Best book for Piano Technique

[outin]

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.

I am not sure what this is about anymore. What I am talking about is how personal physical charachteristics (which are the result of both genetics and environment) affect how one's individual piano technique is developed. To claim that your hand shape and the way your body works makes no difference to learning the physical act of playing the piano is just ridicilous IMO.

But mostly this seems to be completely ignored by teachers. I assume this is one reason why pianists are having RSI and other problems. It probably is also one reason why countless of people quit their lessons, because their individual needs are not taken into account at all.

[outin]

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?

I'd be interested to see that.

Such a study would be quite difficult because of many things. And it's not relevant to this discussion really. I never said there was only ONE optimal make up for being a virtuose player. You must have misunderstood me. There must be countless of variations that work well, just as there must be countless of variations that work less well.

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.

I think you would need to learn a bit more about genetics. Even if we have sequenced the genome we still know very little about human genetics. The research is in no way simple, easy or cheap. There's plenty going on all the time, but the development of knowledge base is slow and gradual, as it normally is in science. I am not basing anything on folk wisdom, only on what I have learned about genetics both in theory and practice. I have been fortunate to be able to interact with some expert genetists and that has greatly helped me to understand this fascinating field a bit better.

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.

 I can't say it isn't true, of course. But we have no evidence that it is.

There' plenty of evidence around about how important the genetic base is for development, if you care to look for it. Most people do not understand genetics at all. It's not about having a gene for everything. The genes interact with each other and the environment in a way that makes the system extremely complex. That's why it's so difficult to make predictions about the final outcome based only on genes. We also cannot necessarily say WHY exactly someone has a more suitable machine for a specific activity, but it's still quite clear that some do.

This does not mean that I think it is a good thing to select heavily or early, because it can always go wrong. It only means that we should allow the differences affect the way we teach to get the best outcome instead of denying they even exist. And because we do know that we are a result from the interactuon of our genes with the environment, it is safe to say that genes dictate some part of learning to play.

[brogers70]

Outin, I agree with you. It's not geneticists that make silly claims about there being a gene for intelligence or musicality, it's people who've heard some little tidbit about the human genome project on the radio who jump to conclusions. I might even count as one of your experts on genetics - before I retired I spent 4 years in West Africa doing a large study on the genetics of susceptibility to severe malaria. Figuring out the genetic basis for complex, multi-gene traits is very hard, but it's getting massively less hard every year. It won't be long before the cost of sequencing a complete human genome is down to $1000 US, and there are already very detailed maps of markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms) closely spaced across the whole human genome. All of this makes it much easier to do the very large studies that you need to do to see the small effects of individual genes on complex multi-gene traits.

Still, it will be a long time before someone who comes to Pianostreet and asks "Can I become a concert pianist?" can be sent off to get his/her genome sequenced and get a clear answer - "Yes, you have the right genetic background, now go practice like mad."

[timothy42b]

Still, it will be a long time before someone who comes to Pianostreet and asks "Can I become a concert pianist?" can be sent off to get his/her genome sequenced and get a clear answer - "Yes, you have the right genetic background, now go practice like mad."

Yeah, because anybody old enough to type has another handicap. 

Regardless of genetics, everybody who starts at age 3 probably has a shot.  Those who start at 40............well, they may become a reasonably competent player but they are not going to reach the upper heights. 

[faulty_damper]

Regardless of genetics, everybody who starts at age 3 probably has a shot.  Those who start at 40............well, they may become a reasonably competent player but they are not going to reach the upper heights. 

This is commonly believed but there's simply no evidence other than anecdote.  How many people who start playing piano in their middle ages ever have the desire to become a virtuoso of classical repertoire?  I don't think there's anyone who fits this description.  Most are content to be able to sit down make music for themselves, not wow an audience of thousands.  Until there's evidence that a middle-aged person cannot become a virtuoso, this belief is just a myth.

[timothy42b]

Until there's evidence that a middle-aged person cannot become a virtuoso, this belief is just a myth.

Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Since to date there is not a single example of a 40 plus starter becoming a virtuoso, I think I'm on safe ground.

(and very few becoming competent, for that matter, but enough to believe it is possible)

You are the one making the claim it can be done, I think you should look for evidence to support your belief. 

[thalbergmad]

For a pianist, 40 is a bit of a nothing age. For marketability, you are way too old to be a prodigy and way to young to be a legend. If my own history is anything to go by, I expect many 40 year olds do not have sufficient time to practice due to work and family and had long given up with competing against 10 year olds who can play all the Chopin Etudes.

I can see no reason why someone cannot become a virtuoso starting at 40, especially if they had training in their early years, but I would be amazed if anyone could make a career out of it.

Thal

[timothy42b]

I can see no reason why someone cannot become a virtuoso starting at 40, especially if they had training in their early years,
Thal

Me too, especially if those early years were, say, at age 3. 

[thalbergmad]

I have heard that an hours practice at aged 3 is worth 1,000 hours at aged 30.

I expect there is more than a grain of truth in this.

Thal

[kevin69]

I can see no reason why someone cannot become a virtuoso starting at 40, especially if they had training in their early years, but I would be amazed if anyone could make a career out of it.

But if they are an absolute beginner aged 40 (ie no musucial training in any instrument) then i can't really see them reaching international concert level before aged 55 and by that time will they still have the physical capacity for virtuouso playing?

At what age does a professional pianist body start failing noticably?

[awesom_o]

I have heard that an hours practice at aged 3 is worth 1,000 hours at aged 30.

I expect there is more than a grain of truth in this.

Thal

This doesn't make much sense to me.

How can a 3 year old understand what to practice or how to practice?

How can they actually practice of their own free will? No 3 year old wants to practice a musical instrument!

In my opinion, ONE hour of self-motivated practicing at ANY age beats 1000 hours of "forced-by-the-parents" practicing, every day of the week!

[thalbergmad]

In my opinion, ONE hour of self-motivated practicing at ANY age beats 1000 hours of "forced-by-the-parents" practicing, every day of the week!

If there was no "forced by the parents" practicing, we would not be seeing many 4 year old Chinese prodigies.

Thal

[awesom_o]

If there was no "forced by the parents" practicing, we would not be seeing many 4 year old Chinese prodigies.

Thal

Were we to see a substantial decrease in the number of these "prodigies", I'm afraid the only people who would actually shed a tear would be the parents, the ones doing the forcing!

[thalbergmad]

HAHA, can't argue with that old chap.

Thal