Acquiring Virtuoso Technique/Is it based on age?

[AnthonyM]

Good Afternoon:
 I am new to the forum and have quite enjoyed the diversity of the subject matter discussed and the thoughtful level of intelligence displayed in the reply's posted by it's members.

Here is my question - I am 41 years of age
and am currently set to pursue the continuation of my piano studies and technique after a long hiatus....not from playing in general - but from studying.

Previously I undertook lessons for 3 years from a neighborhood teacher as a teenager and worked semi professionally in a "club date wedding" band for 10 years from ages 25-35.

Recently. I signed up with a qualified teacher through a referrel service privately run in my area. The person who runs this service asked me to meet up so that my playing could be evaluated. This was so that the proper instructor might be assigned. There were in excess of about 25 instructors available.

The women who performed the evalution seemed to be very intelligent and was very gracious and considerate during our meeting.

A gifted pianist herself, she is also a professional instructor employed by one of the educational institutions in my area.

After hearing me play a non-classical piece and a classical piece she said that I played very well and could have maybe made a carreer  as a professional pianist   - IF - I obtained the proper education when a child/young adult instead of the neighborhood pianist I studied with - who had no teaching qualifiacations. By proper education - she meant a conservatory education such as that offered in Europe, the US equivilant of a Julliard education for example.

She went on to advise that at my age (41) I should not aspire to be a pianist in the model of a Horowitz or Rubenstien since that level of playing was strictly reserved for those who studied and practiced for up to 8 hours a day from childhood.

So - she indicated that while I could continue the study of piano and improve - that I should never aspire to the playing level of a concert pianist per se or attempt the associated virtuoso repetory....such as The Revelutionary Etude. etc.... which would be reserved for those who play professionally.

Of course, this statement only wanted me to prove her wrong. What are your opionions.

I've recently re-watched a video I purchased by the celebrated educator Barbara Lister Sink who title was: "Freeing The Caged Bird"  - which deals with the development of an injury free technique.

In it , she states that developing a "free" technique such as that enjoyed by Rubinstien etc. was mostly a skill which could be learned rather than a talent. Although some inately learn this type of piano co-ordination.

To back this up - there were examples of this theory - such as that of a of 13 year old student who had re-trained technically to perform without difficulty - she was performing the Hugarian Rhapsody #2 by Liszt. It took the better part of a year to learn it - broken down into managable portions - but she did it. Or course she was also relatively young.

So what are the thoughts of those on this forum regarding this.

Is virtuoso playing reserved for those who begin at a very young age? Or can it be acquired in mid life - and more specifically my particular case.

I would be very interested to read the replies received from the members of this forum.

                                                Thank You  

[ted]

Firstly and very importantly, I would never set arbitrary limits on your own capabilities on the basis of somebody else’s assessment. Human beings come in a colossal variety of talent, perception, mental and aural acuity, background and discipline; whatever accomplishment you name, an exception to any general rule will turn up somewhere.  Within yourself, the emphasis should always be on what you CAN do, not on what you think you cannot do or worse, what you are told you cannot do. To me this is commonsense psychology, otherwise nobody would ever try anything and we would all stand still.

If all that concerns you is physical agility, then I do not see why anybody at forty-one, whose hands are relatively uninjured, normal and flexible, and who has at least a little playing experience, should not be able to develop and maintain an excellent technique.  I certainly wouldn’t take any notice of somebody who says you’ll never play the Revolutionary Study, that’s ridiculous on the face of it. Find a teacher with bit more spark, encouragement and idealism who isn’t hidebound by conventional thought.

Also, unless physical technique is used as a means to make music you might as well play a typewriter. The whole thing has to be done with your musical end constantly in sight. There are many types of “virtuoso” techniques. At forty-one you no doubt have distinctly formed musical ideals for yourself. You have things you want to say in music. These do not have to be at all conventional. It’s a question of what makes you happy, what music speaks to you, what music you want to spend your hard-won technique and time on. Jelly Roll Morton was a “virtuoso” of the first rank, with a phenomenally developed physical and mental piano language, yet he played no concerts and probably played little classical music.

I don’t see any reason why, if you are disciplined, you could not play, say, the Revolutionary Study. However, to constantly do things simply to prove you can do them (once or twice is okay) may not be sufficient motivation for you in the long term. So my answer is that provided you are in reasonably good health, have a very strong underlying musical drive of some sort (its exact type doesn’t matter) and adequate time, just ignore all this talk of limits and go for whatever you fancy.

A good teacher would be a tremendous help but find one who is broadminded and positive.

[m1469]

Welcome aboard Anthony!  

The women who performed the evalution seemed to be very intelligent and was very gracious and considerate during our meeting.   A gifted pianist herself, she is also a professional instructor employed by one of the educational institutions in my area.

This does not make her an authority over your life and its' purpose!

After hearing me play a non-classical piece and a classical piece she said that I played very well and could have maybe made a carreer  as a professional pianist   - IF - I obtained the proper education when a child/young adult instead of the neighborhood pianist I studied with - who had no teaching qualifiacations. By proper education - she meant a conservatory education such as that offered in Europe, the US equivilant of a Julliard education for example.

Similarly, how does she really know?  Furthermore, what is that "proper" instruction?  It is not a thing that can be passed from one person to the next.  If it was, then all anybody would ever have to do is show up, be fed, and spit it out.  People who say things like this have given up on their own hope and try to convince others to give up on their's.  People who say things like this have settled for this as an excuse not to work toward something that may take one across untrod territory.  But who (short of the piano mafia  ) makes these rules?

There are thousands of people who do have the so-called "proper" instruction who never achieve anything beyond just that in and of itself.

Nobody can authoritatively know the extent of another person's gift and what its' purpose is. PERIOD.  And, when does a person stop growing in their understanding and ability to demonstrate it?  Only when they stop trying.

She went on to advise that at my age (41) I should not aspire to be a pianist in the model of a Horowitz or Rubenstien since that level of playing was strictly reserved for those who studied and practiced for up to 8 hours a day from childhood.

First of all, Horowitz and Rubenstein are not in the same place.  They may both have accomplished admirable heights within the same profession, however, ultimately they have accomplished much different things and for much different reasons.  People tend to conglomerate
"the greats" together as though they are an alliance.  Often we fail to remember that each has their own story, their own purpose for doing what they do, or did, and their own challenges and triumphs.  This is part of being an individual, just as you and I and everybody else are individuals.

So - she indicated that while I could continue the study of piano and improve - that I should never aspire to the playing level of a concert pianist per se or attempt the associated virtuoso repetory....such as The Revelutionary Etude. etc.... which would be reserved for those who play professionally.

This is completely and utterly ridiculous!  Nothing is reserved for anybody except the things that each individual discovers and brings to each experience.  The only reason this statement would be true is if you believed it to be so, and lived by that belief.  

Overall, I would concentrate intently on the things which ring true to you.  Discard the things that are not.  If somebody's advice is of no help to you, then why should you let it be of any importance to you?

Here is one of my favorite rules to live by when it comes to listening to what other people have to say to me:

If they are not either willing, and/or capable of helping me to reach my fullest potential, what they say, think and do, has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on my life and the way I live it (unless I choose otherwise).

Is what she said helping you to achieve your goals?  Is she actually trying to help you achieve your goals?  If she is not doing either of the first two things, then she is largely incapable of helping you in any way (other than your own choosing).  So, what does her mere limited viewpoint and opinion matter to your path and purpose?

Furthermore, although it is fabulous to have role-models, and there is much to be gained by the success of others, one should ultimately be striving to find their own way using all of the tools they have available to them.

One of my greatest teachers once told me to learn from everything and everybody.  He said that he could learn from people that he didn't like but respected, but that also he could learn from people he didn't even respect.  I consider that helpful advice.

Of course, this statement only wanted me to prove her wrong.

I would be careful of having your impetus be that of ridicule and doubt (from somebody else, even if it is the whole world) in your abilities.  Although this kind of treatment can stir you up, in most cases it is stirring up one's belief in one's own abilities to accomplish what one knows s/he can accomplish.  It is wise to recognize then that it is not the ridicule itself which is the source of our desire, comittment, and success toward a goal, but rather the belief in oneself that makes us strive toward it and see the fruition of our striving.  Honing in on this enables one to bridle and use one's inspiration rather than merely kneeling at its mercy.  Only use something so long as it is serving you and your art in the highest and, when it is not, discard it and never look back!

Is virtuoso playing reserved for those who begin at a very young age? Or can it be acquired in mid life - and more specifically my particular case.

Only you know this for yourself, nobody else can tell you what you know to be true.  Virtuosity is reserved for only those who know they can, and then do.

m1469 Fox

[bernhard]

I could not agree more with Ted’s and m1469’s excellent replies.

If your aim is simply playing the piano, I cannot see why you should not – in principle - play anything that you set your mind to.

I certainly have taught the “virtuoso” repertory (whatever that might mean) to many over 40s (Chopin etudes, Beethoven sonatas, Scarlatti sonatas, Liszt etudes and the like). Most importantly they have learned it.

However your advisee may have had something else in mind. Perhaps she was referring to making a career as a classical pianist. In that case she may be right: the odds are very much against you. But this is simply out of market considerations, not skill considerations.

But if all you want is to play the piano as an amateur, the only real limit you will have is death (so much music, so little time…)

One last word. If your evaluator is of such an opinion, will that not taint her choice of a teacher for you, and what this teacher is prepared to teach you? You may then face a huge external limitation.

This is my suggestion.

Make a list of 100 pieces you would like to play. Do not worry about degree of difficulty. The may be very easy, or impossibly difficult. But they must be pieces that you would love to play. For instance, in my own repertory I have many pieces that are ridiculously easy – even a total beginner could master them in their first lesson, but they are such beautiful pieces that their “easiness” is largely irrelevant (for instance, “Fur Alina” by Arvo Part is one such piece – hauntingly beautiful and yet just one page long and when you look at the score you cannot believe that such an easy piece can sound so amazing). Likewise you should not be afraid of “virtuoso” pieces – as long you really want to play them. For instance I was never interested in playing any of the Trascendental studies of Liszt apart from Gnomenreigen which I always loved. So I do not play them (apart form Gnomenreigen). The repertory is far too large and we cannot waste time on pieces we do not really like. This does not mean that I am not appreciative of “Feux Follets”, or “Mazeppa”, which I like to listen to and to watch performed by other pianists. However I was never really interested in playing these pieces.

So make your list, and aim to be playing these 100 pieces in 5 years time. This is not unreasonable: with the right approach any one can master 20 pieces in a year (that’s less than two pieces a month), and will give you 3 – 4 hours of uninterrupted playing: enough for 3 or 4 recitals!

Next you must ask your teacher to help you in learning these pieces. This means that she must order these 100 pieces in a progressive order of difficulty, from easy to difficult, so that you start by learning the easy pieces, and by doing so you will gradually acquire the technique needed for the next piece. In this way, from the very beginning you will be acquiring repertory.

Of course you may change your mind in regards to these pieces at any time, and replace them with others. Our tastes change, and also we come to know pieces that we were unaware before.

A further advantage to this approach is that since you have clear goals, you will be able to evaluate your progress (or lack of) by checking at the end of each year what you have accomplished so far.

Now if your teacher is not prepared to go along with such a plan and is not prepared to help you achieve it, I would seriously consider changing teachers.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

PS. By the way, the Revolutionary study is not that difficult (just above grade 8 ) there are far more difficult pieces out there that deserve the “virtuoso” label.

[mound]

First of all, excellent thread, and welcome to the forum. I completely agree with all of the responses. Set your own limits my friend!

Something Bernhard wrote in his response got me thinking, and I wrote up a response to that, but it should be in another thread, so please, if interested, visit it here.

-Paul

[gouldfischer]

I'm sorry to post a reply after so much time, but there's something I'd really like to say about all that.

Despite the fact that I myself have also started to aim at becoming really proficient at piano playing in a rather old age for the standards (28), and that I truly believe that almost every rule has exceptions, and that it's enourmously important that you believe that you CAN in order to get there (wherever it is) etc. etc., this discussion reminded of a very good book I once read, called "Uncle Petros and The Goldbach Conjecture" (written by Apostolos Doxiadis - https://www.maa.org/reviews/petros.html).

The book tells the history of a mathematician who spent his entire life trying to solve one of the most difficult (yet unresolved, indeed) problems in the history of Maths. His brother, on the other hand, was a salesperson whose motto was "never set yourself unreachable goals". To make a long story short, the latter had a happier life than the former. Whether it is possible to become a concert-level piano virtuoso starting at a very old age is debatable. Like Bernhard said, odds are against it.

I think it is not a good idea to always think that we are the exception, that we just need faith and discipline. It's not enough, in most cases. Even so, if we want to do that TO OURSELVES, that's ok - the challenge might well be the fuel we need to start to walk. However, as far as advising other people goes, I think... well, it is beautiful to encourage people to fight for their dreams, but I believe it is also helpful to make things clear about how feasible one's plan is. I wouldn't encourage my 80-year old grandma to strive to become a world champion in chess, if she suddenly developed a strong urge to play that game well and even if her overall physical health is ok for that. Even for non-competitive stuff like piano playing, no matter how much faith and discipline I have, I will be nothing but disappointed if I pursue an aim like, say, playing the whole WTC I and II next year, if I can barely play some Anna Magdalena! If I were to ask a teacher to help me achieve that, the good professional would certainly do better telling me how unlikely it would be that I succeed in doing that, and then help me to devise more attainable goals.

OK, if you guys believe that it is possible to play the Revolutionary starting at his age, then I AGREE ON THAT. My point is that we should not oversimplify matters with sayings like "you are the only one who can tell" or "everything is possible for those who really want" and things alike, because, only 1 person in 1,000,000 will be the exception to some well-known statistics. If the guy wants to be that very 1 person, ok, but let us be honest to him, don't you think so?

I hope I have been able to explain my point... :-) sorry for the English...

[ted]

It's so long ago I had to read all the posts again to understand the gist of the question. I do not think any of those who responded were ridiculously optimistic. They probably assumed, as I did, that the original poster (is he still around ?), being forty-one, had some common sense. I posted mainly because I thought his teacher's evaluation unduly negative and discouraging.

I somehow doubt the analogy with mathematics applies here. Unproved conjectures in that field have a history of obsessively attracting thousands of devotees who fruitlessly toil for years  trying to prove them. That sort of comparison might apply if our friend had said he wanted to play the Transcendental Studies to international acclaim at a formal concert in front of thousands. He appeared to desire something a good deal more realistic to me, unless I misread his post. He wants simply to acquire sufficient technique to enjoy himself playing some of the pieces commonly thought of as physically difficult. At least that is how I interpreted his question - I might be wrong of course.

This is nowhere near an exceptional goal. Thousands of people can play "virtuoso" pieces and thoroughly enjoy themselves doing so. I didn't interpret his question as implying a "one in a million" situation. Maybe he was thinking that way, but if so it wasn't obvious.

[gouldfischer]

Hi, Ted.

I agree that the original poster probably did not mean to be a one in a million case. What moved me to write my previous post was, however, the feeling I got from the replies that "everything is possible for those who really want (and put up their best efforts)", which is certainly not true (at least under the assumption that you have no more than the rest of your life to go for it).

Besides that, I think we might have misjudged the intention of the instructor who gave him that advise. Remember she is a very experienced professional, she heard him play and she talked to him. And then she said what is, in my opinion, true for the great majority of people: starting at 41, it is undisputable that it is VERY DIFFICULT, not to say impossible, that you reach the topmost pianistic level (though you surely can become a very good player, even play some "virtuoso" pieces etc., and, not least, you can have a lot of fun).

Quoting Chang (about the age to start learning):

Ages 35–45: This age group cannot develop into concert level pianists, but can still perform adequately for simpler material. They can acquire enough skill to play most famous compositions for personal enjoyment and informal performances. The most demanding material will probably be out of reach. Nervousness reaches a maximum somewhere between the ages of 40 and 60 and then often declines slowly. This might explain why many famous pianists stopped performing somewhere in this age interval. Memorizing starts to become a problem in the sense that, although it is possible to memorize practically anything, you will tend to forget it, almost completely, if not properly maintained (...)


I don't remember anyone complaining about Chang, saying that he should not have "discouraged" people that way. :-)

Cheers,
    Vinicius.

[pianistimo]

don't forget that nowdays we have reverse sexism.  women have dealt with this all through highschool math, music, and whatever else.  it's not really to see who can be at the top when it is your own personal goals for yourself.  you are basically competing with yourself to see what is the best you can be.  you need someone who consistently has faith in your abilities (even if it is God) and your teacher only sees the faults.  i'd rather have a teacher that points out all the faults because that is how you learn - but then you go home and practice and prove to them and yourself that whatever you set your mind to you can do.

to me, lance armstrong is a good example.  i mean - no one really expected him to recover from cancer - let alone race - let alone win again (twice).  he's just that kind of person.  people don't know the real you until you pull one over on them.  i love 'bicycle' magazine (recent issue) with all of lance's looks.  you can see in his eyes that he wills himself to do whatever is necessary - yet he also plans his strategies really well - and practices them.  i think he really doesn't race to prove anything to anyone - he just happens to be #1 talented and #2 motivated #3 hard working

[rimv2]

Good Afternoon:
  I am new to the forum and have quite enjoyed the diversity of the subject matter discussed and the thoughtful level of intelligence displayed in the reply's posted by it's members.

Here is my question - I am 41 years of age
and am currently set to pursue the continuation of my piano studies and technique after a long hiatus....not from playing in general - but from studying.

Previously I undertook lessons for 3 years from a neighborhood teacher as a teenager and worked semi professionally in a "club date wedding" band for 10 years from ages 25-35.

Recently. I signed up with a qualified teacher through a referrel service privately run in my area. The person who runs this service asked me to meet up so that my playing could be evaluated. This was so that the proper instructor might be assigned. There were in excess of about 25 instructors available.

The women who performed the evalution seemed to be very intelligent and was very gracious and considerate during our meeting.

A gifted pianist herself, she is also a professional instructor employed by one of the educational institutions in my area.

After hearing me play a non-classical piece and a classical piece she said that I played very well and could have maybe made a carreer  as a professional pianist   - IF - I obtained the proper education when a child/young adult instead of the neighborhood pianist I studied with - who had no teaching qualifiacations. By proper education - she meant a conservatory education such as that offered in Europe, the US equivilant of a Julliard education for example.

She went on to advise that at my age (41) I should not aspire to be a pianist in the model of a Horowitz or Rubenstien since that level of playing was strictly reserved for those who studied and practiced for up to 8 hours a day from childhood.

So - she indicated that while I could continue the study of piano and improve - that I should never aspire to the playing level of a concert pianist per se or attempt the associated virtuoso repetory....such as The Revelutionary Etude. etc.... which would be reserved for those who play professionally.

Of course, this statement only wanted me to prove her wrong. What are your opionions.

I've recently re-watched a video I purchased by the celebrated educator Barbara Lister Sink who title was: "Freeing The Caged Bird"  - which deals with the development of an injury free technique.

In it , she states that developing a "free" technique such as that enjoyed by Rubinstien etc. was mostly a skill which could be learned rather than a talent. Although some inately learn this type of piano co-ordination.

To back this up - there were examples of this theory - such as that of a of 13 year old student who had re-trained technically to perform without difficulty - she was performing the Hugarian Rhapsody #2 by Liszt. It took the better part of a year to learn it - broken down into managable portions - but she did it. Or course she was also relatively young.

So what are the thoughts of those on this forum regarding this.

Is virtuoso playing reserved for those who begin at a very young age? Or can it be acquired in mid life - and more specifically my particular case.

I would be very interested to read the replies received from the members of this forum.

                                                 Thank You   

Here's an even better question:

What is virtuoso playing?

Ah aint been playing since ah was 3-6-9-12 or 14. Add two and 3 quarters to that 14 and you'll get when ah started. Ah just turned 20 and strangely ah can play the revolutionary, even practicing it only a few times a week. Am ah some sort of super genius? Yes but that's beside the point  . The point is...Am ah a virtuoso for playing this piece a tempo or faster with correct dynamics and not too much rubato. The shocking answer: possibly.

Lets analyze this further. What other pieces do I play?

Brahms ballade in d minor, Beethoven moonlight 1st movement, 1st movement of the EASY sonata (falsely named ah might add), fur elise  , Chopin preludes 3 (slightly ) 4 and 6, etudes 10-1, the first lines of 10-2 25-1 and 25-10 at tempo, Nocturnes 15-3, 37-1, 72-2, waltz b minor, waltzc#minor, less than a minute of the minute waltz, Bach BWV 938, prelude c major , Rachmaninoff prelude c # minor, Scarlatti sonata k249 (the hardest piece ahve worked on so far)

How many of these pieces scream virtuoso?

Minute waltz? umm no.

The chopin etudes right? Yeah. What if ah told you that people believe the chopets to be harder than that Scarlatti sonata above and ah struggle with that scarlatti? Now why is that?

Take a look at the repertoire. Which composer do ah play the most of? Chopin.

Where is am going with this? The pieces ah've played in the past actually assissted in mah learning of the chopin etudes while little baroque experience leaves meh begging the piano for mercy.

So, playing pieces such as the Chopets are not matters of age, talent or virtuosity, but matters of time and preparation.



Let's say you want to play the fantasie impromptu (who doesnt). The smart thing wouldnt be to just jump right in learn 3 vs 4 rhythm and then learn how to play the notes fast. The is kind of what happened to me with the scarlatti. The thought: if he can play the chopets, this should be simple. Wrong. The smart thing would be to build up to this piece.

A suggestion of pieces to aid in the learning of the FI:

Ah had this thought out a while ago but probably forgot something

Chopin waltz c# minor
Chopin minute waltz

1- Chopin etude 10-9
2-Chopet 25-1
3-Chopet 25-2
4-New Chopet no 1
5-Chopet 10-12
6-Chopet 10-6
7-Chopet 10-1 and 10-4 for fun, but it wont hurt (less you practice them wrong)

once these are mastad the FI should be a breeze (theoretically) unless you need to build up to playing these piece as well

The whole point:

Virtuosity is subjective but any piece can be played with time and preparation.

Dam ahm turning into bernhard, 

best wishes,

Karrim

[lostinidlewonder]

"....at your age (41) You should not aspire to be a pianist in the model of a Horowitz or Rubenstien since that level of playing was strictly reserved for those who studied and practiced for up to 8 hours a day from childhood"

What is that supposed to mean? Are they saying, don't try to become one of the best pianist in the world because its too late, you won't ever achieve it. That is very true. Not because you will never be able to play the piano as good as them, but you will simply be unable to catch up on all the years of concert playing and piano career making they have over you. Not unless you live till 100.

But what is the stupid point of saying something like that. It to me is a useless comment which doesn't do anything but demoralise. I wouldn't even waste time trying to turn it into an encouragement beacuse is isn't the right way to think when wanting to improve your musical ability.

Perhaps the person doesn't want to let you imagine you could do great things with the instrument, in that case they are already disabling your maximum potential. The most important part of a teacher is to encourage, not to give false faith saying, Oh you could one day become the greatest pianist in the world, but also avoiding to say stupid things like, now listen here, don't try to become Horowitz you are too old!

You'll become slightly less than as good as you want to become, that is the fact for most people! But delusions of grandeur are definatly something to avoid, you may then underestimate music and play without respect.

Perfect technique in piano is when you play with total relaxation and with an effortless touch at the keyboard producing the most desireable sound. Once you know how to listen to yourself produce sound while playing this is an immediate realisation more than a lifelong exploration. We know when something is played without effort and we are not thinking about the notes but instead thinking of the sound. We know when we are controling groups of notes instead of searching for individual notes. What is difficult is to know how to create this circumstance with everything that we play no matter what the fingering acrobatics demand. Here poses great unique challenges for each and every student, the teacher is there to guide you through it but the student should as quickly as possible learn to move through the dark by themselves. Be resourceful, know how to drill your difficulties away into an automatic, relaxed action.

My more advanced students all rely on me to critique their sound production and further refine their physical action. With troublesome parts we analyise where the centre of the hand is, which notes balance the hand, how to make movements smaller, how to keep the hand relaxed or tend towards a relaxed posture. From this relaxed posture we then aim to control variation in the sound.

It definatly is a long journey to refine your playing into a relaxed state. I have taught many advanced students who play Chopin etudes wonderfully, producing great sounds, rarely missing a note, but they look so uncomfortable while playing and at the end of it are taxed of their energy. Playing relaxed does not mean that the sound suffers, instead the sound is strengthen with the increased control. There are many very subtle movements of the hand to encourage strength and support to different notes of a given piece, there are even more centres of gravity about the hand than one would think, while playing it isnt always above the 3rd finger but sometimes particular notes or even inbetween the fingers.

When you look at the great masters play you will see that how they play looks easier than it actually is. Every single great master is like this. None of them look uncomfortable while playing, none of them look drained of energy at the end of it, unless it is a really nasty piece, but even then it looks like they have only had a good work out, not crawling gasping for breath over the finish line.

This may be the factor which gives you most heartache and wish you had started earlier. How to increase your relaxation while playing. The refinement to this is never ending.

[teresa_b]

Wow, what a lot of good advice!  I hope AnthonyM is still reading, because I'm adding my 2-cents worth.

I am over 50, and have played since childhood, but I did not pursue a professional piano career, either.  Thus I didn't do that 8 hours a day of practice.  I have had years when I played little, and others when i have done a lot. 

At any rate, Do NOT rate yourself as far as being unable to accomplish certain goals.  (Certainly be realistic, you are not likely to win the Tchaikowsky Competition--but I doubt you want that as a goal, anyway.)  In the past 5 or 6 years, I have focused more on piano, and I have a relationship with a chamber orchestra.  As a result, I have performed 4 Mozart piano concertos, will be doing a Beethoven trio this year, and I'm also working on some solo pieces for my own enjoyment. 

It's true about memory--mine is NOT what it used to be, so I have sometimes played with score.  Also, I have the choice of learning whatever I want (yes, i know my capabilities, it will not be Rach 3, but I can play Beethoven 4) and not playing anything I don't love. 

Go for it!
Teresa

[raymond_]

My first post.

I'm glad gouldfisher revived this topic and brought it back to the top of the list.  I was thinking about posting a similar question, because I had a discouraging conversation with my tutor about my prospects as an adult beginner, and all of the replies here have resurrected some of my optimism.  I am a true adult beginner, because I have only been taking lessons since September of last year, and didn't touch a piano as a child.  After about six months of tuition, I reached the point that my life was starting to revolve around playing and listening to piano, and naturally when listening to some difficult pieces I started to wonder what I might reasonably expect to play someday if I practiced enough.  So I asked my tutor.  At that time I had been listening to Chopin's Etude Op 10 intensively for several weeks, and since it was on my mind, I remember that I asked if I might expect to be able play some of these etudes in my fifties.  (I'm 33, so we're talking about twenty years of practice.)  His answer was an unequivocal "no".  And he said something similar to AnthonyM's evaluator, that there is a level of complexity that can physically never be attained by the adult beginner; in order to play difficult pieces the pianist must have hands that have developed in the particular way that a child's hands develop when he/she plays piano every day while growing up. He said that if I had told him when I started that my aim was to learn to play these etudes, he would have sent me away. 

An interesting thing that occurs to me now for the first time is, did he think I was talking about becoming a concert pianist?  I don't think I gave him that impression.  I have not had even the most fleeting thought about performing in public.  I only imagined the pleasue of playing Op 10 for myself.  And that is why some of the replies I've read in this discussion make sense to me.  I only want to play them a bit too slowly if necessary.  I don't aim to impress audiences and music critics.

I'm not sure how much of the encouragement offered to the much more experienced AnthonyM could apply to me.  I would be interested if anyone has any thougths about this subject related to the pure adult beginner.

And I'd like to know what people think about the child pianist's hands.  As adults, do their hands really have properties that are exclusive to them, and cannot be developed by adults who did not play piano as a child?


As for the slight diagreement above about the dangers of raising false hopes or otherwise dashing respectable ones, I see merit in both points of view, but I would ultimately side the the idealists.  After all, we are talking about adults, people with life experience who presumably understand that they have numerous hidden strengths and limitations that make it impossible to predict if they will turn out to be excepionally good, exceptionally bad, or average at any undertaking.  So while I understand the benefit of cautioning someone about the prospect of failure, unless their goal has been scientifically proven to be a physical impossibility, why not emphasise the fact that there is hope, however dim it might be, and let the adult decide if he or she is prepared to accept the prospect of disappointment.  In the case of the pianist who wants to reach a virtuoso standard, or simply wants to be able to play workable versions for himself as in my case, what is the worst thing that can happen?  He/she works hard over many years hoping to achieve a very high level of proficiency, but only achieves a high level.  He/she has still accomplished something.  There are not concert halls full of people waiting to hear this pianist, but he or she must be able to play some fine music.  In my case, it is not going to tear my world apart if I can never play Chopin's etudes.  But if set these as my goal based on the slimmest possibility of success, I would expect to achieve more than if I am convinced that I am definitely physically limited to simpler pieces.

[gouldfischer]

It is clearly not impossible that a normal person who starts to learn at 33 can play Op. 10 reasonably well quite before his/her fifties. I myself started to learn at 28 and am absolutely sure that I'll be playing the complete Goldberg Variations someday - before my forties, I bet! Even if I can't play anything else whatsoever! :-)

Your text is very good, Raymond, and I agree with you completely. (Actually, I think everyone does.) I never meant to say that we should spread "you won't make it"s everywhere, but quite the opposite - provided it doesn't always imply the "everything is possible" misconception.

All in all, the guy's doubt was in fact if there is such a thing as a piece "reserved for Horowitz et al.", on which we all have expressed our disagreement. So, I guess we've been in fact discussing what we thought the intentions of the former poster's adviser were.

Best regards to all,
     Vinicius.

[ted]

Overall then, we all seem to agree that provided the original poster's intentions were realistic there is cause for optimism. That leaves the question of where on earth these discouraging teachers come from and how they came to be that way. It is worrying to think that, unlike our poster, most such pupils might just accept the teacher's word and give up, thereby missing out on much happiness in later life.

[abell88]

Ted, I was thinking about the teacher yesterday. The fact is, although I have been teaching for many years, I do not teach advanced students and have never in my life played a lot of the more difficult repertoire. If I had a student come to me with that kind of goal, I would have to assess how far I could take them (I certainly believe that I can teach pieces I don't know, but that doesn't mean I could teach absolutely anything) and when it would be time to send them to another teacher. I wonder if the original teacher is, like me, not a virtuoso, and therefore thinks that if she can't play these pieces, with all her years of training, it's obvious that an adult learner can't get there either. Me, I'd rather not set my own limitations onto someone else.

[rimv2]

ironically, had ah noticed the date of the first post, ahd have not bother typing in bernhard esque style

[m1469]

ironically, had ah noticed the date of the first post, ahd have not bother typing in bernhard esque style

Why not ?  Your post helped the likes of me... ironically

[leahcim]

Overall then, we all seem to agree that provided the original poster's intentions were realistic there is cause for optimism. That leaves the question of where on earth these discouraging teachers come from and how they came to be that way.

I don't think it's particulary discouraging because he said he had been playing and indeed, from the assessment he was considered to have achieved a good level.

Isn't that like the guy who has been using a computer for years and then asks whether he can learn about them? Why didn't he learn during those years, which is, after all, how most of the people that do learn about them do it?

The question, to me, isn't why couldn't he be a virtuoso pianist like $famous_pianist but why he didn't. [Not necessarily famous, that is, but attain the level of skill he wants to]

At the end of the day, how fast I can run today is probably slower than if I trained, but if I've been training for years that seems far less likely. There's a guy [a whole bunch, and gals too] who are faster whatever I do. I have to accept that my ability to run is what it is, better with training, but never world class. Think how simple that is - why would something far more complex not have that characteristic? Why should I believe that I could be as good as Horowitz or even Bert Humbergillcrest? Certainly, after I've done something for years, it's just kidding myself. There is a reverse situation of negative self-assessment too, no doubt.

A good teacher is going to be realistic i'd hope. I'd like a teacher who said "You can do this and that" if it's true and I'm thinking "I'll never do this" just as much as if I said "I'm going to be better than $whoever" I'd expect them to be honest and realistic - if that's discouraging, Buddism is probably the answer then I won't have to worry about only living once.

A completely beginner on the other hand has an unknown potential that might beg the question of how far they can get.

Being young is a misnomer I think because there are lots of parents sticking young children into piano lessons who get nowhere, the same as adults who start and get nowhere. But we sort of focus on starting young relating to "child prodigy" and note that most of the really, really good pianists started young. Most of really bad ones did too though and there are more of them.

I'd say it'd be difficult to stop them expressing music in some way, if they reach 41 never having played an instrument you have to ask why or, in other words, a complete beginner at 41 is far more likely to achieve the same level they did if they were six, barring the only obvious thing that being older usually means, the length of time before old age, possible incapacity or death is closer so there are simply less years in which to play.

[steve jones]

Some interesting points Leahcim.

I mean, consider this - what are the odds of become virtuoso standard if you started at age 3? Probably not very high. So it stands to follow that the odds are even more remote at age 40. But I dont think you can consider yourself a failure if you dont quite make it up to Horowitz's standard 

So in this respect, the teacher in question was being quite realistic. Statistically, the chances of an over 40 beginner reaching ther highest possible level of virtuosity are not great. Does that mean its impossible? Ofcourse not! People can do extraordinary things when they have the inclination.

Question is, do you have the drive to get that good? When it comes down to it, the question of potential can ultimately be answered by the subject alone. Others can only speculate.

[m1469]

I have been following the continuations of this thread and have found myself wanting to respond but had not quite clarified my thoughts.  Instead of taking specific aspects of the individual posts that have been published, I would like to deal with the root of the matter as I see it.

My underlying ideas on this subject are not particular to only this scenario that Anthony (the original poster) had mentioned.  This scenario and these circumstances are simply an example of a basic concept about life : that somebody else can ultimately decide or govern what is another person's path and potential.


While this thread has some particulars to it, my statement has more to do with a basic decision that one must make within oneself. 

namely : "Who/What governs my potential ?"


At some point, everyone must answer this for themselves and act according to this decision, and really, we are already making this decision every moment of our lives.  This goes for anything that we do or think, including our piano playing.  Where one's thoughts on this rest can be found within one's motives and actions.  Non-judgemental observation of one's motives and actions, even for a single day, can afford one much information on this subject.  Doing this would be a "beginning" of sorts.

Now, we certainly do have the need for help from other individuals along the way, don't we ?  However, I will say that should I personally have listened to, taken to heart, and acted on some of the particular advices and professional nudgings which some very well-intentioned and very well-educated people have given me, I would be neither singing nor piano playing.  Along with that, if I had not taken to heart some of the particular advices and other genuine help given to me by people whom would be considered "less-qualified" to give me such nudgings, I would not have made certain strides toward the things I have.

So, this begs the question : "What, exactly, makes somebody qualified to give advices on what another person's potential is ?"

I personally don't think anybody truly is more qualified than another, at least that is the conclusion I have reached thus far in my life.  This does not mean that we should not listen to each other, it simply means that it is up to the individual to utilize the information they recieve in whatever way they see fit.  In essence, we decide how we are going to live our lives, and more than anything else, our decisions govern our own potential.

Does living by that make anybody an exception (or ridiculously optimistic, for that matter) ?  Certainly not.  We all do this every moment of our lives whether we are aware of it or not.  I am only suggesting that it is worthwhile to be very aware.  It is simply a matter of filtering the information, giving motivation to desires, and acting on those. 

The revelation of what potential those motivations and actions will fulfill is what a lifetime is for, of which we each have our own.  And nobody is going to live out our life nor our potential for us, no matter what they decide on our behalf. 



m1469

[timothy42b]

That Op 10 is listed as Grade 8 in that spreadsheet someone kindly contributed here a while back. 

Perhaps Grade level is not a good performance evaluation tool, but at least it's a number.  So it suggests two questions.

What is the Grade level that an adult beginner can achieve, assuming average level of innate talent?  (gotta rule out the undiscovered Mozart effect)  Can they make a grade/year improvement? 

What is the Grade level that most adult beginners actually do achieve?  I suspect most adult beginners stop making progress long short of their actual potential, either because of the difficulty and committment required, or because they got to a level that satisfied them. 

[rimv2]

That Op 10 is listed as Grade 8 in that spreadsheet someone kindly contributed here a while back. 

Perhaps Grade level is not a good performance evaluation tool, but at least it's a number.  So it suggests two questions.

What is the Grade level that an adult beginner can achieve, assuming average level of innate talent?  (gotta rule out the undiscovered Mozart effect)  Can they make a grade/year improvement? 

What is the Grade level that most adult beginners actually do achieve?  I suspect most adult beginners stop making progress long short of their actual potential, either because of the difficulty and committment required, or because they got to a level that satisfied them. 

Few of the piece within opus 10 (ah assume you mean chopin) are grade 8. Most are far, far, far above as even the greatest pianists deemed some of them impossible. Ironically, they might have just been exaggerating.

As for the maximum they can achieve, ah would assume that it is about as much as or more than most concert level pianists. Mah reason for this belief is that there are really few pianists, ah know or have heard of, who study very hard for several years and never reach  or move close to this grade. Even with average innate talent (if such a this exists) following the right methods would allow for the learner to play at almost any level desired (with proper time investment).

[pianolearner]

m1469,

You might like this quote. I think it fits in neatly with this thread and what you have written.

"She didn't know it couldn't be done so she went ahead and did it."

- Mary's Almanac

 

[pianolearner]

Quoting Chang (about the age to start learning):

Ages 35–45: This age group cannot develop into concert level pianists, but can still perform adequately for simpler material. They can acquire enough skill to play most famous compositions for personal enjoyment and informal performances. The most demanding material will probably be out of reach. Nervousness reaches a maximum somewhere between the ages of 40 and 60 and then often declines slowly. This might explain why many famous pianists stopped performing somewhere in this age interval. Memorizing starts to become a problem in the sense that, although it is possible to memorize practically anything, you will tend to forget it, almost completely, if not properly maintained (...)

Surely he means after the age of 35? I started learning seriously just before I turned 36. So if I wanted to be a concert pianist I should have waited until I turned 46?

>although it is possible to memorize practically anything you
>will tend to forget it, almost completely, if not properly maintained

But this happens regardless of age? How many people can remember things they haven't used since they were children? Do memory and motor function go hand in hand? Many of us will easily forget a phone number but we don't forget how to use a phone. So do you need to remember technique or is it something that remains ingrained for a very long time?

[stevie]

i am a late starter and a frequent farter.

i have nothing to add but to say that sometimes these kind of negetive comments do actually spur us on to go against it and randomly be good, true.

[m1469]

m1469,

You might like this quote. I think it fits in neatly with this thread and what you have written.

"She didn't know it couldn't be done so she went ahead and did it."

- Mary's Almanac

 

Yeah, actually that is an interesting concept, isn't it ?

Surely he means after the age of 35? I started learning seriously just before I turned 36.

Yeah, my friend was very lucky, he realized just in time.  He was 34 actually, and 10 minutes before the stroke of midnight, the day before his 35th birthday, he decided he wanted to be a concert pianist.  He is now very successful too !

Just imagine though if he had waited only 10 minutes longer, when he would have turned 35 years old !  He would never have had a chance 

[gouldfischer]

Yeah, my friend was very lucky, he realized just in time.  He was 34 actually, and 10 minutes before the stroke of midnight, the day before his 35th birthday, he decided he wanted to be a concert pianist.  He is now very successful too !

Just imagine though if he had waited only 10 minutes longer, when he would have turned 35 years old !  He would never have had a chance 

Of course Chang's "35-45" is only an age-group, there's no such Cinderella witchery. Just like the dates written on sausage cans: it's not that the sausages will be rotten one day after that limit (but not the day before), it's just that you should be aware that the likelihood of their being as good as expected will be continually decreasing after that.

You know that, of course. Hence I wonder what were you exactly aiming at... I guess it was not to say that age-group statistics are useless. :-)

Cheers,
     Vinicius.

[m1469]

Of course Chang's "35-45" is only an age-group, there's no such Cinderella witchery. Just like the dates written on sausage cans: it's not that the sausages will be rotten one day after that limit (but not the day before), it's just that you should be aware that the likelihood of their being as good as expected will be continually decreasing after that.

You know that, of course. Hence I wonder what were you exactly aiming at... I guess it was not to say that age-group statistics are useless. :-)

Cheers,
     Vinicius.

Well, yes.  Of course I know there is no such witchery, which is part of my point.  Also, living people are not exactly suasages packaged in cans either.  My only point is that at what point does one decide a statistic applies to them ?  And, a statistic does not necessarily tell what it seems.

If everybody in the world were told that once they reach a certain age, they cannot do such and such a thing... how many people do you think would actually try to do it ?  The statistics may very well reflect people who were told about the statistics and odds and therefore stopped trying.  For all we know, statistics reflect people who gave up.

I mean, what if a bunch of people in that age group got together and formed a concert series for people only in that age group ?  Would they be concert pianists yet ?  What if it really caught on and everybody started doing it, forming an established career opportunity for people within that age range to start a performing career.  Basically the statistics would change. 

Statistics tell us how things have gone in the past, not what is actually possible now.  And those statistics will always reflect more factors than are told about.


m1469

[gouldfischer]

Hi, m1469!

If everybody in the world were told that once they reach a certain age, they cannot do such and such a thing... how many people do you think would actually try to do it ?

I would. I like challenges. Does everyone? (There are people who'd rather having "attainable goals", however subjective the concept of attainability might be.) My point is that, when asked, we have to be honest - and let people decide for themselves.

Statistics tell us how things have gone in the past, not what is actually possible now.  And those statistics will always reflect more factors than are told about.

I wouldn't discard age group statistics this way. If a medicine cures 99.9% of people who have some disease, let's go happy! (It's all about statistics...) Some Monte Carlo algorithms which give the correct answer for decision problems within some known error ratio have plenty of uses in Science. (It's all about statistics...) If a plane does not crash in 999999/1000000 of its flights, that's ok - let us fly!... (It's all about).

It's a fact that memory starts to deteriorate considerably after a certain age for a reasonable percentage of people (to an extent where the duration of a recital - at least without sightreading - becomes an issue). The same goes for the ability to deal with nervousness, the development of new neural connections, the overall physical endurance etc. These "statistics" hold true for the great majority of people.

I agree with you, however, that we should not let negative statistics drive our dreams away. But this is what WE do with the statistics. "We", in this case, is equivalent to the original poster, NOT the teacher (who was supposed to make a professional assessment of the guy's situation, I guess).

Suppose you're a doctor. Your next patient is a child who gets to you with a rare disease. It is well known that the chances of recovery are slim. What'd you tell her parents? 1) "No, that's ok, this is piece of cake." Or... 2) "I'm sorry to say that your daughter has a serious problem. There's only a very small chance of cure." Of course you can append (to number 2) such things as "however, no matter how difficult, no matter how small the probability of success might be, I am here to help you to the full extent of my professional and human capacities", but you would not raise false expectations, would you?

Like I said some posts ago, my concern was about us having over criticised the teacher, who, in my opinion, had been no different from the doctor who choses the second option in the above example. Our guy, like many said, is an adult, and could decide on his own what to do with the fact that he would never become a Horowitz. (I would have played some piano to celebrate!)

Vinicius.

[leahcim]

I would. I like challenges. Does everyone? (There are people who'd rather having "attainable goals", however subjective the concept of attainability might be.) My point is that, when asked, we have to be honest - and let people decide for themselves.

Yes.  Plus, if teachers matter then you need teachers around that share the attitude of our older pupil's goal. Otherwise you'll find that most of the really good teachers required will be focussing on the pupils in the age groups that they consider will be worth teaching. Even if they teach adults they might do it with a mindset like the original post - which might change the way they teach and what they teach.

I guess it depends whether concert pianists are all so talented, even at 35+ if they've never played a note, that the teaching is irrelevant or whether there are some that are there because at the relevant age and ability they had superlative tuition to guide them on their way.

Some teachers might teach any age. But there are a finite number and they only have a finite amount of time to teach. Which means not every young person that requires a good teacher to learn is likely to achieve their potential, let alone older ones if there are less teachers willing to bother.

In short, if you need a good teacher to become a concert pianist, you're not that likely to succeed starting at 6, let alone at 41. But at least at 6, a few years or average or bad teaching might lead to that good teacher. How many 35+ pianists have that time to waste?

[opus10no2]

i am a late starter and a frequent farter.

Your post has truly inspired me!

I now feel like I can finally do what I've always dreamed of