Is it really possible?

[beebert]

I began playing the piano when I was 14/15 but it isn't until now, 3 years later, that I have really grown in to taken it really serious. At the beginning, when I started playing, I was just sad because I thought it was to late to learn and become a pianist. Now though, I don't think that way, I just want to be able to play great music, and I am right now working on Schubert Impromptu op 90 no 2.

I wonder is it really possible to get this kind of physical technique if you start playing the piano late? Is it possible to learn how to play virtouso pieces like the Chopin Ballades or etudes if you start playing from scratch this late or even later?

[pbryld]

Yes.

[beebert]

how do you know?

[madsfr1234]

Yes it is.
I started at 12 and i'm 16 now.
I work really hard, 6-8 hours a day and i'm playing liszt's transcendetal etude 10, prokofiev sonata 3, Liszt HR 12 and a lot of other pieces.
So with a lot of hard work and of course talent, you can achieve anything.

[beebert]

yes but is it really possible as a late teenager to develop the technique needed for those pieces?

[pbryld]

Yes.

[chopin1993]

Itīs pretty hard, but if you really want to and practice enough, you can achieve anything.
I have been playing piano since age 9 and started playing classical at age 15.
Ever since I started playing classical, I have been taking it very seriously also.
Iīll be auditioning for the conservatory this year!
Is this something you also want?

Valerie

[beebert]

Yes.

Do you have anything to base this answer on?

[jtguru]

Do you have anything to base this answer on?

I personally know a couple people that first started playing when they were already adults, and can play Chopin Etudes and such quite well.

[jesc]

edited for tmi

I would have to say yes. Especially when dealing with someone MORE talented/skilled than me. I subsribe to the fact that you can always find someone better than yourself.

[pianoplayjl]

Anything is possible if you have the right amount of determination, dedication and passion which will lead you to the right destination where you want to be. Of course it will be difficult and there will be hard ships along the way but well worth it. Sometimes starting late might have a  little advantage because you might learn a bit faster with your brain more developed. Obviously this only applies to a handful of people.

JL

[iansinclair]

Look.  I'm 70  (seven zero.  Three score and ten).  I started working on piano seriously about five years ago (I'd played casually, but...).  I had played organ (sacred) before that; trust me, it's no help at all except reading music -- the technique is quite different.

Horowitz I'm not, and never will be -- but I can play, quite acceptably, things like most of the Chopin Nocturnes and a good bit of Schubert and Brahms (OK, OK, that's where my taste is).

If I can do it at 70, you young'uns can surely do it in your teens!

[werq34ac]

Of course it's possible. Didn't Richter start the piano at like age 20 or something?


Technical skill for anyone is well within reach if they dedicate themselves.

[doudly]

Of course it's possible. Didn't Richter start the piano at like age 20 or something?

He was self-taught since like 10 when he started taking piano lessons in his early 20s, actually.

But yeah, on topic, this is kind of a tricky question.
Honestly, do you want to know the only difference that's (more than likely) going to show?
Recognition.

IF you are talented enough, at the moment you'll reach the technical skills required to participate in international competitions, you will be too old. And almost every renowned concertist admits that, nowadays, winning competitions is pretty much the only way of getting recognition and earning your life as a non-teacher professional pianist.

I am not saying it's too late, don't get me wrong, you can reach an outstanding level even if your start in your late teens, just as good as any pianist whose childhood as been dedicated to practice, but you'll simply reach it later. If your goal is not to make a living out of it, than obviously, go ahead, nothing stops you really.

[beebert]

I just want to reach the technical level to be able to to justice to pieces like Chopin's ballades.. I started playing when I was like 14/15 years old, my goal is not to become a concert pianist, but as good as possible And I want to be able to play the ballades, the etudes, appassionata and pieces like that... Is it possible?

[doudly]

Of course it is

[maxwebr]

Absoulutely! I studied at the age of 7 till 17, but moved on to college, job (not in music), but picked back up at 37. I am not planning to perform Chopin Ballade No 3 in concert this June. It is completely possible. Comes down to practice, practice, practice. But learn the piece correctly the first time. Meaning paying attention to all the details (fingering!!!, phrasing, to name a couple). I never believed I could do it, but I have. I am not a concert pianist, but a working professional that adores classical music and enjoys playing, even composing.
Put the time in and it will reward you.
Best of luck
 

[werq34ac]

He was self-taught since like 10 when he started taking piano lessons in his early 20s, actually.

But yeah, on topic, this is kind of a tricky question.
Honestly, do you want to know the only difference that's (more than likely) going to show?
Recognition.

IF you are talented enough, at the moment you'll reach the technical skills required to participate in international competitions, you will be too old. And almost every renowned concertist admits that, nowadays, winning competitions is pretty much the only way of getting recognition and earning your life as a non-teacher professional pianist.

I am not saying it's too late, don't get me wrong, you can reach an outstanding level even if your start in your late teens, just as good as any pianist whose childhood as been dedicated to practice, but you'll simply reach it later. If your goal is not to make a living out of it, than obviously, go ahead, nothing stops you really.

Some flaws in your argument I had to point out. There is a difference between winning a competition and truly being a concert musician. Sure competition winners are really good, but in order to go on to a truly successful career, you need more than that. I mean seriously if you look at the list of Tchaikovsky and Chopin competition winners, you will see that you will not recognize several of them. That is the thing with competition winners. They win, they play for a few years then are forgotten. I was once told that you know how well you play by how well you can play Schubert and Beethoven Sonatas past the age 35.

And another thing, you seem to assume technique is what makes concert pianists. While technique is a big issue for students, once you get too old for competitions, technique should be the LAST thing you should be worrying out. Musical communication and maturity is what makes music difficult. Not technique.

[doudly]

Some flaws in your argument I had to point out. There is a difference between winning a competition and truly being a concert musician. Sure competition winners are really good, but in order to go on to a truly successful career, you need more than that. I mean seriously if you look at the list of Tchaikovsky and Chopin competition winners, you will see that you will not recognize several of them. That is the thing with competition winners. They win, they play for a few years then are forgotten. I was once told that you know how well you play by how well you can play Schubert and Beethoven Sonatas past the age 35.

And another thing, you seem to assume technique is what makes concert pianists. While technique is a big issue for students, once you get too old for competitions, technique should be the LAST thing you should be worrying out. Musical communication and maturity is what makes music difficult. Not technique.

Sorry, but you barely recognize anyone from the Chopin International?
More than half of the first prizes are super-stars, and many of the 5 other prizes are also very well known. And you don't NEED to become a super-star in order to make a living out of being a concertist.

On technique and musicality, we couldn't possibly disagree more.
It's a common misconception that musicality is more important than technique at every level of play.
We are so used to flawless technique from professionals nowadays that obviously the most distinctive and interesting aspect of one's play is going to be the musicality.
But in order to achieve musicality, you NEED to achieve technique first. The first is a consequence of the second, there is no way around it.

[werq34ac]

While I do agree that technique is important, musicality is what makes it so. The whole point of technical skill is so that we can get out of the notes and actually play music.  Why should we only learn technique until we have mastered it to begin playing musically? Why not learn musicality and then learn the technique in order to play musically? Technique will come with practice. Musicality can only come with experience and awareness and even more practice than technique requires. I mean, look at it this way. Who would you rather listen to, Berezovsky or Horowitz?



And as I said, at that level, technique is a given and is the last thing competition-level pianists are worrying about.

I guess I will retract my statement that most pianists are forgotten and don't become superstars, but only because I didn't realize the difference between "superstars" (i don't like that word to describe them.) and just normal concert pianists.

On the other hand, competitions aren't exactly the best measure of pianistic ability since at that level judges are still judging by technical perfection rather than musicality.

And then there's Pogorelich who became famous only after he LOST in the 3rd round of the Chopin Competition.

[keyboardkat]

If you read Joseph Horowitz' book,  The Ivory Trade, about the 1989 Van Cliburn competition, you will come to realize what an evil thing music competitions are.

The whole thing is so subjective.   Often the gold medal winners play less well than those who win lesser prizes or who are eliminated.   A different jury on a different day would come up with a different result.   Jurors tend to be academics, because major artists won't give up two weeks of time in order to judge a competition.   These academics are often very opinionated.   This one likes Bach played with pedal, that one insists Bach should be played without pedal.  This one likes his Beethoven one way, that one likes it another.   Their votes tend to cancel each other out.   So who gets through without being eliminated?    Someone whose bland playing doesn't offend anyone.   Artists with real ideas and originality tend to be eliminated in the early rounds.

There are, of course exceptions to this.  Garrick Ohlsson is one.  But there are now so many competitions, many of them with minimal prize awards that don't help anyone's career, that the pool of competition winners today consists of dozens and dozens of what's-his-names.    And, managers will tell you, there's no one harder to sell than last year's winner.   what about the winner from two, or three, or four years ago?

[indespair]

I had the same question. Really, these things bug you when you start late. I started at age 16-17. I have been playing for a year and a half only, no formal training, very little playing time evryday(way too much academic work),can't afford a piano(in the third world, a shitty casio is all you get and i dare say i am well off here), largely self-taught, nowhere to buy scores or even recordings(hate to say it but piracy is our only friend here).

With the help of another self-taught guy, i managed to learn fur elise up to the run, bach's minuet in G completely, the entertainer up to the tough part(i dont even know wat a movement is and hence dont feel confident to use the term), a part of the sonate pathetique (by beethoven i guess).

I doodle a lot on the keyboard, play a lot of blues and some jazz(no pieces, just improvisation), try and figure out stuff about composition and try having a good time with it. i pick things up little at a time here and there.

With these difficulties, i struggle to be a musician in a place that won't allow you. And I think it is possible.

[bruced]

I just want to reach the technical level to be able to to justice to pieces like Chopin's ballades.. I started playing when I was like 14/15 years old, my goal is not to become a concert pianist, but as good as possible And I want to be able to play the ballades, the etudes, appassionata and pieces like that... Is it possible?

The most that one can honestly predict is that you will be as good as you will be.  No one can predict absolutely what you will be able to accomplish because no one knows your potential.  Stop "worrying" about whether or not you will be able to play advanced repertoire and work on repertoire that is within your grasp and repertoire that will help build your technique.  If you work reasonably your technique will improve and you will ready yourself for the next step, one step at a time.

Those who say that you definitely can do "it" because they knew people who did "it," or those who say anything is possible are merely repeating platitudes that apply in some cases but that will not necessarily apply in your particular case. 

It's good to have goals, but to focus on goals without concentrating on the intermediate steps that will help you reach them is an exercise in futility and frustration.

Regards,