Can somebody explain what this is!?

[mahmudfasihulazam]

How can somebody learn this quickly? I would want to know if there is some trick to it! Magnificent.

[mjames]

There are no shortcuts when it comes to music. You either do it or you don't.

[mahmudfasihulazam]

Well that is the absolute truth but there is such a thing as efficient learning- that's what I am getting at.
I really would like to know what the best way to learn is because my years of learning certainly have not resulted in the best that could be achieved in those years, that's all.

[dcstudio]

he's a genius... seriously and he's absolutely fearless...  I play jazz and if there is one thing that holds true for that genre it is that excessive  formal music training will drum that ability right out of you.  Yes your learning could have been more efficient I'm sure---but you can take 20 years of formal piano lessons and you will still not know the first thing about jazz improv...

I don't know how he thinks but I know how I think when I play jazz.   It comes right from my ear to my hands--of course, I was a jazz studies major and it still took me years and years to learn how to really be comfortable with it.   

When I am improvising I am very aware of the chord progressions and rhythmic elements but the creativity comes from trusting my hands--and myself.  The only "trick" to it is not being afraid to do it. 

Classically trained pianists have no ability to understand unless they have mastered both sides.  The part of you that plays has been taught to read only--and most of the time for beginners anyway--reading takes up so much brainpower that there isn't anything left to actually listen to what you are playing...much less make adjustments.

the secret is to be able to play by ear...really play by ear... knowing what you are hearing in your head and then letting your fingers go there on the piano. Of course you need some rockin technique too and a serious theory foundation.  In spite of all my formal training I still liked to figure things out by ear--stuff from the radio--or TV themes-whatever..  I always believed that to be not really practicing--but it was the most important part of my training in my eyes.  I use that "ear" app every day...people request tunes I have never played or hold their phone to my ear and ask me to play what I am hearing... without it I would not be able to do what I do. 

This kid was obviously born with that "ear" app already up and running in his head.. and the IQ to use it.   He is masterful and a literal prodigy. How many 8yr olds want to hear Thelonius Monk or Bud Powell--he did... I've been playing for 46 years--I can't imagine what he's gonna sound like at my age.

[pianoworthy]

He put in the 10,000 plus hours. He's young but probably has a brain that's well suited to learning and focusing and practicing the correct way, and he's in an environment where he can spend that much time on the instrument. It's not magic. Prodigies put the time it takes to get that good at something just like anyone else has to, they just happen to be geniuses in that their brains are better suited for learning and focusing and that allows them to put the work it takes to learn at such a young age compared to others.

As a classical and jazz pianist, the best way to describe what I'm thinking when I play jazz is that after enough practice and understanding of jazz my brain just "knows" what will sound right while improvising. There are also certain ideas and licks that I know with always work 100% of the time in every key, so I can always rely on those as well. If you listen to any really great jazz pianist, you will hear a set of notes or ideas that are unique to them that they use a lot in their soloing.

[sashaco]

¨Ḧe put in the 10,00 plus hours.¨  (Pianoworthy)

The Malcolm Gladwell theory is attractive, but ultimately silly.  We'd love to believe that anyone can do anything, but it's simply not true.  In this case the boy is 11.  Are you suggesting he has averaged over two hours a day since he was born?  Not possible.  I remember Gladwell's New Yorker piece, a shorter version of the book.  The same week or the week after that issue there was a piece on Leonard Bernstein who learned ¨Rhapsody in Blue¨ in his first year playing the piano.  Instant refutation.  (Actually issues of the New Yorker pile up in our house, so maybe the two articles were published farther apart in time than that.)

I would argue that the Gladwell thesis, at least in music, has it backwards.  He argues that the top pianists entering conservatories have put in vastly more hours than the next tier since a young age, and this is the reason for their success.  I think it's more likely that the highly ¨talented¨ (I admit I don't know what that means) are able to put in more hours because their ears are able to discern greater value and excitement in what they are doing.  When the ordinary 10 year-old ¨ḧas the notes¨ she feels that that is enough work on a piece.  Over the years she will learn more and more of the possibilities in dynamics, rubato, voicing etc. and will be able to practice more because she sees there is more to do.  At ten, an extra two hours seems like torture, because there seems to be no point to it.  
It is conceivable that the small child forced to put in that extra two hours early will have at, say, sixteen a greater facility for learning new pieces technically that will serve him well IF he still has an interest.  Nonetheless, I think it's not that different from what happens in sports.  Those with natural ability are willing to put in more time because they enjoy early success and part of that natural ability is to see better than others what will be required to succeed at a higher level.  Make no mistake- you can put tennis rackets in the hands of two 3 year-olds and one will hit the first ten balls you throw and the other will miss the first thirty.  That's no guarantee the first will become greater in the future, but that's the way to bet.
I unashamedly cite the 10,000 hours rule to my students in various arenas, English classes, squash courts, choirs, because I want them to believe in themselves, but I don't believe it for a minute.
Pianoworthy seems to be agreeing with me in the rest of his (her?) post, so I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm always fascinated that the 10,000 hours rule has taken such a hold.
Ciao,  Sasha

[pianoworthy]

I read Malcom Gladwell's book, he describes things in which there is clearly a well supported scientific understanding of. I agree "10,000" hours is a bit arbitrary, but with careful observation it does happen to be the amount of time on average it takes to learn something to that high of a level.

That 11 year old kid probably practices a lot more than 2 hours a day, I'm not sure why you think that's not possible. I understand there are more factors at play than just putting the time into it. Ideally he'd need to be practicing efficiently, and have a brain well suited to learning that type of information, and be in an environment that nurtures that type of behavior. It's still a physical process of learning and growing the brain. I don't think I could ever truly understand the brain of a genius of that level, and he probably doesn't understand it either, but there is work involved to getting to that level.

[rubinsteinmad]

I read Malcom Gladwell's book, he describes things in which there is clearly a well supported scientific understanding of. I agree "10,000" hours is a bit arbitrary, but with careful observation it does happen to be the amount of time on average it takes to learn something to that high of a level.

That 11 year old kid probably practices a lot more than 2 hours a day, I'm not sure why you think that's not possible. I understand there are more factors at play than just putting the time into it. Ideally he'd need to be practicing efficiently, and have a brain well suited to learning that type of information, and be in an environment that nurtures that type of behavior. It's still a physical process of learning and growing the brain. I don't think I could ever truly understand the brain of a genius of that level, and he probably doesn't understand it either, but there is work involved to getting to that level.

Let's bring some mathematicians and some investigators in    BTW, no one plays piano the 1st day they are born.

Really talented kid, though, I have to say.

[joyof60]

Indeed the Lad is a prodigy with extreme talent and technique. What is most lacking is only attained with the years applied. Heartbreak, tragic loss, giddy euphoria, physical pain and pure love are only a few of the emotions one plays with from the heart. Can't learn that in class nor by age 10. His playing is indeed wonderful but it does indeed suffer with the need for some "heart". I've heard emotion in pieces that lacked technical skill that overshadowed many virtuosos. Gotta do the time....

[pianoman53]

As a classical musician, I would obviously tell you to "compose" your own solo, and then be more and more free, composing less and less.

However, my ex is a jazz pianist. She spend hours on transcribing solos, and developed a lot from that.



Some just have this annoying ability to be great, without having too much practice, like this guy.

[sashaco]

Pianoworthy,

I'm quite certain he practices two or more a day.  To get to 10,000 hours he would have to have done that SINCE THE DAY HE WAS BORN.  Somehow I don't think THAT is possible.

I read Gladwell's book too.  I would love to agree with him.  Nonetheless even some of the best known examples in the book don't really support his ideas.  What made the Beatles great was not hours in Hamburg- it was their songwriting.  Yes- their singing and playing was better than most- but you can go ahead and put in 10,000 and you won't create the White ALbum.

[dcstudio]

Pianoworthy,

I'm quite certain he practices two or more a day.  To get to 10,000 hours he would have to have done that SINCE THE DAY HE WAS BORN.  Somehow I don't think THAT is possible.

maybe...maybe not--who knows.   I think we can all agree that the 10k hours rule is not always applicable...

  He plays jazz...it's not the same....  it's a completely different way of thinking.  In classical everything is prepared and polished--repeated endlessly until perfect---in jazz it's about coming up with it on the fly...  listening to the other musicians...playing off what they play...trying new things with old tunes...  yes you need the chops--and formal training gives you the ability---but never tells you how to do it...    

it doesn't take 10,000 hours to have the dexterity to play jazz...  it just takes a lot of hootzbah... and a real LOVE for the genre--and THAT is what I find the most incredible about this 11 year old boy from Bali... he discovered Monk and Tatum--in Bali--- and decided that's what he wanted to play... and he did it....amazing.....