adult I really don't think there is much difference. I have taught young children who find coordination extremely difficult and I have taught old adults who learn new motor skills very fast. I think adults tend to be more disciplined to their approach compared to youngsters thus on average beginner adults I teach progress much faster than beginner children if they work hard on their practice method and consistently practice. Children tend to be fun motivated, adults tend to be achievement motivated. I think there is something to learn about seeing music through the eyes of a child and simply enjoy and have fun at what you do.

I really, really would like to be able to play the works of Liszt and Rachmaninov one day, but for some reason, I can't help but think that these aspirations could very well be nothing more than excessively wishful thinking.

They are long term goals, which are great to have and aspire towards. But you should develop some goals which are more immediate. Short and mid term goals are a prerequisite if you every want to make pathways towards your dreams. I advise you read books on goal setting and self motivation, I was drilled these books when I was young by my parents and never regretted it. Working without short/mid/long term goals all at once will retard your progress and make you founder about, which is very easy to do when learning a musical instrument. This is why a good teacher is important because they can set the goals for you, they know what you do not know and you simply cannot help yourself here effectively, unless you are truly auto didactic to your approach, in that case you wouldn't be getting overly upset over your long term goals because you should have realize the work load and pathway to achieve your aim. Even auto didactic's require to stand on the shoulders of giants and need to learn from those greater than themselves if they are ever to progress at an effective rate.

Question 1: Is my goal of  being able to reach the skill level where I could play Liszt's advanced works (difficulty: Campanella and higher), despite the extremely late start feasible?

It is certainly possible however you need to break down your work to move towards that long term goal. This is the problem you face, you do not simply start working on these pieces now in hope that you will learn them, this is a foolish and slow way to go about learning the piano. You need to build your skill level so you can somewhat sight read these works and the technique and fingering required you can draw from past knowledge from other pieces. You also need to acquire a musical ear to be able to naturally understand the musical language and not forcefully recite the expression or rely on copying your favorite recordings (although there is nothing really wrong with this when you are learning but in the end we need to be able to find the expression ourselves and not always have to be shown it, something very valid for the other pieces you will be studying and not the ones you unavoidably have listened to countless times and already have been spoon fed the musicality).

Question 2: Have any of you ever known of any late-starters (19 and up) who managed to reach a very high level of playing? (It would be nice to hear some inspirational stories.)

High standard I would consider concert performing standard. Very High standard could include those who can play insanely complicated works which makes Liszt and Rach look like chopsticks, this constitutes a very small % of pianists and even at these standards society don't really care, it doesn't sell more tickets to a concert that's for sure!

I have taught a handful myself so I can vouch that they do exist (High standard late starters). Each of these students however never remained at beginner/intermediate levels for very long. They jumped grades fast, they had a natural understanding for music and fingering/coordination at the piano. Many of them came to me self learning at around an AMEB grade 5 level, in which I can consolidate their ability at that level then push them further often skipping to 8th with most of them.

Each of these students work disciplined and pretty much every single day. These are the serious pianists who pay good money for lessons and work hard using their teachers advice. They motivate themselves to practice even though they may make mistakes, they try not to get discouraged when in lessons they are corrected in passages they where set for homework which they thought they had conquered. They are very interested in their own progress and do not think about others, they do not let failures and problems get them down but constantly rise to the occasion and are happy to fail as many times as they need to until they finally win. The organize their work effectively so they constantly can see progress and know the occasions when they are slowing down.

Of all the late starters who end up playing at a high level I have taught each of them already have a natural musical ability. They have a high pattern observation IQ with music, this allows them to acquire good sight reading skills, they also have an intelligence to categorize technical skills they learn and notice it when it is being called upon in new pieces they learn. They all of course love piano music and have great passion for certain styles and select pieces/composers. These are the main traits I found from the late high achievers.

Question 3: If I were to start, do you have any recommendations as to what I should do? (Besides the cliche "find a good teacher", "practice with control", "practice often".)

If you are serious about your piano goals you will get yourself a teacher to set out the path for you to go to achieve your dreams. Yes this is the answer everyone gives but it is really important. There are just too many things that you Do not know that you Do not know when it comes to piano that without a teacher to start you off you will simply wander aimlessly about the place. Some people do this for a bit then get their bearings, in that case why not simply start learning music that interests you that is of an easier level. You do not have to worry about what technique it is teaching you etc, just learn lots of easier pieces and get them memorized and mastered. The more easy pieces you learn the more they become real natural routine for you to play and sight read. Then you will find that pieces of this similar standard that you have not learned before you can almost immediately play with mastery. Then you start pushing up your standard of sight reading. You keep doing this process until your Liszt and Rach start to become routine to read. But it is a slow process, it may take you 20 years before you get to it, but this is not important.

You will of course try to read and learn material too difficult for yourself, I don't think any pianist is innocent of that crime! It is however good to leave them aside for a few YEARS, then come back to them after you have trained yourself up, you may surprise yourself how much easier it is for you to read them. I constantly entertain myself doing this getting out old books that I grew up with that I never really look at. They use to be so difficult for me to play when I was younger but now looking back at them after 10-20 years sometimes, they seem like childsplay. You need to disconnect from these pieces for a long time however to really notice your improvement.

I loved Godowsky when I was younger and foolishly attempted to play his complicated compositions, it is not only in the last 4 years or so that it this material has become somewhat routine to learn and I am amused at how I can solve problems immediately where when I was younger I can still remember the difficulties I had (and the wrong fingering and ideas I see scratched onto the page reminds me of where I was going wrong). This is extremely educational for me to be able to compare how I worked 20 years ago with how I worked with today, the ancient pencil scratching is a reminder of where I have come from! But you need to let go of your long term dream and take it away from your mind, it can slow you down incredibly if you do not, put it aside and humble yourself by learning things that are closer to your level. Only once you humble yourself will you be able to become great.

All the best with your musical journey.

[caioramos]

To me, what you call "Talent" in piano is mainly a mix of:
- really loving music (that can't hardly be taught, as it is a matter of taste)
- being hard working  (every day for several years you have to manage to do as much piano as your agenda allows it, basically, and your entire lifetime has to be piano-oriented...to the point when you will truly dislike being away from your piano for more than 24 hours...)
- being efficient when you work (because the output is the product of "time spent" times "efficiency")...
- having good / very good teachers (and the money to pay them...)
- most importantly to learn the ability to listen to yourself very carefully so you can detect small errors of rythm, small differences of colour / strength in the notes that you produce...i.e. the problem is not about false notes...everybody can spot false notes...
- having enough "good taste" to produce some interesting interpretations, eventually

if you have all of that over time you can make a huge difference when compared to the average student. I'm not saying it's enough to play "La Campanella", though, but you can become a pretty good amateur pianist and have a lot of fun.

Talent is something really subjective. You see, you can get 2 persons, and they both do what you said above.. they can study hard, with the same teacher, study the same amount of time, very efficient, they love music etc, but why in the end one plays so easier and better than the other? why one seems to play like a robot and the other just shines the piece? even with the teacher's direction, one cannot seems to play beyond dull, and the other play colorfully, what you call that natural ability that seems to magically come from one and not from the other, that's basically talent. In adults we can lie to ourselves and say "hey, this guy is an adult already, he have higher reasoning and intelligence to learn things very efficient. But when kids do this, its seems unexplainable. It's what Arthur Rubinstein used to say "one is born with talent, you cannot learn talent, and you can go as far as your talent allows you to". See, thats words from one of the greatest pianists of all time. One cannot explain how a 5 year old compose pieces like mozart did, cause if there was a way to explain and reproduce, every child would do that. Well thats what I believe  

So when I see someone saying things like "I dont believe in talent, its all about hard working blah blah, scientific methods, talent is for the weak" Well I think, what this guy drunk man?! He just wont face the facts. Maybe he doesnt know guys like mozart or whats most probable, he doesnt want to. Cause he wants to believe that he can do it one day too. This people needs to feel that if they wanted, they could do it. I mean, everyone can play the piano casually, but being a real pro, playing with brilliance, thats for the talented, hard work just put all the talent outside. And that means you can start with 50 years old, if you have it, you will play beatifully, the same way a kid who starts at 2 doesnt mean it will get anywhere one  day. If you have talent doesn't mean too that you will get somewhere. If you start at 50 and have all the talent in the  world, its not very likely you will be a concert pianist, cause you already have a life your own, you have another career, another job, kids, and the market is not likely to be giving you a chance. So being pro is a good deal o luck too, you have to be heard, be liked and have good contacts, doors need to open your way. There's a lot of people with talent out there and they didn't make.

Or sometimes, they made it, just not famous-like Horowitz or someone you know, but there a lot of concert pianist, who tours europe, us and whatever and you dont know them. So being successful is relative.

[raphaelinparis]

Talent is something really subjective. You see, you can get 2 persons, and they both do what you said above.. they can study hard, with the same teacher, study the same amount of time, very efficient, they love music etc, but why in the end one plays so easier and better than the other?

the list I gave is enough, I think, to be "reasonably above average", I mean, in the top 5% of pianists, because 95% of pianist will fail one criteria or the other (ok I have made up that 95%, it might be  just as well 90% or 99% I agree)...so I really believe that it is enough to sound very good when playing in front of an average audience.
Of course, to be a pro, to get people pay 100USD+ to hear you play, it is not enough to be better than 99% of other pianist...you have to be better than, say, 99.99% of the competition. That is another world. I accept that.
But Matthew wants to be a good pianist, i.e. with my words he just wants to be in the "top 5%" of the pianist. That is certainly manageable.

[caioramos]

Yeah that's right! So anyway he will just know if he tries, and I support him. I think anyone who considered and gave a lot of thought about being a pianist for a life should try it, cause in the end, the worst it can happen is you will be giving classes at the local conservatory, even at college and playing some recital in your area, and getting a good money for all that. For me that's already awesome, your living as a musician =) Even me, I'm doing my best, but I don't know what it will be for me, but I will try to accept wherever I get.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeah that's right! So anyway he will just know if he tries, and I support him. I think anyone who considered and gave a lot of thought about being a pianist for a life should try it, cause in the end, the worst it can happen is you will be giving classes at the local conservatory, even at college and playing some recital in your area, and getting a good money for all that.

? The "worst"? That sounds like a rather good result indeed. There's no need to be pessimistic, but blind optimism and hyperbole aids nobody. Hopefully he could become at least a half decent pianist, but to be earning a good living from teaching and performing is far from the "worst" possible eventuality. That would be a rather remarkable achievement indeed from a late beginner, not a worst case scenario.

[caioramos]

? The "worst"? That sounds like a rather good result indeed. There's no need to be pessimistic, but blind optimism and hyperbole aids nobody. Hopefully he could become at least a half decent pianist, but to be earning a good living from teaching and performing is far from the "worst" possible eventuality. That would be a rather remarkable achievement indeed from a late beginner, not a worst case scenario.

I'm considering that a late starter who wants to be serious about piano and music, get private instruction for a couple years and then apply to some college/university for a Bach degree, or some kind of diploma, because if you graduate, its not hard to find a school or conservatory to teach, also at the graduation process he should be able to perform in public and if he's really talented, that's when he's going to start standing out and go a different path. You don't have to be a genius to graduate somewhere and even go for a masters or something later that would guarantee you a living. Even at some top schools like Juilliard, they said it's only some students that go far as a concert career, but even if you do not be one of them, if you graduate there, you can do so much else.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm considering that a late starter who wants to be serious about piano and music, get private instruction for a couple years and then apply to some college/university for a Bach degree, or some kind of diploma, because if you graduate, its not hard to find a school or conservatory to teach, also at the graduation process he should be able to perform in public and if he's really talented, that's when he's going to start standing out and go a different path. You don't have to be a genius to graduate somewhere and even go for a masters or something later that would guarantee you a living. Even at some top schools like Juilliard, they said it's only some students that go far as a concert career, but even if you do not be one of them, if you graduate there, you can do so much else.

We're talking Julliard before the guy's even played his first note? I'm sorry, but I don't think you have any idea of how high the standard is on courses at top establishments, or even at 2nd/3rd tier ones. It sounds like you've done extremely well in your own start, but you can't count chickens before they've hatched. To prepare for entrance to music college typically takes years- even for a number of very good students who don't make the cut. It would be pretty remarkable indeed if the guy were in a position to be applying for a music college within even five years and there's no guarantee he would ever get there at all. I'd consider it to be pretty remarkable if anyone could reach the standard required for entry to the lesser music colleges in the UK, within that period.

I really don't wish to sound like a voice of pessimism but it does nobody any favours to be speaking in these terms about a guy who is 19 and has yet to take a lesson- and especially not to portray this as a "worst" possible scenario. That simply has no grounding in any objective reality. There's no cause to be ruling things out but there's even less cause to be assuming that such a high level of achievement is virtually a formality. It isn't.

[caioramos]

I'm not saying he should play a couple years and apply to Juilliard, that was just a note I made to point something, of course it would be impossible. But I honestly believe 5 years is more than enough for a well talented person to make it into a 2nd/3rd tier college. My teacher said one can make quite a progress with a good teacher in 3 years, and I even have 2 friends at the conservatory that play Chopin etudes and they have 3 years of piano playing, also, they started at 14.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge one has to overcome when applying to a college is preparing a virtuoso piece. In 3 years is very reasonable you can prepare a bach prelude and fugue, a Mozart sonata and some modern piece. But achieving dexterity and technical prowess for a virtuosic etude may take longer for some. 

[nyiregyhazi]

"I'm not saying he should play a couple years and apply to Juilliard, that was just a note I made to point something, of course it would be impossible. But I honestly believe 5 years is more than enough for a well talented person to make it into a 2nd/3rd tier college."

Again, I don't want to be a voice of pessimism but what %ge of the population are talented? It's defined by being something exceptional- not something that can be taken for granted. I have no desire to suggest the poster could not possibly do well or assume he would not display any talent, but casually putting these things out there as if they are "normal" for any beginner is not constructive. Talent is not "normal" at all. There are people who study very hard from childhood but who don't make the cut for music college.

Let the guy just start playing and see how he gets on. These things are too far ahead to even contemplate, before a person has spent some time and had their progress assessed. It's like taking picking a random five year old child and discussing whether they should go to Oxford or Cambridge and whether they should study to be a doctor or lawyer. It's meaningless at this stage and risks creating the kind of unrealistic expectations that can lead to a feel of major disappointment- even if a person makes perfectly creditable progress, that ought to inspire pride.


"In my opinion, the biggest challenge one has to overcome when applying to a college is preparing a virtuoso piece. In 3 years is very reasonable you can prepare a bach prelude and fugue, a Mozart sonata and some modern piece. But achieving dexterity and technical prowess for a virtuosic etude may take longer for some."

And even if they get there- what are they up against? In the UK there is an extremely high standard. Even having a decent etude is no guarantee of entry. I really don't think we should even be discussing such things, with respect to someone who has not yet begun playing. It's totally counterproductive to be looking that far ahead.

[m1469]

We're talking Julliard before the guy's even played his first note?

Can you imagine somebody secretly "catching" a 45 yr. old (who doesn't know anything about playing the piano) playing a descending C major scale (or at least playing all white notes in a row) with two fingers, video taping it, immediately calling Julliard, then very special instruction being set up for that individual (money and time not a factor) because of the extremely obvious talent, his whole life being supported so he can study, he never knows a doubt in the world about his abilities, and him becoming a prodigy?

Or, does it make much more sense and is that 2-fingered scale much more amazing if that student were in fact only 2?

hmmmm ... I've heard of the second one.

[mcrosbie]

Please read my post in reply to "Is age 12 too late to start?"

[caioramos]

Can you imagine somebody secretly "catching" a 45 yr. old (who doesn't know anything about playing the piano) playing a descending C major scale (or at least playing all white notes in a row) with two fingers, video taping it, immediately calling Julliard, then very special instruction being set up for that individual (money and time not a factor) because of the extremely obvious talent, his whole life being supported so he can study, he never knows a doubt in the world about his abilities, and him becoming a prodigy?

Or, does it make much more sense and is that 2-fingered scale much more amazing if that student were in fact only 2?

hmmmm ... I've heard of the second one.

This, she said it all

[farm boy]

Reding all the posts re learning from on older age.  Well I am 60 and I am taking the instrument up again having reached grade 8 standard previously,  I have the luxury of practicing for 4 hours daily which I am doing.  Any advice from previous posters here on what technical work I should be doing to do the "hard work" you are all talking about.
I am not afraid of hard work.

[robpina]

I'm new here too and a late stater. I don't see any reason why we can't learn to play the music we love to listen to. Are you or I or 99.99% of the population going to become a professional pianist... no. Is it possible? I suppose anythings possible. At the end of they day if you want to play then play. There is no reason why you cannot become good at the piano. Its not easy but even I have learned how to play some pieces without making a fool out of myself. Get a good teacher... someone you like and someone thats not going to put you through hell... and then play!!
Good luck