Teacher Question

[vaio9876]

To any piano teacher who teaches students that are young adults or old adults, do you think its possible for one of these age groups to ever play great concertos and be a piano pro in a resonable amount of time?

[ChristmasCarol]

Hmmmmmmmm, what's the agenda here?  What is reasonable to you?  Lots of classical musicans will tell you it's too late, but not me.  How much time does said student have per day to apply themselves, what quality of instrument, is there a willing teacher?  Is there music in the background of this student by virtue of a lot of listening or exposure to performance?  Need more input for an honest answer.

[Daniel_piano]

Hmmmmmmmm, what's the agenda here?  What is reasonable to you?  Lots of classical musicans will tell you it's too late, but not me.  How much time does said student have per day to apply themselves, what quality of instrument, is there a willing teacher?  Is there music in the background of this student by virtue of a lot of listening or exposure to performance?  Need more input for an honest answer.

I of course agree with ChristmasCarol she knows what she is talking about, she a wonderful mother and teacher
Then probably she loves Christmas as much as I do

Anyway it's never too late
You just need to start learning like a child, seeing the world in a different manner susing your right side of the brain and alpha brain waves
Having the same sense of awe, of wonder and the same dedication
Feel each of your cells as part of the world instead of feeling like a lonely individual in a plastic world
You should become a sponge that absorbs every information from the world around, colours, sounds, sentiments
Only with the sense of awe, wonder and the pleasure of discovery you can absorbs every information
You must consider every thing in the world precious, even a leaf, a fountain, a wooden wardrobe touch and feel the energy of every materials, of every sounds of every feeling

Daniel

[vaio9876]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

[Awakening]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

Almost certainly not.  In fact...I'm inclined to say that the answer is simply "no."  Becoming a "professional," or virtuoso, as it is often referred to in the world of classical music, generally requires extensive, rigorous practice from a young age.  However, if you don't mean to become a virtuoso, then I'm not sure what you mean by "pro."  I'm 17, and have been playing since I was 7 (with a couple years off along the way), and I'd probably be considered in the early stages of "advanced."  However, the difference between what I can play and my technique, and those of a concert pianist, is like the difference between a high school student who is good at writing, and Ernest Hemingway. 

Even if I worked very hard at piano for the rest of my life, I probably wouldn't become a true virtuoso.  As it stands, I practice about 1-2 hours a day, and am fairly dedicated.  I plan on keeping this up indefinitely, and at this rate, I will probably be very good later in life.  I could easily become a piano teacher (if I studied music in college), which is a professional of sorts, but probably never a virtuoso.  Now, 10 years of piano experience, started at a fairly late age (teenage or adult) with only an hour of practicing a day will not yield any sort of "pro."  Maybe 2 or 3 hours a day of this, with incredible dedication on both student and teacher's part could result in a student that is very capable.  However, it all lies in the quality of practice, quality of teacher, and the willingness of the student to learn.  10 years is a long time, though in terms of musical education, it's really not that much. 

I'm assuming that this question pertains to you, and you are a teenager or adult aspiring and hoping to become a great pianist in 10 years with only an hour of practice... or it is being asked on the behalf of someone you know who has this dream.  I don't mean to discourage you, or anyone you know, but a passion for the instrument is essential, and generally, when a person is passionate about something, he vests more than 1/24 of his time into it.  An hour a day is a large chunk of time to be doing one thing, but when you have such ambitious goals, I'd say that it's only a fraction of what you should be expecting to do in order to reach them.  Most adult beginners I've met take up piano as a casual hobbie, and would love to just be able to sit down and play pieces that they can enjoy themselves, and also use to entertain or impress others.  These are modest, albeit realistic goals that are generally a result of adult beginners realizing that they took interest in the piano a little bit too late in life to have it as one of their greatest skills.  It's somewhat depressing, but most great, or even good pianists started taking lessons when they were young.  Concert pianists nowdays start young, go above and beyond their peers in terms of practice and dedication, go on to study music in college, and then make it their career.

Summary: 10 years of moderate practice (1 hour a day) won't get an adult or teenage beginner anywhere near virtuosity, but could result in profficient playing technique and ability.  The final result rests on the choice of teacher, and how seriously the student is willing to pursue his goals.  An hour a day really isn't enough, though.     

[Daniel_piano]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

Almost certainly not.  In fact...I'm inclined to say that the answer is simply "no."  Becoming a "professional," or virtuoso, as it is often referred to in the world of classical music, generally requires extensive, rigorous practice from a young age

No, it's simple a myth
Music accedemies teachers don't know anything about anatomy and physiology or psychology so since usually they start when young (because if you have passion for an instrument it is likely to manifest itself when you're young) they taught that being young is a necessary condition because otherwise the "muscles" and brain stimulus involved will never be learned
It's simply false and based on nothing concrete, just a myth that in the 21century we should have abandoned already since we know today have a far better knowledge on physiology and anatomy to understand what the truth is
The truth is that one can even learn to read at 80 and become a grammar teacher at 90, it has already happened, the truth is that one can become a professional athletes even starting at 30
The only reason it is believed that you may need to start as a child to become a virtuoso is because since you're supposed to study a lot, it's more likely that you have more time to study when you're young than when you're adult and have a lot of responsabilities and it is believed that one maybe interested in becoming a concertist only when is young as few people with already a family and a job would desire or try to change their life completely by becoming concertist
But a part from this there's no physiological and anatomical reason why one starting at 6 and study hard for 10 years would become more virtuoso and more preofessional than one starting at 20 and studying hard for 10 years
There a lot of teachers nowadays (boys we're in the 21century, stop with myths originated in the 1700) that refuse to see instrument-playing teaching in this way and some have eve written books explaining why one can become a virtuoso at any age if he/she study hard
Becoming virtuoso simply means that you have completed your piano formation and have got a diploma
So, as long as you obtain a diploma, you're a piano virtuoso it doesn't matter if you're 60 or 30
There's people at my school that are 34 and now are completing their 9 piano grade
They will get a diplome the next year and despite being 35 they will be piano virtuoso, piano professional and will be able (if willing) to to concertos as some of the hardest pieces in the world will be already played by them at their exam

Of course to pass the diploma exam you must not take piano as a hobby but rather seriously and dedicated moch of your time to it, but if you pass you're a virtuoso
no matter what
I see people in my school who are trying to get their diploma in piano, organ, violin and clarinet and they're past 30
I don't think they will like to become virtuoso as they have already a job and a family but if the next year they will pass their last exam they will be able to play in a concert and to play virtuoso pieces like Islamey or Gaspard de la Nuit just I don't know is that's what they want

Daniel

[ChristmasCarol]

There is no profession, skill or high-level accomplishment that can be achieved in one hour a day.  So, no, that's not enough time.  On the age question however,  I emphatically disagree with the notion that one has to start something as a child in order to achieve true mastery.  One of the ole saws that people bring out is that a person's I.Q. is supposedly mostly developed by age seven and therefore certain activites are solidly in place in the brain forevermore.  What a ridiculous premis. I think the modern public school in American in particular is so out dated that the reason I.Q.'s slow down at the rate of development is because they put the kids in chairs in rows for six hours a day and pump dry old academic data in to these minds all the while telling them it's good for them. 

People sometimes say that learning a new language well at a later age is not going to happen as well.  Poppycock!  Music is a language sure as shootin'.  My son learned to read and speak Japanese at the age of 16 and has got the accent down really well.  I think one of the reasons people haven't achieved a lot of impressive music at a later age is because of all the feedback from teachers and musicians that it isn't possible.  A self-fulling prophecy really.  John Holt wrote a book called "Never Too Late" about himself as a cello student - a beginner at the age of 50.    I think you'd find it interesting. 

A number of my 5-14 year old students have asked me if they could be famous and perform on stage.  My answer is always an emphatic yes.  I believe that the desire and the fire that gets lit in the heart from hearing/seeing a performance is what stays deep in the psyche and carries the student for years to come back to the piano to practice again and again.  For me, it was seeing a movie when I was about 9 called Windjammer.  Van Cliburn was on a ship playing Grieg's Concerto.  As I watched that performance I caught a bug, passion, desire that has never left me.  So if the desire is there in you, then go for it.

[janice]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

Just an hour?  No way!!  It takes me an hour just to warm-up!

[Daniel_piano]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

Just an hour?  No way!!  It takes me an hour just to warm-up!

I don't believe those pianists that say that they practice something as 13 hours each day or that they could practice 13 hours straight
I don't even believe university students when they say this
Our brai is not designed to be concentrated ona same matter for 13 hours each day
Practice 13 hours or 6 hours and you'll have a lof oh health problems due to lack of movements, exercise and oxygen plus a lot of
I think a fair amount is 90 minutes on the morning and 90 minutes on the evening, plus sightreading and theory
it's true however that when there's an exam the next day one can even practice for 6 hours straight but I don't know how much usefull or even detrimental this may be
Tour de forces before an exam are never a good idea

Daniel

[Daniel_piano]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

Now, I think this is not the right question
It's not a matter of time but a matter of how much it takes to you to learn something
Let's say your teacher tell you to learn the first movement of a Beethoven sonata in a week
Now, you may ask, how much should I practice every day
But this is not a usefull question
The answer is: there no right time, 1 hour is not necessarily few and 3 hours are not necessarily much it just depends on how much time you need to learn the sonata
Your practice session is to solve problem on the hard spots of your score
So, you may divide your piece so that you have to practice 49 bars, meaning 7 per day
If when you start your practice session 1 hour was sufficient to learn your 7 bars, then it means that that day 1 hour was enough, on another day it may takes you 2 hours to learn other 7 bars and again that would be the correct tempo
As soon as you have learned what part of the piece was in your goal for that day there's no reason to keep repeating it just for the sake to "pass the right time at the piaono"
Learn your spots, solve your coordination and rhythmic problems, whatever time it takes you is the right time to you

Daniel

[bernhard]

To any piano teacher who teaches students that are young adults or old adults, do you think its possible for one of these age groups to ever play great concertos and be a piano pro in a resonable amount of time?

It is perfectly possible. I can give you a definite, unconditional and assured yes to this question

However, is it likely?

Now this new question is a can of worms, and the only answer I can give is: It depends. Which is more or less what other people have been saying.

It will depend amongst other things on (no particular order):

1.   Your teacher.
2.   Your ability to learn.
3.   Your motivation and interest.
4.   Your priorities in life (that is how busy you are with non-piano things, what other interests you have competing with your piano interest).
5.   Your capacity for concentration.
6.   Your ability to memorise.
7.   Your physicality (for instance, if you have no fingers due to an accident, or such small hands that you would have to have a made-to order piano in order to play)
8.   Your motor co-ordination.
9.   Your attitude.
10.   Your economic situation.
11.   The sort of repertory music you like.
12.   Your ears.
13.   Your psychological baggage
14.   Your inner beliefs about what is possible to achieve.
15.   Having the appropriate know how (a teacher is no guarantee here)
16.   Loving music and playing the piano above all else.
17.   Your ability to do solitary work.
18.   Your ability to work.
19.   Perfectionism
20.   Your ability to take criticism and use it.
21.   Your ability to follow instructions.
22.   Your ability to experiment and draw useful conclusions form the results or your experiments.
23.   How much of what you imagine about playing the piano is just a fantasy, and how much correspond to the actuality of the facts.
24.   your ability to accept and adjust to reality and your willingness to let go of fantasies.
25.   Your persistence.
26.   Your ability to work in a consistent and systematic manner.
27.   How organised you are.
28.   Your ability to imitate.
29.   Critical thinking, listening and appraisal of your own playing.
30.   Availability of a vast range of music books, music scores, CDs, DVDs videos of famous pianists.
31.   Having a good piano to play.
32.   Ability to do a task without cutting any corners or trying to do shortcuts.
33.   Your ability to give all attention to details and yet not loose sight of the whole.

And I am sure people will add to this list.

Now, this is not so different from a list that you would make in order to excel in any activity, be it being a brain-surgeon or an Olympic athlete.

However, this will only get you the skill to do it. It will not guarantee success in a performance career. For that other variables enter the picture (who is your agent, how much charisma you have, your ability to socialise with the important figures in the music world: producers and the like, how you come accross in interviews and so on).

I think you get the idea.

I hope this helps (without discouraging you too much).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

If the student is willing to practice everyday for an hour, could he in 10 years be as good as a pro?

I agree with most of  the answers you had for this questions. But here are a few more thoughts from another perspective.

How would you react to the following statement:

“Your son will never be a competent brain surgeon unless he starts at age 2 or 3. If by age 5 he hasn’t yet operated on his first cat, he has no chance of a career in brain surgery.”

Or what about this one:

“A brain surgeon must practice lanceting brains 13 hours a day, or he will flub his operations.”

Now brain surgery  - in my opinion – is a far more exacting art in terms of motor co-ordination and dexterity then piano playing. And if you make as mistake – contrary to piano playing – people die.

There is this obsession amongst pianists about hours on end sitting at the piano practising who knows what. One hour for warming up alone, says Janice. What is it that requires one hour to warm-up? In any vigorous physical activity (e.g. Karate sparring) you will do ten minutes of warm-up and that is it. If you don’t do it, you may have  a heart attack. I have never heard of anyone having a heart attack from not warming up for piano. So in fact there is no reason to warmup for piano playing. Just sit there and play! All the rest is simply psychological hangup.

So, is one hour enough? Well it depends, does it not? If you are talking one hour at the piano actually pressing keys, then it is more than enough – provided you are very organised and you know what you are doing. If you are talking one hour as the total time in the day you are going to dedicate to piano in general (all aspects of music making), then of course is not enough.

Transfer the question to brain surgery and you will see the absurdity of it. Is one hour a day enough to become a brain surgeon? If you mean one hour slicing brains with your lancet, it is probably more than enough (and you will not need warmup here either). I doubt if medical students practise their brain surgery much more than that. But if you mean the totality of medical studies necessary to become a brain surgeon, then we are talking full time dedication here.

Likewise, practise at the piano should be a tiny portion of the total time dedicated to musical studies in general, and these should be pretty much a full time activity.

So yes, one hour a day is plenty. And no, one hour a day is not enough.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[squiggly_girl]

What if Ernest Hemingway had not learnt how to read and write until he was 40 years old? Would he have become any less of a writer? Would his experiences and stories have counted for less, because he couldn't express them on paper?

What if Wolfgang Mozart had not had access to a piano or any musical instruments until he was 16 or 17? How do you think things would have been different for him? (And us?!) I tend to think he would have spent more than an hour a day on music once the floodgates of his creativity had been released.

So isn't it more about one's innate sense of musical or artistic sensibility that ultimately decides your level of pro?

[m1469]

12.  Your ears.

Does it help to wear beautiful diamond earings?  Perhaps the kind that dangle?

Just a thought

[jeff]

one's innate sense of musical or artistic sensibility

what do you mean by this?

(ignore this if you feel that it's a silly question)

[timothy42b]

In several replies above it has been asserted that there is no physiological learning advantage to being young. 

I would like to see some evidence for that.  As far as I know there are a number of things, including music and foreign languages, that are much harder for older people. 

I see older people take up musical instruments and become highly proficient.  But the cases of a late bloomer winning a symphony audition, for example, are rare or unknown.  I think if there were not some advantage to youth in terms of learning ability we would see fewer prodigies and more late bloomers. 

I don't see any reason why an old adult beginner on piano wouldn't be able to perform competently at such things as keyboard player in rock or jazz bands, church music, cocktail bar stuff, etc.  I doubt there's an age limit on that. 

[jeff]

I think if there were not some advantage to youth in terms of learning ability we would see fewer prodigies and more late bloomers. 

i think there are other factors which effect the ratio we see of 'prodigies and late bloomers'. For example: people in general being more fascinated with seeing high levels of ability achieved by younger people, rather than older people. People in general still believing that learning ability significantly decreases with age, creating a psychological block. The way we are taught (or not taught) how we learn in educational institutions. etc

[xvimbi]

In several replies above it has been asserted that there is no physiological learning advantage to being young. 

I would like to see some evidence for that.  As far as I know there are a number of things, including music and foreign languages, that are much harder for older people. 

I see older people take up musical instruments and become highly proficient.  But the cases of a late bloomer winning a symphony audition, for example, are rare or unknown.  I think if there were not some advantage to youth in terms of learning ability we would see fewer prodigies and more late bloomers. 

I don't see any reason why an old adult beginner on piano wouldn't be able to perform competently at such things as keyboard player in rock or jazz bands, church music, cocktail bar stuff, etc.  I doubt there's an age limit on that. 

I think there are a lot of issues involved. here are just some that haven't been mentioned so far:

1. Older people have usually acquired a lot of bad habits or outright injuries that may make it more difficult for them to learn new material easily.
2. Older people have usually acquired prejudices and opinions that may make it more difficult for them to learn new material easily.
3. The two brain halves become less independent with age, which may explain that it is easier for young people to play Bach, to pick out one example.
4. Becoming very good at an activity that is so complex as piano playing simply requires a lot of time. Young people have a clear advantage here.

Now brain surgery  - in my opinion – is a far more exacting art in terms of motor co-ordination and dexterity then piano playing. And if you make as mistake – contrary to piano playing – people die.

The problem with brain surgery is not really dexterity and motor coordination. Cutting is fairly easy, even on a small scale. The issue is knowing WHERE to cut.

[Daniel_piano]

3. The two brain halves become less independent with age, which may explain that it is easier for young people to play Bach, to pick out one example.

It's not easy
Children have the same problem with coordinating hand like anyone else for the simple reason that despite it is true that one side of the brain is connected with one hand and the other side with the other hand, the two sides of the brain are not the same
One is best suites more music, the other is completely uncapable on understand and feel music so when we play (and this has been proven) when dealing with hands coordination we're momentarily resting one side of the brain and using the other to control both hands
This is a though task both for children and adults alike

Daniel

[Daniel_piano]

As far as I know there are a number of things, including music and foreign languages, that are much harder for older people. 

This is just a myth
In fact children learn a language faster because they're surrounded by it and hear it every day
But if children had to take a course to learn a new language they would learn it the same way as adults
It's not also true that you can always hear the accent in an adult speaking another language while children can perfectly speak two languages
It just depends on how much they use it, and this applies to both adults and children
So, let's think about a child born in Italy with an American father learning both Italian and English and moving in USA
If he return after four years in Italy after having leaved 4 years in the USA and he try to speak Italian you can clearly hear the American accent, that's it, if he still remember the language
There are a lot of platitudes surrounding learning, both in theory, practice and even sports

But the cases of a late bloomer winning a symphony audition, for example, are rare or unknown.  I think if there were not some advantage to youth in terms of learning ability we would see fewer prodigies and more late bloomers. 

Audition are far from being objectively honest
Usually the poeple chosen are rarely the best ones
Kids playing though pieces are cuties than grown ups, and this is just a reason
There are even audition in which good-looking girls win over less-good-looking girls even though their performance was not the better one
If you're talking about other instruments, I don't know what you're talking about
The phylarmornic orchestra of my region has hardly any young player in it
Percussionists are in their 35s
Violinists are in their 30s
Clarinettists, bassonists, flautists are in their 40s and 50s
The younger ones have 28 or 29 years
Where do you see symphonies with young players in them?
Never see one

Daniel

[bernhard]

Does it help to wear beautiful diamond earings?  Perhaps the kind that dangle?

Just a thought

Yeah!  Wearing just ear rings will definitely help! (a variation on Tash’s Tiara)

[bernhard]

The problem with brain surgery is not really dexterity and motor coordination. Cutting is fairly easy, even on a small scale. The issue is knowing WHERE to cut.

I think a lot of brain surgeons may take exception to this statement.    In fact it could be argued that piano playing is easy: after all is just a matter of pressing keys, the main problem is which key to press. You may conclude from this sort of statement that the person doesn’t know much of piano playing, or brain surgery. 

Whatever the case may be, I think my original proposition still stand: No one would swallow the idea that a child must be introduced to brain surgery at age 2 – 3 in order to have a chance of success. I cannot see why one should start at 2 – 3 in order to excel in anything – including piano playing, if one does not need it in brain surgery. Or to put it another way. If you can decide to be a brain surgeon at age 18 and succeed at it, than you can also decide to be a pianist and succeed at it – especially since music is a far simpler subject than brain surgery. But prejudice and conditioning – the main forces at work in this case are very powerful indeed.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[squiggly_girl]

Jeff, what I meant by "innate artistic sensibility" is those with a musical ear, heaps of talent and a natural aptitude for the instrument. If these types start late, factors would conspire to make them more likely to stick with it. Like progressing quickly, enjoying every aspect of their learning, not having to contend as much as adult students of average ability with feelings of failure. And in line with Bernhard's last point, a latestarter with obvious talent will be able to overcome much of this abounding social prejudice - that those who start late are only hobbyists, and could never become pros.

[m1469]

Yeah!  Wearing just ear rings will definitely help! (a variation on Tash’s Tiara)

 a pair of beautiful dangling diamond ear rings would be nice.

[jeff]

a musical ear, heaps of talent and a natural aptitude for the instrument.

and what do you mean by this?

(tell me if i'm just being a pain in the ass  )

[timothy42b]

I made the coment about late bloomers not winning symphony auditions, and somebody countered that most of the symphony players are old geezers like me.

True.  There are lots of people like Adolph Herseth, who recently retired after more than 50 years as principal trumpet in the Chicago Symphony. 

But he didn't start playing trumpet at 40, nor win the audition at age 45.  He, like most of his peers, got the job very young and stayed forever. 

Most of my exposure is to brass players, and we've talked about this quite a bit.  The late bloomer phenomenon is unknown in the brass world.  Older adults often take up an instrument, and a fair amount of the time become quite accomplished.  But never great.

There is a parallel in the world of religion.   It is quite common for older adults to join their church choir.  I can think of numerous painful examples.  These are people who've listened to and been interested in music all their life, and now that they are retired they have time to join the choir and sing.  They are motivated.  They are intelligent.  They are, some of them, fairly appreciative of music.  They even have decent tone and great power.  Sigh.  And it is agony to sing with them.  Any of you who've ever sung in church will recognize somebody.  They don't read music and they never learn.  They can't count and they never will (even if they are not soprano <grin>)  They don't sing the same note as anybody else and they are not able to recognize it.  But they are well intentioned decent people and you can't ever get rid of them.  This is one of the reasons I make my kids take piano lessons and shortly band, because I really think if they learn the basics at an early age, they will have a chance later on if they become interested.  (I keep telling them music is just as much a mandatory course as math and science, it doesn't matter if they like it.  They don't have to do it all their life, just take it and pass it like any other subject.) 

Language?  If you think kids learn the same way as adults, you are sadly mistaken and need to check the research. 

[timothy42b]

PS.  I heard Sergei Ignatov talk once.  (Bernhard will recognize him as a fellow juggler.  Once with the Moscow Circus, and widely noted as the world's best at the time.)

He said competence was within anyone's grasp with intelligent hard practice, but beyond a certain level would require talent.  But he had an interesting take on where the line would be drawn.

Eight balls.

Yup.  He thought anybody could do 8 balls.  But beyond that, only the truely talented would have a chance. 

It may be similar for piano.  Anyone can become good, few can become great, but the line between them may be a much higher standard than we expect. 

[Daniel_piano]

Now, you're talking about talent and we were talking about age
Talent has nothing to do with age and you don't lose while you age

Second, any statistical value data is just that, a useless arbitrary data
In fact just because there's few world famous athletes who live in park avenue it doesn't mean that living in park avenue would hinder your athletic performace
It's just coincidential useless statistical data
Just because there are few adults starting a career in an orchestra it doesn't mean that not being a kid would hinder your ability to play as pro in an orchestra

Those music accademies who had the gut to update their useless, obnoxious, outdated and unscientific beliefs about age limits have now eliminated any limit age

In fact the only reason why you see more kids startings a career in the orchestra instead of adults is because you're more likely to start an uncertain, tough and hard  career like this when you're young and have less responbilities
It would be really unlikely that any adult with a family, a job and children to grow would overnight start an orchestral career forgetting about his/her responsabilities towards his/her family
But that's the only reason
Anyone tho can get a diploma IS a PRO, no matter your nationality, your age, your mental status; no matter if you have 6 fingers instead of 5 or are 99 years, it doesn't matter how did you obtain it but if you get the diploma you're a PRO and any orchestra knows that you're able to play as a member of the orchestra (that's what the diploma is for)

Now you might now say that it's impossible to geta diploma at 30 or 35, but I have seen this happening a lot of time
There are thousands of orchestras in the world (just in my little town there are three symhponic orchestra) since if you want to hear a Beethoven or Tchaikovsky symphony you can always drive or fly to London or Paris or Milan,  so there are several orchestra for each town or city
So let's forget about Berliner Physarmonic and other world famous orchestra, it would be snob to just consider them and forget about all the others
I know wonderful orchestra where some of the member started as PRO clarinetists after obtaining their diploma at the age of 31


And as for children and language
It has been proven tha children lean language quicker because they're surrounded by it, because the way they learn it
But when children are taught a language through books, textbooks and lessons they learn it the same way as any adults
To learn a language better than an adult children need to live in a place where everyone speak that language
If a Canadian child only living with people speaking english start studying Swedish at a course, using books, textbooks and audiotapes he/she will learn it no better than any adults
In fact the language school programs where primary schol kids are learned a second language did not work any better than an adult learning a language at the Wall Street Institute

Daniel

[xRhapsodyx]

Ya know, I think a lot of it is to do with the mental block. A kid tends to just play and do what the teacher says and get on with it, not worrying about progress or how they sound. Whereas an adult is far more aware and critical about where they are in piano playing, whether they're advanced enough, that sort of thing. If I'd taken violin up at my age now (16) I'd probably be so discouraged by the rubbish sound that I'd try something else instead (it takes years to get a decent sound on a violin). Being less conscious of your slow progress is undoubtably good, you'll just get on with improving without constantly worrying about it, like adults do!

[squiggly_girl]

and what do you mean by this?

(tell me if i'm just being a pain in the ass  )

Errrmmm...why don't you tell me what you think I mean and I'll tell you if you're right

[Daniel_piano]

Ya know, I think a lot of it is to do with the mental block. A kid tends to just play and do what the teacher says and get on with it, not worrying about progress or how they sound. Whereas an adult is far more aware and critical about where they are in piano playing, whether they're advanced enough, that sort of thing. If I'd taken violin up at my age now (16) I'd probably be so discouraged by the rubbish sound that I'd try something else instead (it takes years to get a decent sound on a violin). Being less conscious of your slow progress is undoubtably good, you'll just get on with improving without constantly worrying about it, like adults do!

That's a very important factor we hadn't taken into accoun the discussion
The mental blocks of adults
A teacher once told me that the most difficolout and hard thing to do when teaching adults is have them believe that they're really doing as good as they're doing and not as bad as they wrongly think they're doing
She said that a if a late beginner 10 years old child learning the piano sees a late intermediate 7 years old child playing he/she is compelled to work harder to reach that child level, it becomes a healthy competition
On the other hand if an adult late beginner 38 years old sees a late intermediate 16 years old playing a tough piece he/she feels discouraged and is compelled to give up and will practice worst because of his/her negative tought and competition depression

Daniel

[bernhard]

Should I ever own a pair of beautiful dangling diamond ear rings (perhaps with saphire too), I swear it will be done!

Did you read that guys ? Shall we start a collection box? 

[bernhard]

PS.  I heard Sergei Ignatov talk once.  (Bernhard will recognize him as a fellow juggler.  Once with the Moscow Circus, and widely noted as the world's best at the time.)

He said competence was within anyone's grasp with intelligent hard practice, but beyond a certain level would require talent.  But he had an interesting take on where the line would be drawn.

Eight balls.

Yup.  He thought anybody could do 8 balls.  But beyond that, only the truely talented would have a chance. 

It may be similar for piano.  Anyone can become good, few can become great, but the line between them may be a much higher standard than we expect. 

Now, this is a very interesting point and I think it deserves to be further elaborated.

Yes. Every beginner juggler wants to tackle as many balls, clubs, chainsaws as possible. It is very enlightening to have a look at current juggling records:

https://www.juggling.org/records/records.html

Rings are clearly easier to handle (Albert Lucas claims to have managed 14 rings, therefore having broken his own previous record of 13) than balls (12) or clubs (9).

I have seen Anthony Gatto on video breaking his own previous records with balls and rings, and I will tell you: it makes for some of the most boring views ever. Although we may be amazed at his (and his fellow record holder jugglers) precision, accuracy, speed and co-ordination, that is pretty much it. The novelty wears of really fast.

The obsession with numbers is very similar to the obsession of shallow pianists with feats of speed (how fast can you do a chromatic scale? How fast can you play Chopin Op. 10 no. 2? And other equally meaningless discussions that keep popping up).

Now, let us look at something else altogether: Michael Menes, who makes three balls his specialty. The first time I watched Michael Menes, the whole meaning of juggling changed forever for me. It was not about how many balls he could juggle (he only uses three). It might not even be about juggling. Menes created a routine that mixed modern dance, juggling, music (his co-ordination of juggling patterns and the music’s beat/rhythm is extraordinary), comedy and mime – all done silently (but for the music). It was the sort of thing you wish never ends: you can watch forever, and the only word to approximate what he is doing is: “Magical”.

Of course, Menes is not the only one. There are a lot of jugglers who rarely if ever use more than three balls, and instead build on the infinite juggling patterns you can devise with just three balls. For all its bravura, Anthony Gatto record breaking performance with 9 clubs was nowhere as mesmerising as his own performance with 3 clubs. The first was a circus act to show how good he was. And apart from keeping nine clubs in the air, there was precious little else he could do. However with three clubs, he was showing not how good he was (which of course he was), but how unbelievably artistic, aesthetically pleasing, emotionally fulfilling and intellectually challenging juggling with three balls/clubs could be. The focus moves from the perfomer to the art (as it should be).

Ignatov may be right or wrong about the limit of 8 balls. But there is no need to juggle 8 balls. In fact, just to keep 8 balls in the air will prevent a juggler from truly exploring the depths of the art of juggling: that is all he will be able to do: keep the balls in the air.

Although I myself can juggle up to 6 (4 and 6 are far easier than 3 and 5) I rarely if ever juggle more than three, simply because 3-ball (and 3-clubs) juggling allows such amazing juggling patterns.

And so it is with piano playing. 90% of the repertory does not demand circus skills. 90% of the repertory is on the level of 3 ball juggling. But this is only unsatisfactory if one thinks juggling is about keeping three balls in the air, or piano playing is simply about pressing the right notes at the right time.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[squiggly_girl]

Should I ever own a pair of beautiful dangling diamond ear rings (perhaps with saphire too), I swear it will be done!

Did you read that guys ? Shall we start a collection box? 

You do remember the other famous rascals who promised "I swear it will be done" don't you?!!

[Glissando]

You do remember the other famous rascals who promised "I swear it will be done" don't you?!!

Yeah, like Prince Humperdink's 6 fingered guy, right?

[timothy42b]

I guess I didn't make my point clear in the 8 balls example, or maybe just didn't think it through.

Bernhard points out that technique does not equal artistry and I certainly agree.

It is hard to quantify artistry, but technique can be fairly simple, as in the juggling case.  You can do 8, or 6, or 4, or x, or not.  I didn't mean it to be the measure of learning.  I've watched Michael Menes with awe, used to have several tapes until the last move.  He's a bad example, though, that kind of talent is rare

What I was trying to suggest is this.  It is unlikely for an older adult to become truly great, for at least a couple of reasons.  One is that learning really is harder for us.  The other is that those of us with extra talent tend to have been identified when young, and we'd already started. 

On the other hand, becoming good should not be beyond anyone's reach.  Define good however you like.  I think it should combine technique and artistry - and I guess we could start a discussion about whether the learning process is different for those two. 

My point with the 8 ball example is that we don't want to underestimate how good "good" is, and think we can't get there.  We might not become a Horowitz, but that doesn't mean we might not get to a pretty amazing level.

I can't do 8 balls, never got close.  But the learning process was instructive to me.  Hours of practice did nothing for me.  Intelligent practice, once I learned that, did.  It still didn't come quickly because I have some coordination limits that make it slower for me.  I am fairly proud of having run a 10-K juggling 3 without a drop.  Yeah, that's technique not artistry, sorry, but I still consider it one of my accomplishments. 

[Daniel_piano]

Here's what the great teacher Howard Richman has to say about children learning faster according to his knowledge and experience with teaching:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH =“Children learn faster than adults.”

        REALITY =  There is no difference. From my own personal experience of teaching both children and adults since 1975, this idea that a child’s brain is more receptive is incorrect. What may be true is that the child is less encumbered by the busy-ness of life and tends to have less mental clutter. This state results in a naturally-better focusing ability which creates the illusion that the child may be able to absorb new material faster than the adult. However, what the child often doesn’t have is desire. The adult really wants to study piano. And this great desire creates the same type of focus that is needed for quick learning. In fact, adults who have this intention, often from wanting to make up “for lost time,” often learn faster than children! The adult who is just a dabbler who doesn’t have the great desire is a typical hectic, frazzled adult. This type of adult is the adult who will tend to learn slower — not because they don’t practice enough, but because their energy is so distracted. Another cause of distraction is self-judgement and stress and impatience that is associated with learning. Adults have had their lifetimes to become familiar with music so they know how it is “supposed” to sound, whereas children usually have never heard the piece they are learning. As a result, adults do tend to become easily frustrated by comparing their current ability to play a piece with the way they know it should sound — and THIS comparison can cause enough stress and anxiety that the adult student will often lose interest or stop playing altogether. So adult students need to take caution about this unnecessary temptation to think they “should” sound like a professional pianist after only playing for three weeks. The adult student must learn to embrace his or her current ability with grace and appreciation. From this point improvement will occur.

MYTH = “Since I didn’t begin studying piano as a child it I’ll never be able to play well as an adult.”

         REALITY =  It’s never too late. Early neural stimulation as a child DOES help with musical intelligence as an adult, but it need not be from the piano. For example, kids who are great at sports or gymnastics or dance are often the best at piano, when they eventually try it. That’s not a surprise to most people. But what is a surprise is that adults show the same parallel! An adult who had been athletic as a child will find it easier to learn piano as an adult, because the advanced neurological stimulation lasts one’s whole life. It is simply a new application. If you’re had a nurturing, stimulating environment as a child, you will definitely have an advantage when you begin piano studies as an adult. If you had limited exposure to physical experiences as a child, this would tend to make it more difficult to learn the piano whether you are a child or an adult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel

[squiggly_girl]

Yeah, like Prince Humperdink's 6 fingered guy, right?

Yeah! And Prince Humperdink himself too, earlier in the movie!

[Greentea028]

I'm not going to give a long winded response like everyone else.

The truth is that brain is at it's peak during childhood. That's why toddlers are able to learn english at such a fast rate. Their minds are able to absorb alot of knowledge at that age. That's why the greatest virtuosos were piano prodigies are early ages (chopin/beethoveen/mozart).

I've started the piano at age 6, and im 17 now. i used to practice about a half hour a day to 1 hour to 2 hours right now. Alot of people would think im a good pianist overall, but i know there's so many people out there that are better then me in every possible way. There's too much competition out there and if ur not among the best, you're going to go anywhere.

To answer your question, young adults and old adults are too far behind the learning curve. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but a virtuoso skills are something thats rarely accomplished even with the most dedicated pianists that start at the earliest of ages.

I'm sorry if i got you down, you don't have to take my opinion to heart, im sure if the individual was extremely dedicated and talented, it could very well happen. =)

steven