And yes, I can play extremely difficult pieces very well without any difficulties.
I can pretty much play anything I want and not worry that I won't be able to play it. That's how I define my terms. So basically, the stuff most people struggle with, I don't.
(FYI - modern science has ALWAYS been able to explain how bees fly. As soon as science could explain how birds fly, it could also explain how bees fly.)
You can chop down a tree with a spork if given enough time, but wouldn't you rather have a chain saw?
See, the problem that a lot of people have here is that there's a myth that you have to start early to accomplish anything. It's a myth that even you, OP, believe since you asked. However, starting early isn't a guarantee of any kind of accomplishment, as any piano teacher can attest. Speaking as one, most will never accomplish any kind of fluency and will simply give up for a myriad of reasons.
You certainly don't need to prove your point by playing for us, but please understand that using yourself as proof does not work very well until you do.
I am yet to see some proof that no matter how late you start there's no limit to what you can accomplish (especially if we assume there's no such thing as innate talent that makes one exceptional).
I am convinced that there are certain disadvantages (especially neurological ones) in late starters if the sole focus is to abuse music as a vehicle to show how good we are. That, it seems, is the deepest and most tragic root of the "technical" trouble most experience. How sad to see yet another thread of this kind. Hugging the trees, ladies and gentlemen, is what we need to learn, not cutting them down. 17 is not too late to learn what (piano) music is really for.
Of course not! But could one become the new Rubinstein?
I disagree that age is an issue for anything.
Any neurological deficits can be overcome from the process of learning.
I know you all think innate ability is BS in piano,
No, at least I don't.
I guess you mean neurological deficiences associated with the age difference between a child and an adult? Otherwise it would be a pretty ridiculous statement...I do not completely disagree with that. But time and many other factors will still be the issue.
The body and mind are incredibly plastic as research has shown, especially with skill learning.
Why do you insist upon this? The body and mind are incredibly plastic as research has shown, especially with skill learning.
By analogy, would you not consider language learning a complex task?
The research does indicate plasticity, but it does not claim that it is limitless. Why do you insist on misinterpreting/misrepresenting the research?
It may be objectively complex in terms of how the brain works, I don't know really, but it can certainly not be compared to the almost inhuman body coordination and enormous concentration you need to do even half of what the great pianists are/were capable of.
That's an assumption that piano playing is something more difficult to speech. I disagree with that assumption since many people do struggle with learning a foreign language, often times never being able to fully speak fluently. Likewise, the exact same thing can be said of piano playing. So, "many people do struggle with learning how to play the piano, often times never being able to play fluently."
The research doesn't say it's limitless since there hasn't been any research to test this question. However, those that do study it have said that they don't know what the limits are, if there is one. I agree with this assessment. My background is in learning and memory, so I am biased to think that nearly everything can be learned and done so at a high level so I'm actually very interested in exploring this. Many things have been wrong about this issue before, e.g. the "critical period" explanation for language learning I mentioned earlier. I'm certain that something such as piano playing is one of those things.
Why would you say there's no research to test the limits? How much do you know about research done outside US?
The limits are very obvious to those who study the differences between individuals. There's evidence that even though the structures do change with certain kind of activity, the fundamental structural differences are pretty resistent. Also with adults not all of the changes are permanent and may disappear quite soon after the extensive training period is over.
@Dima,So you're referring to musicianship, not technical issues. Then musicianship is very much like learning to speak a foreign language, not with the voice but with the piano. I've noticed that those that listen to classical Western music the most tend to be the best musicians.
I've yet to read any research that has tested the limits of human capacity. Sorry, but those experiments didn't last more than a couple of months, probably due to budget constraints. I'd like to see something last far longer than that, like how long a pianist usually practices.
What research are you referring to concerning piano playing? It is my impression that most researchers don't seem to have a clue about how much more difficult it is to play the piano artistically well than it is to simply play at a certain speed with certain indicated dynamics. The latter is indeed something almost everybody can learn with enough training but it will not impress anyone.
@Dima,So you're referring to musicianship, not technical issues. Then musicianship is very much like learning to speak a foreign language, not with the voice but with the piano. I've noticed that those that listen to classical Western music the most tend to be the best musicians. The ones that don't listen to it at all sound pretty unexpressive even if they can play advanced repertoire. I knew this one guy in school who listened to rock/metal and he banged on the piano. Even his Bach was banging and harsh in tone. He seemed only to think that the piano is to show off by playing fast and loud since that was the music he most liked to play.
In addition:Try something really easy like one line: "To be or not to be, that's the question" and see if you can get accepted in a British Drama School. Not too many native speakers can do that correctly, and most won't even get to the "that's the question" part before they are kicked out of the audition. That's what GOOD piano playing is about.
"That is the question", not "That's the question". RADA is quite picky on things like that. A bit like doing a mordant instead of a trill in a Mozart sonata.
Another thing I like in English is that different stress gives an entirely different meaning to the sentence you say
All the languages I can speak have this feature to some extend, is it not so in Russian at all? That's interesting...
It exists, but it doesn't come natural to do it that way. In English you almost have to do it that way, I guess, because the word order is rather strict, but in Russian you can turn around virtually all the words in any direction, and the cases will express what you want to say. The emotional content will also change depending on this or that word order. Add intonation and you get many, many ways to express yourself. Even the usage of a comma or the omission of it can give a different meaning!P.S.: Added an image of a famous example in the Russian language. The first sentence means: "Execute, no mercy."The second sentence means: "Execution impossible, - mercy."
Topic: Is 17 too old to start learning the piano? 