Am I too old.

[eleena]

Hi. I'm a 21 year-old piano student and I have been wondering since a long time if I'm already too old for applying for better conservatoriums with more name to develop myself more in playing.  I am studying in a local conservatorium to become a piano teacher but I would like to gain more experience some where else, as I'm abitious.  I become really interested in playing not more than five years ago. Should I have practised hours a day since I'm five?
At the moment I'm playing Liszt's Vallee d'obermann, Beethoven's sonata No. 17 in d minor "the storm" and some chopin etudes and Bach's prelude et fugue in G sharp minor from the first book. I'm really motivated at the moment and I'm progressing quite well.
But do I have still a chance, not to become a solist but a good piano player, having possibility to give pianolessons in some good school and have older motivated students?
Please help me?

[quasimodo]

Hello, welcome to the forum, it's your very first post.
I don't have any clue about your question but some people here might give valuable answers... But you'll probably have to give indications about the country/area you live in.

[Daniel_piano]

Hi. I'm a 21 year-old piano student and I have been wondering since a long time if I'm already too old for applying for better conservatoriums with more name to develop myself more in playing.  I am studying in a local conservatorium to become a piano teacher but I would like to gain more experience some where else, as I'm abitious.  I become really interested in playing not more than five years ago. Should I have practised hours a day since I'm five?
At the moment I'm playing Liszt's Vallee d'obermann, Beethoven's sonata No. 17 in d minor "the storm" and some chopin etudes and Bach's prelude et fugue in G sharp minor from the first book. I'm really motivated at the moment and I'm progressing quite well.
But do I have still a chance, not to become a solist but a good piano player, having possibility to give pianolessons in some good school and have older motivated students?
Please help me?

People should begin to think with their own mind and give no credit for useless fallacious beliefs
Anything you can do just depends on you and no one else
Think about it; do you honestly think there's any reason why to become a good pianist and learn all piano technique you need to start at 5 or does this sounds like a nonsense scientifically and musically?
The only advantage of starting at 5 is that you become a concert pianist or a piano teacher sooner but if you start at 21 and you become a teacher at 31, what's the problem?

Do you really believe that your students and your school will choose you according to your age or according to what you are able to do?
And if you start at 21 and graduate at 31 you will learn anything and in the same way you would have learned if you had started at 5

And if by the age of 31 you will have a unique and pleasant technique and something unique to say there's no reason why people shouldn't begin to love your music and ask for your perfomance and so you could still become a piano concertist at 31, because remember that there's no only schiff or cziffra in the world; is full of less famous piano concertiss and piano teachers at any age and whith lot of different experiences and stories

It just depends on you, nobody and nothing else


Daniel

[quasimodo]

Beyond what Daniel said, here's an example: for the French Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique et de Danse which is the highest music teaching institution in this country, the age-limit for the Piano-instrumentist general program is 22. For advanced specialization in piano (which they call "perfectionnement") the age-limit is 30 years.

Now the competition to enter this school is very selective: about 70 students for general piano and 12 for advanced.

So you see that at 21, you are not that late. But if you're really decided don't wait too long anyway and work hard to succeed in the competitions.

[amybeachfan]

I think that, artistically, you can't be "too old," since we can spend our entire lives studying our art and never reach perfection, and never run of repertoire. I'm pretty sure that American conservatories and universities have no age limits, although members of audition committees may have prejudices in favor of younger students. The reality is, almost all competitions (which help you get performances) have an age limit of 25-29, so if you were not a prodigy and you get too old to enter competitions, and you don't know a bunch of people who can help you, you probably will not become a famous international star. On the other hand, most of us won't, anyway. I have met lots of music students who started piano at age 5 (or even 2!), but I also met a guy who started when he was 18, and by the time he was 36, he played very, very well. Age does give you greater perspective on life and maturity as an artist, which are advantages over the very young. I can't say about getting teaching jobs, since I don't have one, but I think if you have the ability and experience, then your age will not matter.

[eleena]

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, and maybe it is not so essential, but I didn't start piano playing at 21 years old. I play piano the more or less seriously since I am 5 years old.

[quasimodo]

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, and maybe it is not so essential, but I didn't start piano playing at 21 years old. I play piano the more or less seriously since I am 5 years old.

That's more or less what I understood, that's way I directly posted this example of age limit in France, and as amybeach wrote, American schools do not mention age limits on their websites (I looked at Juilliard's). So the key is to be very well prepared to auditions/competitions. If jury members are prejudiced with age of candidates then you'll have to perform significantly better than younger candidates, which means showing your maturity by the quality of your interpretations.

[Daniel_piano]

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, and maybe it is not so essential, but I didn't start piano playing at 21 years old. I play piano the more or less seriously since I am 5 years old.

The point is: if you study seriously and hard (but having fun too) you will eventually get your graduation at any age
When this will happen you will have anything you need to be a concert pianist, a professional pianist or a piano teacher
It just depends on you, faith and a bit of luck not on your age

My school has an age limit of 20 year old, yet we have a student who was admitted at the age of 26 yeard olf
How this happened? Because he showed that he has great talent and is willing to work hard to attain his goal
Again, it's only up in you, whatever you will do in life people will ask you to show them your qualities and your talent not your diploma, Ph.D or age
Believe, it works like this; I know in this sad world of capitalism and appareances it would seem like the opposite were true and that the piece of paper is more important and your talent, but it doesn't work like this, remember that if they invest on you they want to make money and basing their judgment and choices on your talent instead of your age or instruction is on their interest

Take the world of comics for example
You may believe that a graduation from art school and being young is important but they will never ask you for your age or your diploma they will ask you to draw something and they will judge you according to your ability
You may be 90 years old and without a secondary school graduation but if you can draw and and your draw attire people (meaning for selling and hence for money) your talent will be the only factor involved

When you think you will get your diploma? 25 years old? 28 years old? Its not too late, neither for being a piano teacher, quite the opposite, nor for a piano career

Daniel

[ahmedito]

We piano students are a bit like supermodels.... Oh my God! 19!!! Im soooo old.... 

Just play, don't worry.

[puma]

Most of the other responses sum it all up: you're really not that old, you've been playing a bit already, and if you focus now you could graduate by the time you're 25 or 26 or so, which, in the grand scheme of things, is very young.  I'm 25 myself, and am currently studying the piano, so I know what it's like to think "you're too old" but look at it this way - by the time you graduate, and become better, you will really not be that much older than other pianists.  And you will have the added maturity of your age to help you out.  Just a thought.

[eleena]

Thank you all for your reliefing answers. It is quite difficult to know what everything is like out there in other countries and even in my own country. So thanks again.

[ehpianist]

The only way to find out is to get information from the conservatories you wish to apply to, apply and see what happens.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[quasimodo]

The new year is a perfect time to make a decision towards it. Don't hesitate a single second, go for your dreams and keep us informed about it  !!!

[bardolph]

Other than age-limit restrictions in various institutions, don't worry about age!

"...Even more dramatic is the case of Vladimir Leyetchkiss, who did not begin the serious study of the piano until the age of forty."

From pianist Angela Chan's MA thesis
https://angelachan.ca/

Leyetchkiss:
https://www.chiesanuova.org/artists/leyetchkiss.html

[Rockitman]

Let me ask this:

Take a person, start them at age 5.  They practice continuously for 15 years.  By the time they are 20, they should be quite proficient.

Take the same person,  start them at age 20,  they practice continuously for 15 years and by the time they are 35,  are they as proficient as the first case?

Take the same person,  start them at age 30, same thing, 15 years continuous practice.  Now they are 45.   Will he be even less proficient than the 35 year old?




The question then,   Is it a given that if this person started at 5 that he would be more proficient than the other two examples? 

What I'm getting at, Is it vital to have started very young, not only that it gives you more available years of practice, but because at this age one learns things better and faster?? 

[Daniel_piano]

Let me ask this:

Take a person, start them at age 5.  They practice continuously for 15 years.  By the time they are 20, they should be quite proficient.

Take the same person,  start them at age 20,  they practice continuously for 15 years and by the time they are 35,  are they as proficient as the first case?

Take the same person,  start them at age 30, same thing, 15 years continuous practice.  Now they are 45.   Will he be even less proficient than the 35 year old?




The question then,   Is it a given that if this person started at 5 that he would be more proficient than the other two examples? 

What I'm getting at, Is it vital to have started very young, not only that it gives you more available years of practice, but because at this age one learns things better and faster?? 

No, neither from an empirical nor scientific point of view there's any reason to believe that given the same amount of time your progress better and quicker at 5
In fact, in the example above it is quite the opposite

Let me tell you way
Coordination is developed in the age range from 7 to 12, so starting at 5 would be just a disavantage in coordination problems
When you start at 5 you basically spend 1 or 2 years understanding certain musical notions that would be immediate laters because of math and movement knowledge aquired through experience and sport
When you're 5 you're likely to learn wrong movements because 90% of all teachers f the world don't know a yota about teaching a efficient movements but you're less likely to forget them because of the fast growing of your cartilage resulting in a more strong movements memory and muscle memory
If you're a late beginner you can learn bad movements, realize this, read a book about good movements, have a Taubman session and learn new correct movements
It's easier not to rely on the fallacious teaching of your teacher when you're older and you know there are alternative and you learn the new better alternative than
if you were 5 year old, were growing and had only your teacher who you think can't be wrong as your only alternative

The only advantage of being 5 or 7 is that when you're young you have not yet conformed to society fakeness and dryness, you have not yet put a mask on you and learned to repress your emotions and feelings, you have not yet conformed to the belief that like sucks and everything is hard and we're always at competition
Because of this children might learn better, because they don't believe in limitation, they never think "I'll never be able to do this" "I'm worse than him" "I sucks at piano" "I'm progressing slowly" and things like that and because of this lack of mental blocks they might learn quicker
As Picasso said "It takes a long time to become a child" or as Klee said "only children still have the power to see" so a late beginner must keep this sensation from his/her childhood, the sensation that nothing is impossible and that there are no limitation you must live and practicing in a alpha stadium like children instead of the symbolic and analitical stadium betha, living the world experiencing the sensation instead of think according to symbolism and beliefs

Think about this: there classes in conservatories where you can obtain the diploma in 5 years instead of 10
I've seen many late beginners complete the 5 years course becoming wornderful pianist but I've never seen a child getting a diploma in 5 years, in fact when they start a 5 they need more than 10 years to get a diploma usually
 

Daniel

[quasimodo]

Lol, Daniel and Rockitman you are both developping extremist views in the last posts (and Btw, slightly off-topic as the thread starter already told us she began the piano at an early age).

I think the truth is in between:

Daniel, if a kid starts at 5 or even earlier, with a good, qualified teacher, then there are big chances he is going to be a very proficient pianist and musician and better than the one who would start only at 10 or 15, providing he loves it.

On the other hand, Rockitman there's alot of prejudice in your statements. The flaw with starting late is mainly in the physical aspect of playing music, i.e. your technique would be less "natural", "automatic" than if you started at early age. But firstly, reducing instrument playing to it's physical part is pure non-sense and secondly concentration skills and intellectual awareness will easily compensate any lack of "automatism".

Bottom line: whenever youstart, the real deal is not your age, it's how seriously and how enthusiastically you learn and practice.

[quasimodo]

well sorry, Rockitman, actually you didn't make any statement, you were just asking a question but the way you asked it sounded allusive to the general prejudices about age and piano, so please don't take any offense in what I wrote.

Personally, I think that the world of music, especially classical is suffering from these kind of prejudices. Obviously, 99% of teachers in the musical institutions are people that learned music since a very young age and were educated in this fallacious idea that the only way to become a good musician is to learn very early and follow the standard paths of music education. Then, automatically, they are going to carry on this tradition so in general, the doors of these institutions are rather closed to the ones who did not have the chance to match the age and background criterias.

Considering that you're not going to succeed as a professional musician if you didn't graduate these institutions and win the official competitions wich they hold, then the statement becomes true : 99% of the concert pianists (or any other instrument) are the ones who started at an early age  . So the whole thing is based on prejudices: you might be very talented and skilled and have a very artistical mind, if you don't have the diplomas and the prizes, you won't be taken seriously.

[Daniel_piano]

Daniel, if a kid starts at 5 or even earlier, with a good, qualified teacher, then there are big chances he is going to be a very proficient pianist and musician and better than the one who would start only at 10 or 15, providing he loves it.

Prove it then
Show just one subjective and scientifical reason why it should be true
Is it based on memory, coordination or what
As I said this is simply a myth based on nothing and that anything discovered in the last years about learning, anatomy and physiology has completely disproved
Starting earlier than 5 just starting at 4 has no advantage on pianistic skill since this is not the age in which coordination is developed so earlier than 5 playing on a piano is simply useless in term of better pianistic development

Daniel

The flaw with starting late is mainly in the physical aspect of playing music, i.e. your technique would be less "natural", "automatic" than if you started at early age.

Who said this?
What is a concrete subjective reason for this?
Our brain is capable of learninh any automatic task at any age and in a lot of thing better at later age than early age
There's no proof that hold water that starting earlier results in a more natural technique, either you practice and use efficient movements or either your don't, age is just an excuses for lazy teenagers who don't have time to make their technique natural because too budy at disco or parties
And by the way, if the movements you use are not efficient and natural your tecnique wil never be natural and will be like a Rachmaninov who suffered all his life with tremendous pain and had to cancel a lot of performances
Natural movements and good playing has nothing to do with age, it's just a collective popular mythological belief based on ignorance

Daniel

[quasimodo]

Well, Daniel you might be right.
Anyway I based my opinion on making an analogy with some sports which involve a lot of technique, like tennis or soccer for example. It's statistically proved that the best athletes in these kind of disciplines are the ones who were detected and trained since a very young age. But, actually I can't be really affirmative, it might be completely inappropriate to make an analogy between the physical part of playing an instrument and sports.

I'm not qualified enough to argue scientifically about this, and I wonder if anyone on this earth really is, because the brain remains a big mystery as well as our body, all the knowledge we can have about it is empiric and experimental, if not even intuitive.

By the way, my use of the term "natural" is quite inappropriate. In absolute terms, there's nothing natural in playing a music instrument. , unless we wouldn't have to learn it for years before being proficient.

Whatever, I totally agree that age in itself has nothing to do with how good a musician one can become.

[Alde]

Don't waste your money going to a more expense "Julliard" type school.  There are plenty of quality piano teachers throughout the world.  Only change, once you have learnt all you possible can from your current teacher and school.  Finnish whatever degree/diploma you are working on then go on.
I have many friends that are in debt $100,000 (US) because they wanted to go to a big music school.  I on the other hand went to a smaller Canadian University.  Does this mean that "Julliard" students are better then me?  NO.

[Rockitman]

I started lessons at 7, and continued until I was 11.    I resisted and fought it tooth and nail though.  I would rather play outside with my friends than have to sit at the piano for an hour a day.   
After 11,  I pretty much left it alone for a long time.   Not until almost 2 years ago (I'm 41), have I picked up practicing again, alas, no teacher yet.  Now these 2 years have gone by and I still feel that I was a better player back when I was 11.   
For example,  I have a piece that I performed at 11 called Bumble Boogie,  (it's a boogie woogie take on the Flight of the Bumble Bee).  It has that fast chromatic phrasing and I have been repracticing it for the last couple of months.  It's amazing how quickly I relearned it as I had memorized it back at 11, but the thing is,  I feel like I am at a wall today trying to get these chromatics to speed.  I was much more proficient playing this at 11 than I am today and this is partly why I asked these questions.   
I agree with much of what you said Daniel,  I'm sure I'm just chock full of mental blocks,  but what about the physicality of playing?   Will I ever be able to get back to the precision I had with this piece at 11?   I sit there with my right hand and just keep playing the phrases over and over and I just don't see myself getting any faster with accuracy.    Is this just a mental block or is it physical?

[quasimodo]

I started lessons at 7, and continued until I was 11.    I resisted and fought it tooth and nail though.  I would rather play outside with my friends than have to sit at the piano for an hour a day.   
After 11,  I pretty much left it alone for a long time.   Not until almost 2 years ago (I'm 41), have I picked up practicing again, alas, no teacher yet.  Now these 2 years have gone by and I still feel that I was a better player back when I was 11.   
For example,  I have a piece that I performed at 11 called Bumble Boogie,  (it's a boogie woogie take on the Flight of the Bumble Bee).  It has that fast chromatic phrasing and I have been repracticing it for the last couple of months.  It's amazing how quickly I relearned it as I had memorized it back at 11, but the thing is,  I feel like I am at a wall today trying to get these chromatics to speed.  I was much more proficient playing this at 11 than I am today and this is partly why I asked these questions.   
I agree with much of what you said Daniel,  I'm sure I'm just chock full of mental blocks,  but what about the physicality of playing?   Will I ever be able to get back to the precision I had with this piece at 11?   I sit there with my right hand and just keep playing the phrases over and over and I just don't see myself getting any faster with accuracy.    Is this just a mental block or is it physical?

I might be wrong but I think the problem you describe is not quite related to the point of debate. I'm afraid there's an issue with your practice method or learning strategy which prevents you to develop "strength" in order to find back the agility and accuracy you had when you were 11. I dont think it's neither "mental" or "physical".