Prodigies playing stuff "badly"

[m1469]

I was just listening to several recordings from various artists of a particular virtuosic piece, and I ran across a young person of 8 years old playing it, after having listened to several others who are a mix of highly qualified adults.

In the 8 years old's, the tempo slowed, it became sluggish, missing notes, and it was obviously a lot for even this very bright and obviously pianistically capable person to handle at that point.  I've seen other versions of something like this, too, and so I do just wonder what is the pedagogical point, if there is truly a strictly pedagogical point, of having children playing big, mainstream virtuosic pieces but not really doing it justice.  I realize that playing something "badly" isn't happening with every prodigy, but perhaps it happens more than many people know (perhaps non musicians and some musicians).

I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning behind this.  Is it mainly the idea to get the entire repertoire into these little people while they are 3?  I can see some kind of point in that, but I have say, if the pieces aren't played and learned well, what's the point of it being part of the person's repertoire at all, even if for the purpose of relearning it later in life?

In my own teaching I'll have students sometimes who need most to be able to burn through some pieces and keep moving, and I lure them into details over time.  I realize this might be a personal teaching decision at this point, and not everybody's approach.  My point though, is that I can see letting young students burn through repertoire that isn't "supposed" to stay with them for the rest of their lives and be performed when they're also 40, or 50, or 60, or more.  But, it's happening with the pieces that are supposed to be with a person for the rest of their lives.

[j_menz]

I think it's so you can get your daughters on the stage, Mrs Worthington.

[m1469]

Well, a child gets on stage also because a teacher wants him/her there, not just because the parent does.  It seems like it could ruin a lot for actually a lot of people, the child included, if there is no real thought to the long term.  I wonder if there is a smart pedagogical alternative?

[outin]

My guess:
- The kid wants it because kids do have an adventorous spirit
- The parents love to think of their kids as prodigies
- The parents/teachers think that the sooner you can bring yourself out from the mass, the better

[Bob]

Obviously that eight year old must suck.  Tough luck for them.  At least they find out the hard way before wasting months of their life chasing a dream. (Several months at age eight is going to start creating some percentage of their life.  If they spent two years at it, that's 25% of their life.)

[ajspiano]

In my own teaching I'll have students sometimes who need most to be able to burn through some pieces and keep moving, and I lure them into details over time.  I realize this might be a personal teaching decision at this point, and not everybody's approach.  My point though, is that I can see letting young students burn through repertoire that isn't "supposed" to stay with them for the rest of their lives and be performed when they're also 40, or 50, or 60, or more.  But, it's happening with the pieces that are supposed to be with a person for the rest of their lives.

I do the same thing. Or I'll let some detail go while we work on some other detail..

I rather think that "prodigies" capable of playing those big pieces in a mediocre way should spend a lot more time getting all detailed working on intermediate/advanced repertoire - of which there is an absolute mountain.

I usually feel like their performances reflect a physical capability but lack a lot of the mental processing.. But then, its going to be harder to tell an 8 year old to play fugues for 2 years, and properly explain/teach the contrapuntal thinking. Maybe they make more progress at that age continually pushing their technical limits, and allowing the more detailled musical elements to come along with the rest of their maturity.

[m1469]

I guess with the idea that they can truly change a piece as they continue to mature and grow.  But if a person develops a strong mental association with playing in a comparatively mediocre way (and I am comparing to professionals now), that can be tricky to undo, I think.  There are pieces in my repertoire (before 2008) where my mental association with them is definitely not what I would want to have as a foundation to grow upon, and they are associated with a time in my life that served as my initial growth (and for years, only formal growth), so not only have those pieces stuck to me like that, but my entire concept of how I played in general stuck to me like that.  I don't know that child prodigies would develop some of the same associations in a conscious way as an adult, but there might be something on a subconscious level for them anyway.  Recently though, I start to see that it might be possible to stop having that association even after years.

I guess I'm just trying to see what is truly positive about it, and wonder if it might be actually building something negative.  But maybe as we grow we can't help but build negative associations right along with positive ones, and those negative ones just later have to be corrected.

[ajspiano]

Then it is perhaps down to whether the individual maintains the intent to grow and improve AND allows that intent to effect all their actions rather than let past pieces remain however they were first learnt.

[chopin2015]

They will develop and improve the sensitivity to rhythm/pulse and relative pitch, and they will find ways to improve due to new abilities to see difference and effect.

[m1469]

My guess:
- The kid wants it because kids do have an adventorous spirit
- The parents love to think of their kids as prodigies
- The parents/teachers think that the sooner you can bring yourself out from the mass, the better

Yes, perhaps.  Although the kids don't have the same overall view as the adults and the child would just be unconsciously trusting that everything works out OK in the end, I guess.

Then it is perhaps down to whether the individual maintains the intent to grow and improve AND allows that intent to effect all their actions rather than let past pieces remain however they were first learnt.

Yes, this is a good point.  I've just noticed that it's easy to be comfortable without even knowing that you might be settling for whatever is comfortable, but I guess if somebody has an innate desire to learn and grow and further process their entire lives, growth and development are bound to happen.

[j_menz]

I guess I'm just trying to see what is truly positive about it, and wonder if it might be actually building something negative.  But maybe as we grow we can't help but build negative associations right along with positive ones, and those negative ones just later have to be corrected.

I suggest that in your ponderings you think not only of the prodigies you have seen, but also of Mozart. It may give an additional perspective.

[asuhayda]

Well, a child gets on stage also because a teacher wants him/her there, not just because the parent does.  It seems like it could ruin a lot for actually a lot of people, the child included, if there is no real thought to the long term.  I wonder if there is a smart pedagogical alternative?

I think you nailed it here.  99% of this is due to bad judgement on the teacher's part.  The parents are going to go with the teacher of course, because the teacher is catering to their egos.  Something like this "you're kid is awesome, I want him to play this impossible piece because I believe he is special"... the parents are totally going to go for it.

Being a teacher myself (as I am sure you are as well), I have been tempted to give repertoire to a student that is waaay above his level.  So, I understand the need to stay grounded.  I think it's an ego thing on the teacher's part.  Sometimes teachers don't always consider what's in the best intersts of their students.

[m1469]

I suggest that in your ponderings you think not only of the prodigies you have seen, but also of Mozart. It may give an additional perspective.

I actually really appreciate you bringing this up, as for some reason right now there seems to be an interesting sense of contrast in a helpful way.

Sometimes teachers don't always consider what's in the best intersts of their students.

I'm thinking about your whole post, but this here I do agree with, and also might add that perhaps some teachers don't really even know what is in the student's best interest - I mean, perhaps it's not always just a conscious choice to do something which isn't in the student's best interest.

Along those lines, one of the aspects I think about is just how the world is being trained, right along with it all.  I do consider what is valuable for the world, at least as best I can, and at a fundamental level it seems harmful if general publics who don't know any better are being subconsciously taught to value children playing mature, artistic pieces in a mediocre way over grown artists playing them in an artful way.  On one hand, you could argue saying that this kind of infatuation would only reach those who don't know any better, and in a sense is therefore reaching a broader spectrum in the world overall, but in reality that's not entirely what's happening.  People who I would think actually do know better are actively promoting the other, if for no other reason (if not ignorance), than simply because it already caters to the less-knowing (paying) public's desire to be wowed and awed.  True artistic awe "loses" its value in this, I think, and I just wonder where the ripple effect stops.

[m1469]

It is one thing to value one mature interpretation over another, and/or to appreciate and value certain phases within the overall maturation process of an individual pianist's for what that phase is, but it is another to have all focus in the world being placed on valuing mainly a specific type/species of person as an only true or most accurate representation of how a craft functions at its best.  It just seems like the world is going towards the latter, at the moment.

[asuhayda]

I'm thinking about your whole post, but this here I do agree with, and also might add that perhaps some teachers don't really even know what is in the student's best interest - I mean, perhaps it's not always just a conscious choice to do something which isn't in the student's best interest.

Most definitely true.

Furthermore, I definitely have noticed a slight philosophical shift in the minds of the public.  It seems as though children are being hailed more and more for outstanding musical achievement.  Almost as if Piano performance is becoming something of a novelty.  In other words it is becoming less impressive to the general public for an adult to play masterpieces as it is for children to play them, at the expense of an inferior performance.  I think that is a possible sign that the public at large is losing appreciation for the instrument.  I hope that this is not the case, but it seems to be a growing trend nowadays.

[m1469]

Most definitely true.

Furthermore, I definitely have noticed a slight philosophical shift in the minds of the public.  It seems as though children are being hailed more and more for outstanding musical achievement.  Almost as if Piano performance is becoming something of a novelty.  In other words it is becoming less impressive to the general public for an adult to play masterpieces as it is for children to play them, at the expense of an inferior performance.  I think that is a possible sign that the public at large is losing appreciation for the instrument.  I hope that this is not the case, but it seems to be a growing trend nowadays.

This is my point in the couple of posts above, precisely.  But, it's not just the public, it's also organizations and people very far "up" who are actively promoting the entire concept - the public is actively being trained by "experts" about standards and expectations.

[outin]

I think you nailed it here.  99% of this is due to bad judgement on the teacher's part.  The parents are going to go with the teacher of course, because the teacher is catering to their egos.  Something like this "you're kid is awesome, I want him to play this impossible piece because I believe he is special"... the parents are totally going to go for it.

Teachers like this simply do not exists where I come from.

Then again there are no child prodigies either 

[danhuyle]

I'm amazed at how these prodigies could even play virtuoso piano music in the first place. They play from memory like it's the easiest thing there is.

While adult learners struggle with learning the technique and memorizing, these kids are doing it with ease. There teachers are extremely skilled to pull it off. Can they realistically get EVERYONE they teach to play virtuoso piano music in short time?

The only reason I even considered practicing Liszt La Leggierezza was after watching an 8 year boy and 9 year girl play it as if to say, "Liszt's 2nd concert etude is that "easy" to learn."

In a way, piano prodigies can empower us to play hard pieces.

[m1469]

OK, I see your point.  Seeing numerous people in the world who can play big pieces with ease at a young age (though in this case which in-part caused me to start the thread, it wasn't truly with that kind of ease) does start to make it seem like there is something possible about it that is maybe not the intuitive way of thinking for an adult.  I see the possibilities to learn from it as an on-looker and have done so myself.  I don't think that's the pedagogical point for their sake though.  I do see how it can perhaps be a positive side-effect, though of course, some people handle it very negatively, too.  

There are qualities about it that can be learned from in that light, but it's really just an (small) aspect of the overall, life-long, world-wide spectrum of the craft.  In fact, if everyone were by default a child prodigy, or by default a virtuoso (it seems they are taking over the world), those things would actually *still* be some small aspect of the overall craft as those are not the actual point of being an artist.  In fact, perhaps even more interestingly, artistic playing can still be demonstrated, expressed, and meaningful without it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Hey guys, what if there's not some sort of deep mystery behind prodigies learning and often times butchering difficult pieces.

What if they learn these difficult pieces just because they think it sounds cool?  



Kid:  hey teacher, can I learn Prokofiev's 2nd piano concerto?

Teacher:  it's kinda hard

Kid:  so?  It sounds cool!

Teacher:  alright kid, if you wanna go for it...  I got your back dude.



What if it's something as normal as that?

[j_menz]

What if it's something as normal as that?

Your normal 8 year old may have heard of Prokofiev (from Peter and the Wolf only); has almost certainly never heard of the Prok 2, and is more likely to aspire to go out and play with their mates than tackle it themselves.

Someone, somewhere, is pushing.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

; has almost certainly never heard of the Prok 2

What are you talking about?  Is it about age or skill level?

Because you don't have to be a certain skill level or age to have HEARD of pieces.  I knew about Gaspard de la Nuit and the early Scriabin sonatas when I was like 7 or 8 before I started playing piano.

There's no forcefield that prevents 8 year olds from hearing difficult music.


And what the heck is wrong with a little kid preferring piano over playing with their friends?



EDIT:

 actually I've only heard of Ondine when I was like 8.

[j_menz]

What are you talking about?  Is it about age or skill level?

A bit of both, but mostly age.

Because you don't have to be a certain skill level or age to have HEARD of pieces.  I knew about Gaspard de la Nuit and the early Scriabin sonatas when I was like 7 or 8 before I started playing piano.
EDIT:

 actually I've only heard of Ondine when I was like 8.

Even with Ondine, you were well ahead of the curve.

There's no forcefield that prevents 8 year olds from hearing difficult music.

No, but there is a lack of mental development that usually prevents them understanding or being attracted to it.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Even with Ondine, you were well ahead of the curve.

My aunt bought me a CD with a bunch of piano works when I was a little kid and I would listen to it every night when I went to bed.

No, but there is a lack of mental development that usually prevents them understanding or being attracted to it.

So you're telling me a kid would be more attracted to Hot Cross Buns versus a Chopin etude?  The lack of mental development would prevent a kid from understanding or being attracted to the more atonal 20th or 21st century composers, not just difficult works.  

Just because it's hard, doesn't mean that it's hard for a kid to understand.  Flight of the Bumblebee is technically challenging but musically almost nothing so I can't imagine how that would be difficult for an 8 year old kid to understand.  Unless of course he's an idiot. 

[outin]

No, but there is a lack of mental development that usually prevents them understanding or being attracted to it.

Either you are wrong here or people are very different. I NEVER liked simple songs as a kid, as far as I can remember. I always liked different kind of music than my peers. Also from very young age I was drawn to some instruments and disliked others.

I really don't see much change in my preferences in music if I dig deeper. Different genres yes, but some of the fundamentals seem to stay the same. My simple explanation is that certain harmonies, wave lengths and rhytms are naturally stimulating the pleasure center of my brain and others are not

I think I need to grow up a bit more to appreciate music on a purely intellectual level, like Bach  

[j_menz]

My aunt bought me a CD with a bunch of piano works when I was a little kid and I would listen to it every night when I went to bed.

Give your Aunt a big hug from me. Don't tell her it's from me if that would be creepy.

So you're telling me a kid would be more attracted to Hot Cross Buns versus a Chopin etude?  The lack of mental development would prevent a kid from understanding or being attracted to the more atonal 20th or 21st century composers, not just difficult works.  

Just because it's hard, doesn't mean that it's hard for a kid to understand.  Flight of the Bumblebee is technically challenging but musically almost nothing so I can't imagine how that would be difficult for an 8 year old kid to understand.  Unless of course he's an idiot. 

Flight of the Bumblebee I'll concede, though the kid would like the orchestral one better, I'm guessing.

I don't think I know Hot Cross Buns. Maybe I'd like it better than a Chopin etude?  

But seriously, kids really tend not to like long, complex or untuneful stuff. Hey, they usually wait for their teens to get into (c)rap.

[outin]

But seriously, kids really tend not to like long, complex or untuneful stuff.

Like a Chopin Ballade??  

Referring to the untuneful part...

[j_menz]

Either you are wrong here or people are very different. I NEVER liked simple songs as a kid, as far as I can remember. I always liked different kind of music than my peers. Also from very young age I was drawn to some instruments and disliked others.

I really don't see much change in my preferences in music if I dig deeper. Different genres yes, but some of the fundamentals seem to stay the same. My simple explanation is that certain harmonies, wave lengths and rhytms are naturally stimulating the pleasure center of my brain and others are not

I think I need to grow up a bit more to appreciate music on a purely intellectual level, like Bach  

Either you are misremembering your tastes as a kid, up to a point, or you are saying your musical taste and palette hasn't grown since you were 8. I hope for your sake it's the former.

[j_menz]

Like a Chopin Ballade??  

Referring to the untuneful part...

There's an untuneful part?? 

[outin]

Either you are misremembering your tastes as a kid, up to a point, or you are saying your musical taste and palette hasn't grown since you were 8. I hope for your sake it's the former.

I'm afraid it is the latter

Who wants to grow up anyway?

EDIT: As far as I can remember I was drawn to chromatisism (although not knowing what it was) a bit of atonality and somber moods. Happy songs always annoyed me a bit. I guess I was born old and crumpy  

[outin]

There's an untuneful part?? 

I though YOU were saying that the kids cannot like this type of music but must be "pushed" to play them?

[j_menz]

I though YOU were saying that the kids cannot like this type of music but must be "pushed" to play them?

Noboby should attempt a Chopin Ballade until they've had two unhappy love affairs and a pet die on them.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

But seriously, kids really tend not to like long, complex or untuneful stuff. Hey, they usually wait for their teens to get into (c)rap.

So you're saying it doesn't have to be difficult?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I still doubt that there's some sort of grand mystery behind kids learning difficult works.

It's probably because they like it.

They decide what to play over a normal three minute conversation with their teacher.

[outin]

Noboby should attempt a Chopin Ballade until they've had two unhappy love affairs and a pet die on them.

Haven't had any of the former still, but the latter long before school age...Our dog was put to sleep because of MY asthma...now that's traumatic if anything...

[j_menz]

So you're saying it doesn't have to be difficult?

You have to be older to worry about technical difficulty, and well into your teens to obsess about it.

But some things are musically difficult, and kids tend not to like them. 8 year olds don't listen to Prokofiev Concertos for much the same reason that 8 year olds don't read Proust.

[j_menz]

a normal three minute conversation with their teacher.

I find it impossible to believe that you consider a 3 minute conversation with your teacher about what to play to be normal.

My guess would be 3 weeks. 

[j_menz]

Haven't had any of the former

Hence the "untuneful parts".

[ajspiano]

My guess would be 3 weeks. 

...as an overture.

[outin]

Hence the "untuneful parts".

I think I miss your point...or you did mine

BTW. I really don't think Chopin's music is about unhappy love affairs at all...People just want to romantisize his music. What we know about him does not really suggest that he was into tragic love affairs. He actually seemed to like being taken care of by females, even helped by them financially in the end. He also seemed to be quite worried about his commodities and using money and was also a bit vain. Especially when we think about his late compositions he was a very sick man. He was actually ill and uncomfortable for at least 15 years before he died. I do think that this influenced his music much more than being disappointed in love. Anyone who has had a chronic lung disease can relate, especially knowing that there were no drugs to help.

But I guess we all interpret the music of past composers with our own reference system.

EDIT: I was probably a bit unclear. What I meant is that even though he may have written a piece as something that is supposed to describe human relations, he didn't necessarily use his own experience as the source of inspiration. Just like suggestion or method acting, a composer can reproduce feelings in their music without them being straight references to past experience. The same way a player can produce what listeners interpret as certain feelings without having experienced them.

IMO suffering a loss is essentially the same whether it is from a love affair or anything else, and feelings of longing are the same whether it is for a person, place or something less concrete like health and comfort. I don't believe that humans actually have that many different feelings, we use the same ones, but just attach them to different things and so think they are specific.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

My guess would be 3 weeks. 

Three freaking weeks?!



This is what I do...  I find something I like, and if I don't have the score for it, I get a copy from the Internet.  I screw around with it up until next piano lessons.  Then I play what I have to my teacher.  Then he critiques me about my playing NO QUESTIONS ASKED.  I do the same thing until I'm satisfied with what I've done.

THE END

[j_menz]

This is what I do...  I find something I like, and if I don't have the score for it, I get a copy from the Internet.  I screw around with it up until next piano lessons.  Then I play what I have to my teacher.  Then he critiques me about my playing NO QUESTIONS ASKED.  I do the same thing until I'm satisfied with what I've done.

THE END

So how did you wind up with that P&F on your study list?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

So how did you wind up with that P&F on your study list?

Teacher:  you need a Bach P&f

Me:  dear god...

Teacher:  hey kid, you knew this was coming!

Me:  yeah whatever, just give me one.

Teacher:  here this one.  I think I can do a good job at teaching this one to you cause I played this one before.

Me:  fine...  See ya next week kid.

THE END