Best book for Piano Technique

[j3r3my777]

I have been studying classical piano for quite a while, and have managed to make up my own technique, which includes the common curved fingers and loose wrist etc. The thing is that its not a constant technique for me. I begin to change my technique when my fingers start to hurt, so I change to arm-weight technique, but i can't get the sound I would get if I practiced with finger force/weight. I need a constant technique that I can rely on. Especially now that I am auditioning for colleges piano performance entrance exams. Please recommend me a book or give me your best opinion. It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[pianoman53]

There are plenty of books about this. some of them are written by masters, and some aren't. A book can be a good supplement, but it will never be better than a real life teacher.

[j3r3my777]

There are plenty of books about this. some of them are written by masters, and some aren't. A book can be a good supplement, but it will never be better than a real life teacher.

I have had teachers, and he said that technique would eventually come naturally to a pianist

[cometear]

Mary Moran has a great Taubman Approach book (I think)

[faulty_damper]

I have had teachers, and he said that technique would eventually come naturally to a pianist

If that were true, then simply putting in thousands of hours in practice would result in thousands of extremely talented pianists.  But... that's just not the case.

I don't recommend any books because they all have insufficiencies or errors in rationale or movement.  The worst kinds are the ones that use rationale to justify technique.  The body is far more complex than can be summed in a just a couple of principles (rotation, arm weight, gravity drop, etc.)

I'm for finding the easiest way to execute the necessary movements to attain the desired sound.  If the muscles start burning or are sore, you're doing it wrong.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

Lhevinne's book. (Basics Principles in Pianoforte Playing).
Hofmann's book. (Piano Playing With Questions Answered)
Neuhaus' Book (Art of Piano Playing).

[timothy42b]

And of course, Abby Whiteside.

And Gieseking. 

[falala]

I have had teachers, and he said that technique would eventually come naturally to a pianist

Then he was an idiot and you were wasting your money.

[kitty on the keys]

I know Mary Moran, and her book. We have had her for workshops. She is great and knows her stuff.

Kitty on the Keys

[cometear]

I know Mary Moran, and her book. We have had her for workshops. She is great and knows her stuff.

Kitty on the Keys

When I was 9, I had a class with her when her book first came out. I recently had a class with her at the Philadelphia workshop. She's great.

[rmbarbosa]

I do think that the best way to play well is to play real music.
Bach teached his pupils with his own compositions.
We all can reach piano technic playing scales in the Mozart sonatas, for example.
I learned to play trills playing the Nocturne no 20 of Chopin and Bach Inventions.
I learned to play scales with the easy sonata of Mozart. And with the "cadenza" at the end of the same nocturne of Chopin.
I learned to play Bach, playing Bach.
I learned to play harps with the third mouvement of "clair de lune" (Beethoven) and with one "Etude" of Chopin.
Why to play Czerny, for example, if I have Clementi? Isnt this a waste of time?

[thalbergmad]

Why to play Czerny, for example, if I have Clementi? Isnt this a waste of time?

Forget the Czerny exercises and just play some of his actual compositions and transcriptions. Then it is not a waste of time.

Thal

[rmbarbosa]

Thal, I was talking only about Czerny exercices, not about his other compositions.
What I mean is that we can reach a good technical level without much of the "classical" exercises.
A beginner must do some basic exercises, of course. But they dont give "per se" the capacity of play Music.
I have 68 years of piano playing. I began with four years old. And I had the traditional approach: Hanon, Scales, Harps, Czerny, Gradus ad Parnassum (Clementi), Kulack for octaves... More or less 6 to 8 hours/day, sometimes with pain. "No pain no gain"... But I was like theese young chineses "pianists" we can see now in youtube... a little "monkey" in a circus... By my twenties, I could see Arrau, Rubinstein,Gould, Landoska (in harpsichord) and I had a great English teacher, Santiago Kastner who dedicated is life to the Baroc, namely to Bach, Scarlatti and the portuguese composer Carlos Seixas. And I realised that all my "technic" was nothing. So, I refounded all my technic with the principles of the russian piano school, but without the traditional russian approach (inverted scales, 7 months untill pass from two octaves to 4 octaves, etc...). Only looking for a good sound and expressivity. This transition was not easy and I realised that if I was not forced to so many years of technical and dry exercises, all would be easier for me. Now, I spend my days looking for more musicality, sometimes in one only phrase. But this is Music!
Best wishes
rui

[rmbarbosa]

I forgot something: when I say that I`ve "learned" scales with Mozart, harps with Beethoven, etc
I meant that, before my twenties, I coul play scales, harps, trills, etc... but without any musicality and expression. They were only (bad) technique...

[jaxcard]

These are not books but rather, a series of 10 DVDs: The Taubman tapes. They are expensive but well worth it. They are designed to facilitate ease of playing and avoid injury. They challenge many dogmas. I am currently on DVD 9 out of 10. They have helped me more than any lessons I have taken or books I have read.

Here is the link:  https://www.taubman-tapes.com/DVD_Contents.html

[cometear]

These are not books but rather, a series of 10 DVDs: The Taubman tapes. They are expensive but well worth it. They are designed to facilitate ease of playing and avoid injury. They challenge many dogmas. I am currently on DVD 9 out of 10. They have helped me more than any lessons I have taken or books I have read.

Here is the link:  https://www.taubman-tapes.com/DVD_Contents.html

A very expensive, yet well worth it investment. I study privately with a Taubman teacher, as pretty much everyone here knows and openly criticizes. I still have yet to purchase the DVDs for myself. I hope this helps people see how well this method can work. GO TAUBMAN APPROAH. aha

[faulty_damper]

I looked through the topics covered in the Taubman DVDs and it misses the single most important movement (I'm exaggerating) that is neglected by everyone.  I've not read a single book or video by any teacher or pianist showing this rather simple movement that makes everything so much easier.  I figured out - became conscious of - this motion relatively recently when trying to align my playing apparatus to minimize the amount my fingers needed to move.  Taubman teachers don't mention it because they don't use it and instead, use "rotation", "arm weight", or "lateral and vertical forearm adjustment", or whatever as a substitute for this ridiculously simple motion.

KNOCK KNOCK
Who's there?
I'm not sharing it. 

[j_menz]

 

[louispodesta]

I have been studying classical piano for quite a while, and have managed to make up my own technique, which includes the common curved fingers and loose wrist etc. The thing is that its not a constant technique for me. I begin to change my technique when my fingers start to hurt, so I change to arm-weight technique, but i can't get the sound I would get if I practiced with finger force/weight. I need a constant technique that I can rely on. Especially now that I am auditioning for colleges piano performance entrance exams. Please recommend me a book or give me your best opinion. It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks

The Taubman CD's are a great starting point.  The major reason is that they teach you that you don't play the piano with the muscles in your fingers because your fingers do not have muscles.  You play the piano with the muscles in your lower forearm, with the exception of the trills, which are played with the interossei muscles of the hand.

Secondly, it teaches you to play with the piano without an outstretched hand or a pronated (side to side) hand.  The CD's are very expensive, but they are available for free from any public library (ILL Interlibrary Loan)

In terms of a book, (and the pianostreet "Troller" will now surely show himself) is by my coach, Dr. Thomas Mark, "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body."  It is a whole body approach (Alexander Technique) combined with his days as one of Dorothy Taubman's practice coaches.

It is one of the most highly recommended books on technique by college piano faculty members.  For further information, Thomas' website is www.pianomap.com.

[faulty_damper]

The biggest problem with these kinds of books/DVDs is that they don't work. If these were such great instructional resources, then most people who use them should come out virtuosos with no technical issues whatsoever.  That's just simply not the case.  These may, however, be an improvement over past methods since it focuses on parts of the body other than the fingers, but the student will ultimately be limited by the flawed rationale and wonder why s/he isn't improving.

However, that's not to say you shouldn't try and learn them.  You may find an improvement for the things you want to play, but don't expect these flawed principles to work for anything else. And also, just because there's an improvement doesn't mean it's the best technique.  A Ferrari 458 is better than a Ford Fusion, but on an F1 racetrack, the Ferrari will still be lapped by the Redbull's.

[cometear]

The biggest problem with these kinds of books/DVDs is that they don't work. If these were such great instructional resources, then most people who use them should come out virtuosos with no technical issues whatsoever.  That's just simply not the case.  These may, however, be an improvement over past methods since it focuses on parts of the body other than the fingers, but the student will ultimately be limited by the flawed rationale and wonder why s/he isn't improving.

However, that's not to say you shouldn't try and learn them.  You may find an improvement for the things you want to play, but don't expect these flawed principles to work for anything else. And also, just because there's an improvement doesn't mean it's the best technique.  A Ferrari 458 is better than a Ford Fusion, but on an F1 racetrack, the Ferrari will still be lapped by the Redbull's.

The virtuosos naturally have a good technique. They have no need to study a method. The Taubman Approach is essentially a collection of healthy movements with titles and common ways to successfully do these motions. It is an organized, defined, and healthy way to build a technique. You could also go to some teacher who may or may not know what they are doing. They have you do unhealthy things to obtain a good sound.

[faulty_damper]

The virtuosos naturally have a good technique.

This is an extremely faulty assumption.

[cometear]

This is an extremely faulty assumption.

I meant to say "some." I didn't mean they all have it naturally.

[faulty_damper]

I meant to say "some." I didn't mean they all have it naturally.

No one has it naturally.  They all have to learn it.  Some just learn better technical vocabulary than others and know when and where to apply it.

[outin]

No one has it naturally.  They all have to learn it.  Some just learn better technical vocabulary than others and know when and where to apply it.

While I think you are right about books not being very effective, I think you are completely ignoring the fact that some people do have a body that is better suited to playing the piano than others. Since neither the keyboard nor the height of the piano cannot be modified to suit different hands and body shape, some need to work much harder to find a working technique, while others are a better fit from the start. And that is what is missing from all these books, they cannot assess individual issues the way a good teacher can.

[falala]

While I think you are right about books not being very effective, I think you are completely ignoring the fact that some people do have a body that is better suited to playing the piano than others. Since neither the keyboard nor the height of the piano cannot be modified to suit different hands and body shape, some need to work much harder to find a working technique, while others are a better fit from the start. And that is what is missing from all these books, they cannot assess individual issues the way a good teacher can.

But there's no evidence that virtuosos have bodies "better suited to playing the piano" than most ordinary people. There are plenty of virtuosos who don't have particularly big hands, slender fingers or anything else.

Noone can have the ability to play with good technique "naturally" simply because the piano is a mechanical device, and the evolution of our hands, arms, brains and nervous systems took place before the invention of that device. The piano was designed around rough averages of how people are built. All the detail that goes into playing it with exceptional facility has to be learnt.

[outin]

But there's no evidence that virtuosos have bodies "better suited to playing the piano" than most ordinary people. There are plenty of virtuosos who don't have particularly big hands, slender fingers or anything else.

Noone can have the ability to play with good technique "naturally" simply because the piano is a mechanical device, and the evolution of our hands, arms, brains and nervous systems took place before the invention of that device. The piano was designed around rough averages of how people are built. All the detail that goes into playing it with exceptional facility has to be learnt.

My point was that while people are not born piano virtuoses, it (playing) does come more naturally to some than others. I guess those are the ones closer to the average that the piano is designed to. It's not only about the size of the hands or the shape of the fingers. There are countless variables...

[cometear]

But there's no evidence that virtuosos have bodies "better suited to playing the piano" than most ordinary people. There are plenty of virtuosos who don't have particularly big hands, slender fingers or anything else.

I agree with this. Although the point I am trying to make is some people sit down at the piano with a solid technique. I don't have the slightest clue of where this innate instinct came from. Young prodigies with colossal techniques surely don't learn it just from their teachers. They must have a natural bearing to the instrument.

[falala]

I agree with this. Although the point I am trying to make is some people sit down at the piano with a solid technique. I don't have the slightest clue of where this innate instinct came from. Young prodigies with colossal techniques surely don't learn it just from their teachers.

Why not?

[cometear]

Why not?

It isn't reasonable.

[falala]

It isn't reasonable.

Yes it is.

Even child prodigies don't just sit down one day and play amazingly. By the time you here them playing proper repertoire, they've usually already had several years of lessons. Some people are smarter than others, learn quicker than others, are more motivated than others, practise more than others, and/or have better teachers than others.

[faulty_damper]

The problem with saying that these people are "naturally talented" or "genius" is asserting that they are fundamentally different from everyone else.  IF YOU FAIL, it's because you are a mortal and have a ready excuse for your failure.  In actuality, you simply just didn't learn it to begin with.

[falala]

The problem with saying that these people are "naturally talented" or "genius" is asserting that they are fundamentally different from everyone else.  IF YOU FAIL, it's because you are a mortal and have a ready excuse for your failure.  In actuality, you simply just didn't learn it to begin with.

Even that might be justified if the claim was justified in the first place. If the very greatest virtuosi were born with some particular genetic, body or brain structure that meant they could reach the highest levels and everyone else couldn't, no matter how hard they tried, then it would actually be the ethically right thing to face up to the fact, and let people know which genetic profile they have so they can plan their lives and ambitions accordingly.

The problem is just that there isn't any reason to believe it's true.

I think it's worth noting too that people's learning capacity is influenced by all kinds of things which don't need to be reduced to some mysterious "talent". The brain develops in far greater ways during childhood than we can possibly understand, and all of that contributes to what somebody brings to their first piano lesson. To take one obvious example, it's well known that someone who takes up the piano for the first time in middle age is never going to be a virtuoso. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been if they'd had the opportunity.

[cometear]

Even child prodigies don't just sit down one day and play amazingly.

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I mean by "naturally" is that they take on the knowledge of the piano very simply. The moment they place their hands on the piano they have a strong and solid technique, maybe not developed for playing though. I believe that some people have this but I am surely NOT saying it is impossible to obtain. Why do you think we study the piano and improve our skills?

[outin]

Why should piano playing (as a physical activity) be any different than certain sports that require high coordination and skill, figure skating for example. Of course one has to work and practice A LOT, but there are traits that are required to be extremely good. Experts can usually tell quite soon which kids have the potential. Physique will always dictate the potential to a certain level. Of course piano technique is not only about physical acitivity, but it is an important part of it.

To acknowledge this does not mean that it is not worth to work and study to become better. I think it's healthy to understand that we are all limited, some more and some less. The idea of "you can do anything if you want it enough" sounds nice but I don't think adults often gain much from such thinking in terms of actual learning. If one is open to self-suggestion, it may remove some mental barriers and it helps when one has to work one's way through in a competitive environment and other people's doubts. But at some stage it may also cause depression when reality strikes back. For an amateur, I think some level of realism is better for the learning process. But this is probably also a question of personality and mind-set. Some people are more inclined to analyse, others simply do.

[kevin69]

Why should piano playing (as a physical activity) be any different than certain sports that require high coordination and skill, figure skating for example. Of course one has to work and practice A LOT, but there are traits that are required to be extremely good.

I agree completely: genetics sets some limits on what you can acheive, but then you need to work extra-ordinarily hard to get close to those limits. Not everyone has the same potential, unfortunately, either mentally or physically.

[falala]

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I mean by "naturally" is that they take on the knowledge of the piano very simply. The moment they place their hands on the piano they have a strong and solid technique, maybe not developed for playing though. I believe that some people have this but I am surely NOT saying it is impossible to obtain. Why do you think we study the piano and improve our skills?

OK that's clearer. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Actually FWIW as one who's taught a lot of beginners, I have certainly noticed a variance in how easily they form a good technique. Not sure whether this means certain individuals standing out as streets ahead from the beginning though (or maybe I just haven't been lucky enough to teach any of those individuals). It seems to be more like the majority of kids are within a fairly limited range of "normal", and a minority noticeably below that range, often due to specific physical or motor programming difficulties.

The problem with the talent hypothesis is that it's only ever confirmed after the fact. ie, AFTER someone has learnt for a few years and made exceptional progress and starts touring the world playing concertos, people talk about what "talent" they must have had even before they started. It would be interesting to see if anyone could do an actual test in advance where they get a huge number of piano teachers to rate children's talent at their first piano lesson, then revisit the ratings 5 or 10 years later and compare them to which children have become exceptional. If there is any actual science behind this then you ought to be able to make predictions from it.

[falala]

I agree completely: genetics sets some limits on what you can acheive, but then you need to work extra-ordinarily hard to get close to those limits.

No, genetics doesn't actually work that way. The only thing encoded in our genetics is the potential to do certain things in relation to our environment. That potential is not expressed until it interacts with the environment, and how it plays out, including the limits it reaches, is only a meaningful concept in relation to that environment. There are no "limits" encoded in the genes themselves.

[falala]

Why should piano playing (as a physical activity) be any different than certain sports that require high coordination and skill, figure skating for example. Of course one has to work and practice A LOT, but there are traits that are required to be extremely good.

There are certain "traits" which are obvious, one-dimensional and clearly largely inherited, and some of these have obvious applications to particular sports. Height is one, which is clearly going to make you a better basketball player, all else being equal.

But actually for a lot of sports, there are no known inherited physical qualities that make a crucial difference, other than being fairly "normal" in most respects and not having any relevant disabilities, so that the required facility can be trained. Your example of figure skating is probably one. Other than not having some kind of off-the-scale genetic problem that makes you incredibly fat no matter what you do, I can't see what specific born qualities are needed to make one a good figure skater. You need to train, be fit, and develop exceptional skill and coordination in relation to the required moves, that's all.

The thing about piano playing is that it is a complex skill, not a single one-dimensional act dependent on one particular trait. Complex skills have to be learnt by assiduous tuition and practice, and because they involve incredibly complex interaction of many physical factors, it's very difficult to point to one physical trait as being crucial to success. Sometimes too, the same end can be accomplished in a number of different way.

Experts can usually tell quite soon which kids have the potential.

But has anyone ever stopped to test whether those experts are right? (as per my post above). How many people that have potential don't happen to end up in situations where they are discovered by experts? And we know there are plenty of highly successful and world famous musicians who didn't start by being recognised as child prodigies, often only growing into music after a few false starts and trying different things before finding what suits them.

The idea of "you can do anything if you want it enough" sounds nice but I don't think adults often gain much from such thinking in terms of actual learning. If one is open to self-suggestion, it may remove some mental barriers and it helps when one has to work one's way through in a competitive environment and other people's doubts. But at some stage it may also cause depression when reality strikes back.

I agree with that. But as I said upthread, I don't actually think genetics and "talent", if it exists, is the only thing that can limit people's potential. Some people are limited by the age at which they start, by the quality of tuition they get, or all kinds of other things. With something with as small a margin for error as trying to be a piano virtuoso, these things can easily mean that a certain outcome is not going to be possible in this lifetime.

And then there's the 99.999% of stuff about brain development during childhood that we don't even know, all of which is affecting future potential.

[outin]

There are certain "traits" which are obvious, one-dimensional and clearly largely inherited, and some of these have obvious applications to particular sports. Height is one, which is clearly going to make you a better basketball player, all else being equal.

But actually for a lot of sports, there are no known inherited physical qualities that make a crucial difference, other than being fairly "normal" in most respects and not having any relevant disabilities, so that the required facility can be trained. Your example of figure skating is probably one. Other than not having some kind of off-the-scale genetic problem that makes you incredibly fat no matter what you do, I can't see what specific born qualities are needed to make one a good figure skater. You need to train, be fit, and develop exceptional skill and coordination in relation to the required moves, that's all.

Genes do much more than determine height (which as any other trait is not only determined by genes). The traits that are behind what we might call "talent" are in no way one-dimensional, they are quite complex. The fact that they are complex and difficult to point out does not mean that they are not important. I took as example skating, not something more simple as running, because certain body proportions simply are better for a skater (think ballet dancing also). Just like certain hand proportions are better for a piano player (there's some research on hand shape and RSI, if you want to google). There's also research where they have identified genes that are present in the majority of skilled dancers, believed to affect how efficiently they are able to use their bodies. The more we learn about genes the more we realize that they do have a lot to say in what we get good at. Working together with the environment of course and not doing that much without the work part.

The idea that being "normal" would be enough to get to the top in anything that requires exceptional skill seems a bit naive to me. Since statistically most people would be "normal" you may never meet someone with exceptional genetic make-up, either in good or bad. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[brogers70]

No, genetics doesn't actually work that way. The only thing encoded in our genetics is the potential to do certain things in relation to our environment. That potential is not expressed until it interacts with the environment, and how it plays out, including the limits it reaches, is only a meaningful concept in relation to that environment. There are no "limits" encoded in the genes themselves.

Leaving aside piano playing for the moment. It's absolutely true that genes depend for their expression on their environment, and that observed phenotype is the result of a complex interaction between genotype and the environment (very broadly defined). However, you'd pretty much have to warp the meaning of words past common sense to claim that genes do not encode any limits.

Height is a function of genetics and nutrition during childhood. That does not mean that genetics imposes no limits on height. Without a cheetah's genome, no amount of excellent nutrition and physical training will enable you to sprint at 50 miles per hour.

[faulty_damper]

But this isn't about humans sprinting to 80mph - it's about playing the piano.  Playing the piano is a learned behavior; it is not genetically encoded.  The fact that the vast majority of humans can play strongly indicates that genes are not the limiting factor.

[falala]

Genes do much more than determine height (which as any other trait is not only determined by genes). The traits that are behind what we might call "talent" are in no way one-dimensional, they are quite complex. The fact that they are complex and difficult to point out does not mean that they are not important. I took as example skating, not something more simple as running, because certain body proportions simply are better for a skater (think ballet dancing also). Just like certain hand proportions are better for a piano player (there's some research on hand shape and RSI, if you want to google).

Has anyone done a comprehensive study of piano virtuosi through history and confirmed that they nearly all have those hand proportions, to a much greater degree than the rest of the population?

There's also research where they have identified genes that are present in the majority of skilled dancers, believed to affect how efficiently they are able to use their bodies.

I'd be interested to see that.

The more we learn about genes the more we realize that they do have a lot to say in what we get good at. Working together with the environment of course and not doing that much without the work part.

Do you think? Actually considering how long its been since they completed sequencing the human genome, I find it surprising how LITTLE light has been shed on most of these factors, and how little confirmation has been found for most of the folk wisdom that so many people assume about genetics.

At any rate, even if what you say is true, that's not a reason to just assume that something must have genetic causes, because some other things do. Undoubtedly as more gets known, they will find and confirm things that genes contribute to. But those things are still specific. That fact that your genes influence your height doesn't mean they must influence your propensity for schizophrenia as well. And if it DOES get proven that they influence your propensity for schizophrenia, that will still say nothing about whether they influence your capacity for musical excellence. Really, the only thing that will provide a case for that is evidence of that, specifically.

The idea that being "normal" would be enough to get to the top in anything that requires exceptional skill seems a bit naive to me. Since statistically most people would be "normal" you may never meet someone with exceptional genetic make-up, either in good or bad. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Sure, but that's pure conjecture. I can't say it isn't true, of course. But we have no evidence that it is.

The point is that we have clear, specific, known evidence of influence of various environmental factors upon musical achievement. They don't explain everything, but they explain a lot. People then naturally want something to explain the rest. But at the current state of knowledge, ascribing it to genetics is pretty much just guesswork and invention. It's making up a reason because we don't want to be left without a reason.

[brogers70]

But this isn't about humans sprinting to 80mph - it's about playing the piano.  Playing the piano is a learned behavior; it is not genetically encoded.  The fact that the vast majority of humans can play strongly indicates that genes are not the limiting factor.

What on earth makes you think that genes are not involved in learned behaviour? We are animals, with a certain material build and make up, certain collections of neurons, and so on. Of course those things are relevant to playing the piano. Since virtually every conceivable characteristic of organisms is genetically variable, why would you think there are not genetic influences on one's ability to play the piano, or football, or to do complex arithmetic in your head, or to sprint, or to run long distance, or to write poetry, or learn foreign languages as an adult, etc, etc, etc?

The error is to attribute everything to inherent talent and to give up on hard work.

[falala]

Leaving aside piano playing for the moment. It's absolutely true that genes depend for their expression on their environment, and that observed phenotype is the result of a complex interaction between genotype and the environment (very broadly defined). However, you'd pretty much have to warp the meaning of words past common sense to claim that genes do not encode any limits.

Height is a function of genetics and nutrition during childhood. That does not mean that genetics imposes no limits on height. Without a cheetah's genome, no amount of excellent nutrition and physical training will enable you to sprint at 50 miles per hour.

But there's a problem here. We have never observed the operation of a gene divorced from environment. Indeed as you seem to agree is true, we CAN'T do so because it's a meaningless concept. We can only observe the operation of a gene-environment complex. Thus any conclusions about limitations drawn from what we observe, are conclusions about that complex as a whole, not about genes separately.

You could say that we can observe gene-environment interactions in a wide variety of environments, and they still seem to top out at certain limits (though in reality, we don't really know what those limits are other than by past observation, and what we've observed often has a habit of being exceeded). And that's true, but those environments, while varied, still have certain limits themselves. We are all subject to the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's gravity, the nutrition available from the Earth's food, the medical and physical support of our current level of medical understanding, etc. etc. There are plenty of environmental limitations, so there is just no argument for saying that the limitations of outcome MUST be due to hypothesized genetic ones.

The important difference here is that if genes encode limitations, it's probably reasonable to assume that since humans contains genetic variation, those limitations are different for everyone. But if they don't - if the limitations are only meaningful on the level of the gene-environment complex - then the limitations are only different for everyone to the extent that everyone's environment is different.

Note that this does NOT mean accepting that we could sprint like a Cheetah if we tried hard enough. The limitations of the gene-environment complex are real enough to prevent that being possible. Limitations upon the gene-environment complex of humanity AS A WHOLE are different from individual limitations affecting different individuals differently.

Nor does it mean that anyone can achieve anything that anyone else can - play like Horowitz or whatever. Everyone has a different set of environmental experiences, and by the time anyone even makes a decision to attempt to do so, they are subject to a gargantuan number of past environmental experiences beyond their control.

[brogers70]

But there's a problem here. We have never observed the operation of a gene divorced from environment. Indeed as you seem to agree is true, we CAN'T do so because it's a meaningless concept. We can only observe the operation of a gene-environment complex. Thus any conclusions about limitations drawn from what we observe, are conclusions about that complex as a whole, not about genes separately.

You could say that we can observe gene-environment interactions in a wide variety of environments, and they still seem to top out at certain limits (though in reality, we don't really know what those limits are other than by past observation, and what we've observed often has a habit of being exceeded). And that's true, but those environments, while varied, still have certain limits themselves. We are all subject to the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's gravity, the nutrition available from the Earth's food, the medical and physical support of our current level of medical understanding, etc. etc. There are plenty of environmental limitations, so there is just no argument for saying that the limitations of outcome MUST be due to hypothesized genetic ones.

The important difference here is that if genes encode limitations, it's probably reasonable to assume that since humans contains genetic variation, those limitations are different for everyone. But if they don't - if the limitations are only meaningful on the level of the gene-environment complex - then the limitations are only different for everyone to the extent that everyone's environment is different.

Note that this does NOT mean accepting that we could sprint like a Cheetah if we tried hard enough. The limitations of the gene-environment complex are real enough to prevent that being possible. Limitations upon the gene-environment complex of humanity AS A WHOLE are different from individual limitations affecting different individuals differently.

Nor does it mean that anyone can achieve anything that anyone else can - play like Horowitz or whatever. Everyone has a different set of environmental experiences, and by the time anyone even makes a decision to attempt to do so, they are subject to a gargantuan number of past environmental experiences beyond their control.

It's true that one cannot divorce the gene from the environment. Indeed, part of the environment is the transcription-translation apparatus of the cell, never mind all the parts of the environment that are entirely outside the organism. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to assess genetic effects on complex, polygenetic traits. Some traits are more genetically determined than others, and of course the more complex the interactions with the environment, and the more separate genes involved, the harder it is to measure effects. But that definitely does not provide a motive for just saying that the interactions are so complex and the range of possible environmental effects so broad that it's impossible to know anything about genetic effects on behavior.

You say:

"The important difference here is that if genes encode limitations, it's probably reasonable to assume that since humans contains genetic variation, those limitations are different for everyone. But if they don't - if the limitations are only meaningful on the level of the gene-environment complex - then the limitations are only different for everyone to the extent that everyone's environment is different."

There is really a false dichotomy there. It is possible for genetics to encode limitations without being immune to environmental effects and the limitations are almost certainly different between individuals (indeed, if this were not the case, evolution would be impossible).  You cannot get from the claim that genetic limitations are only meaningful "on the level of the gene-environment complex" to the claim that the limitations are only different to the extent that everyone's environment is different. That would be true only if everyone had identical genes.

I think that in practical terms we agree. It is certainly too hard to know enough about individual genetics to decide whether someone has "talent" based on their genes. The harder you work the better you'll do, probably.

[falala]

It's true that one cannot divorce the gene from the environment. Indeed, part of the environment is the transcription-translation apparatus of the cell, never mind all the parts of the environment that are entirely outside the organism. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to assess genetic effects on complex, polygenetic traits. Some traits are more genetically determined than others, and of course the more complex the interactions with the environment, and the more separate genes involved, the harder it is to measure effects. But that definitely does not provide a motive for just saying that the interactions are so complex and the range of possible environmental effects so broad that it's impossible to know anything about genetic effects on behavior.

That's not what I'm saying though.

All I'm really saying is that we shouldn't ASSUME genetic effects on SPECIFIC aspects of behaviour, just because there is some variance in that behaviour that we can't explain any other way (yet).

I'm completely open to accepting genetic effects as causes of behaviour as and when those effects are proven to be the causes (or even shown by direct evidence to be likely significant causes). In the case of differences in musical achievement though (which is, really, the only way we measure "talent") we're nowhere near that point.

Actually there's very little credible evidence for genetic causes of differences in  behaviour (as opposed to raw physical traits) generally.

You say:

"The important difference here is that if genes encode limitations, it's probably reasonable to assume that since humans contains genetic variation, those limitations are different for everyone. But if they don't - if the limitations are only meaningful on the level of the gene-environment complex - then the limitations are only different for everyone to the extent that everyone's environment is different."

There is really a false dichotomy there. It is possible for genetics to encode limitations without being immune to environmental effects and the limitations are almost certainly different between individuals (indeed, if this were not the case, evolution would be impossible).  You cannot get from the claim that genetic limitations are only meaningful "on the level of the gene-environment complex" to the claim that the limitations are only different to the extent that everyone's environment is different. That would be true only if everyone had identical genes.

Genes encoding limitations is a different thing from genes encoding differences. Even if genes do indeed encode tendencies to interact with the environment in different ways, that is a completely different thing from encoding the possible scope of the FINAL OUTCOME that will result AFTER all of that interaction has taken place.

I think that in practical terms we agree. It is certainly too hard to know enough about individual genetics to decide whether someone has "talent" based on their genes. The harder you work the better you'll do, probably.

Aye. 

[kevin69]

No, genetics doesn't actually work that way. The only thing encoded in our genetics is the potential to do certain things in relation to our environment. That potential is not expressed until it interacts with the environment, and how it plays out, including the limits it reaches, is only a meaningful concept in relation to that environment. There are no "limits" encoded in the genes themselves.

I think we are just using  different words for the same idea. By  'limits' I meant that we have an innate potential that we cannot change.  How far we can express that potential is within our control.

[faulty_damper]

This discussion has gotten way off topic.  This is about technique, not outrunning a cheetah. 

Anyone can learn the techniques to play the piano, however, the overwhelming majority of people never learn the best ones in the first place.  Instead, they rely on outdated or archaic practices in the hopes that might makes right when this is a losing proposition.  Using the very best techniques from the beginning results in absolute ease in playing.  Using anything less that the best causes excessive need to practice or at worst never being able to play properly.  Technique can be learned.

[cometear]

Instead, they rely on outdated or archaic practices in the hopes that might makes right when this is a losing proposition.

I'm under the impression that you're returning to your attacks on the Taubman Approach.