Hard work over God given talent?

[adodd81802]

 Its not even envy of the lesser. I don't even envy more successful people. It angers me that our entire culture blames shortcomings on laziness, and promotes this garbage nonsense that you can do whatever you want if you believe and try and all that rubbish, which is not only an exaggeration, but an outright lie. Unfortunately I am beyond being convinced hard work will get you anywhere, and frankly, the high achievers get no pat on the back. Their successes were inherited one way or the other. The teacher or instructor that they did not choose, the parents that they did not choose to push or not push them, the school that they didn't choose to attend or not attend, the intellect or learning ability that they had no choice with.
   All outcomes are the byproduct of  chance and circumstance.

Part of that I will agree with you on and is probably the only accurate point you have made so far.

So really what you're saying is the head start you perceived as talent is just better conditions.

Had you have stated that in the first place, the conversation wouldn't have went further. A better teacher, a better piano, a better school I am sure could only have a positive influence.

It is believed that we are a product of our environment.

But then do any of your family play the piano, are there any close relatives that are professionals? No? Then what made you decide to want to become a great pianist?

Genetics and environment is one thing. But the brain is independent of all that.

The truth is within reason you CAN do whatever you want with hard work. Correct hard work. Whether it may feel harder for you then somebody else is one thing, but to think you are working more hard then another person is not the case. it's subjective.

Take this example -
You could be struggling to get a grade 3 piece right and I am struggling to get a grade 8 piece right, my difficulty is at a level that surpassed yours, but I do not feel like the work is getting any easier. It is then not about somebody already being "better" than you, but whether or not you yourself are progressing. And if you are not, you must try different methods until what you are doing works for you.

[pianodannn]

  Nobody can turn a 70 year old into a virtuoso. More rubbish we are being spoon fed. It has been said by people of good authority that mid to late 30's is about the latest one can begin and have any possibility of becoming concert pianists.Even at that age it is very unlikely. The plasticity of the brain is too low beyond that age. Learn to be a virtuoso at 70 is utter potty feed I'm afraid. amongst professional performers of various sports and arts, the level of proficiency is not related to the time of training, but the age at which training starts, with skill level steadily falling as the age of training onset advances. A person who begins at 10 and trains till 20 will most times be considerably better that 1 who begins at 20 and trains till 30.
  As for the bad memory, it is called a "neurological defect" and one you can not fix with training or some strategy. You can either remember that one particular note comes after the preceding one, or you cant. Arranging your practice this way or that doesn't stop you from forgetting things if you didn't inherit a good learning ability and or memory. And whatever practice steps you set, even if the student follows them exactly as you prescribe, will result in a student who has a very different skill development curve that their trainer exhibited during the same training regime.
  

[distantfieldrelative]

You suggest that everyone is capable of doing the same as everyone else if they only put their mind to it?

The brain is directly affected by genetics and the environment.

Could Steven Hawking become a professional football player? If only he put his mind to it? No.

Could Hellen Keller devise the Theory of general relativity? No.

People have limitations, be they mental or physical.

[adodd81802]

You suggest that everyone is capable of doing the same as everyone else if they only put their mind to it?

The brain is directly affected by genetics and the environment.

Could Steven Hawking become a professional football player? If only he put his mind to it? No.

Could Hellen Keller devise the Theory of general relativity? No.

People have limitations, be they mental or physical.

I wouldn't say exactly the same and I understand your point regarding limitations. There are some abilities that require mental capacity and some abilities that require physical capacity. Some at extreme ends of the scale CAN be affected by these limitations. A lot of these limitations, particularly physical ones can be affected by gender. The strongest person is a man, the fastest runner is a man for example.

All these achievements we start to see similarities and consistencies in the type of people that match the environment. You'd never see a midget professional basketball player....

For obvious reasons Stephen Hawking couldn't in his current state become a footballer. not only because of physical disabilities but age.

Let me just clarify though what I am not talking about here is innovators, the Theory of relativity couldn't POSSIBLY be the same as somebody else because nobody else has theorized such a thing. That is a different matter altogether.

Here's where this whole thing differs though. The piano is a neutral instrument, in fact instruments in general are. A girl can pick up a piano, an old man can pick up a piano, a 7 ft Rachmaninoff or a 5ft tall Chopin and so with so much diversity I refuse to agree that there are specific requirements for what makes a great pianist.

Playing the piano, while it requires some mental capacity, it is a physical ability. and So assuming you have a functioning brain, if you can reach and octave and have 10 fingers, you can learn to play the piano.

Where mental comes into it, is actually LEARNING the piano. and that isn't making your fingers faster, or louder or softer, it's learning different motions, and being aware of those motions, it's using your ears, and adjusting the sound.

People that play the piano at a high level are not mental genius's and not necessarily have a ridiculously high IQ.

The frustration of people that try learning the piano and get stuck isn't that they cannot progress, it is that they do not know how to progress.

[outin]

But what honestly is a "gift" it's as blind as telling somebody that they have a soul? I don't honestly believe that I felt the work was easy, I just felt like I put some real thought into my practice and logically got results.

I can sketch draw portraits, that would pass off as pretty damn good portraits, I learnt to speak Polish, and in the UK i'm in the top 10% of fastest touch typers on a Qwerty keyboard... Lol none of these things are related in my mind, i've just used logical steps to achieve my goals...

We are assuming a controlled environment where EVERYBODY is being taught the same and everybody learns the same, and the problem is we don't. That's not to say there are gifted people, and none gifted people, but some people just require more input rather than being left to their own devices, and some people actually need to learn how to learn?

I understand that you were answering to the other poster who thinks some people just have it so easy...that is not very common, although SOME things do come a lot easier when you are the right type. Work is still required for mastery of course. But not as much in every case.

My point is that one does not have to deny the inequality in opportunity to conclude that we all should just work well to get the best results possible.

[adodd81802]

I understand that you were answering to the other poster who thinks some people just have it so easy...that is not very common, although SOME things do come a lot easier when you are the right type. Work is still required for mastery of course. But not as much in every case.

My point is that one does not have to deny the inequality in opportunity to conclude that we all should just work well to get the best results possible.

You make a fair point. But then what you define as opportunity? What do you define as "gift"

"gift" or "talent" is one of those mystical terms that nobody can really define when it comes to the piano?

We could point out features that give advantages and call that talent, back in another example I used basketball, and so if we said what gives you advantages you could say, being tall, being quick, jumping high etc, but what does it mean when it comes to playing the piano?

A simple-ton may say oh big hands or good hearing, perfect tone, but we know that's not the case.

[outin]

You make a fair point. But then what you define as opportunity? What do you define as "gift"

"gift" or "talent" is one of those mystical terms that nobody can really define when it comes to the piano?

To me there's nothing mystical about it and it really isn't impossible to define either, there's plenty of relevant reasearch to be used as a guide.

[reiyza]

Quote from addod.

I care about myself and I care that in 3 weeks time i'm going to give MY best performance regardless of what anybody else is playing.

Very good attitude! Well said!. Praying for your success on your performance. Do post a recording sir,


In relation to the topic, My teacher had an adult beginner just at the same age and started the same time as me, god, he gave him one piece to learn, after 4 sessions(1 session/week), the student was still unable to play the piece well. It made me think "how on earth did that guy practice to achieve so little?". It just made me sad to see him like that, Though maybe music isn't his top priority in lfe or he just doesn't have "the gift"?

[adodd81802]

Quote from addod.

Very good attitude! Well said!. Praying for your success on your performance. Do post a recording sir,


In relation to the topic, My teacher had an adult beginner just at the same age and started the same time as me, god, he gave him one piece to learn, after 4 sessions(1 session/week), the student was still unable to play the piece well. It made me think "how on earth did that guy practice to achieve so little?". It just made me sad to see him like that, Though maybe music isn't his top priority in lfe or he just doesn't have "the gift"?

And that's exactly the problem. That we DON'T know how one may practice differently, we also do not know what else they got going on.

For one reason or another, if 10 people came off the street who had never touched a piano before, had 1 lesson a week all at the same piece and went and practiced on their own, you would get different results sure, after a couple of weeks, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ones at the top of the class have "the gift" or a little bit of a "gift", there are Many aspects of life, genetics and environment that affect how we go about learning something new.

For some, the idea of learning something new can be scary, it can be difficult. for others it requires writing down and planning out their aims and goals every single lesson. for some it's  sitting at the piano and casually playing here and there.

The problem is with all these different ways, you are SURE to start to get different results. That's not down to gift, that's down to your logical ability to learn a new skill. Even your teacher doesn't know what the student does when they go home, unless they monitored every moment they sat at the piano and worked out where they were going wrong.

To me it's like the butterfly effect, it can be difficult to realise just how big the knock on effect of doing one thing wrong over and over can spiral through the rest of your ability as a pianist.

That person who "never can get it right no matter what" has NEVER gotten it right no matter what, it's not just that one piece, it's every piece, it's every time they practiced it's every frustration, every bum note that they KEEP hitting. it doesn't make them less "gifted" but without being aware of these issues and revising them, the solution never get's resolved. I agree a teacher can help there, but there has to also be a certain level of self awareness and problem solution, some actual thought into what you want to achieve and what you don't want to achieve and taking logical steps.

There are certainly natural aptitudes that lean us towards certain areas, things we enjoy more and that drive can be the boost of obsession that helps us progress further than others. The problem is the more we enjoy and become passionate and research more, we become more aware of other's abilities and naturally compare them and then the horrible path of self-destruction seems to start for some that never recovers. Hense the original start of this thread by the OP stating that "god given talent" was an easy road for those that got the luck of the draw over simple hard workers.

And I still disagree.

[outin]

The fact is though that some people do get it easier...I was a "gifted" child in something and I never had to work to be the best among my peers. I saw other kids work and still not get nearly as good results. It wasn't quite "fair" because I was really lazy... but that's how life is. When I got older I was already good and when I suddenly wanted to get even better, it just required a little bit of work. But it never felt "hard" or "impossible" to get to really high level because I had such a head start.

Then again to really understand such a complex phenomena as talent, you need to avoid thinking in absolutes. All the characteristics that together make the individual "talent" profile can be present on different levels. Together they will be an individual mix and that is the "gift" of the individual. So while it can be defined and understood to some extend, it is still individual and not similar in all the "gifted" people.

I completely agree that comparison is not useful to either the gifted or less-gifted. One should only compete with oneself.

[adodd81802]

The fact is though that some people do get it easier...I was a "gifted" child in something and I never had to work to be the best among my peers. I saw other kids work and still not get nearly as good results. It wasn't quite "fair" because I was really lazy... but that's how life is. When I got older I was already good and when I suddenly wanted to get even better, it just required a little bit of work. But it never felt "hard" or "impossible" to get to really high level because I had such a head start.

Then again to really understand such a complex phenomena as talent, you need to avoid thinking in absolutes. All the characteristics that together make the individual "talent" profile can be present on different levels. Together they will be an individual mix and that is the "gift" of the individual. So while it can be defined and understood to some extend, it is still individual and not similar in all the "gifted" people.

I completely agree that comparison is not useful to either the gifted or less-gifted. One should only compete with oneself.

We don't always agree on things, but you always make good points.

I will conclude by saying that I guess I cannot truly understand the mindset of somebody that believes they try harder than somebody else with less results, assuming their practicing is on the same levels of those that appear to progress further.

I too share your similar traits, I do feel like I truly work when learning music, but I don't find it painfully difficult or impossible. It feels very natural.

[flavenstein]

I think I can shed some light on this debate with my own experience.

When I started learning to play the piano, it was obvious that I had a fair amount of raw talent. Somehow all the notes just made sense when I tried to match the notes on the page to the ivories on the keyboard.

I knew this then so clearly and profoundly that I immediately picked up Invention no. 1 in C major written by none other than Johann Sebastian Bach. I proceeded very slowly and thoroughly at first, but as I became more comfortable and confident with my apparent gift I learned the entire piece in two. short. weeks.

Somehow the lack of challenge was unsatisfying. I needed more.

I learned the invention in every possible key. F-sharp major. G-flat major. You name it. All this while dutifully performing Hanon in its entirety at 120 mm. Now only a year and a half later I'm learning repertoire such as

Rachmaninov concerto no. 3
La campanella
Chopin Ballade no. 5
Debussy's Claire de lune sonata

I'm still not very good, as I can only play these pieces at about 80% tempo; I have the humility to see that. But I see now that to achieve this much without a teacher in only a short year cannot be talent alone. When I look back to see all the work I've put in and how much better than everyone else I've become, the correlation is obvious. With hard work you can achieve all your goals, especially those concerning the use of others' achievements as a metric for your own self-worth.

Maybe later I'll post some videos and you can see for yourself.

[adodd81802]

I think I can shed some light on this debate with my own experience.

When I started learning to play the piano, it was obvious that I had a fair amount of raw talent. Somehow all the notes just made sense when I tried to match the notes on the page to the ivories on the keyboard.

I knew this then so clearly and profoundly that I immediately picked up Invention no. 1 in C major written by none other than Johann Sebastian Bach. I proceeded very slowly and thoroughly at first, but as I became more comfortable and confident with my apparent gift I learned the entire piece in two. short. weeks.

Somehow the lack of challenge was unsatisfying. I needed more.

I learned the invention in every possible key. F-sharp major. G-flat major. You name it. All this while dutifully performing Hanon in its entirety at 120 mm. Now only a year and a half later I'm learning repertoire such as

Rachmaninov concerto no. 3
La campanella
Chopin Ballade no. 5
Debussy's Claire de lune sonata

I'm still not very good, as I can only play these pieces at about 80% tempo; I have the humility to see that. But I see now that to achieve this much without a teacher in only a short year cannot be talent alone. When I look back to see all the work I've put in and how much better than everyone else I've become, the correlation is obvious. With hard work you can achieve all your goals, especially those concerning the use of others' achievements as a metric for your own self-worth.

Maybe later I'll post some videos and you can see for yourself.

Videos would be good. Im paticularly interested in Chopin's 5th ballade....

You say you had a talent. But you've already mentioned one of the key methods of piano practice is that you practiced slowly, and yet something so obvious is not always apparent to others especially their perception of "slow"

I do however understand your idea of it just "making sense" but I would be interested in the whole "child prodigy" scenario you find many of the great pianists that debut early will tell you later that they actually hated playing the piano.

Which then makes me question whether or not it's about enjoying something or wanting to do something or whether its about having such a strict and accurate practice schedule that you progress whether you like it or not. And further more whether by chance, people can still hit that right practicing without a teacher.

The piano was invented a few hundred years ago and that same century we got the greatest pianists of their time, Liszt, Chopin, Debussy to name a few. In what genetic situation did they obtain that "raw talent" for an instrument that had only just been invented.

I don't deny similar instruments beforehand. but nothing truly like the piano.

[brogers70]

Talent matters; there are differences in innate ability. But that does not mean that hard work does not matter. Given whatever level of talent you have, you will get farther by working harder than by working less hard. And you may get farther than someone with more innate ability who works less hard. Hardworking mediocrity can often whip lazy genius.

[ajlongspiano]

I think I can shed some light on this debate with my own experience.

When I started learning to play the piano, it was obvious that I had a fair amount of raw talent. Somehow all the notes just made sense when I tried to match the notes on the page to the ivories on the keyboard.

I knew this then so clearly and profoundly that I immediately picked up Invention no. 1 in C major written by none other than Johann Sebastian Bach. I proceeded very slowly and thoroughly at first, but as I became more comfortable and confident with my apparent gift I learned the entire piece in two. short. weeks.

Somehow the lack of challenge was unsatisfying. I needed more.

I learned the invention in every possible key. F-sharp major. G-flat major. You name it. All this while dutifully performing Hanon in its entirety at 120 mm. Now only a year and a half later I'm learning repertoire such as

Rachmaninov concerto no. 3
La campanella
Chopin Ballade no. 5
Debussy's Claire de lune sonata

I'm still not very good, as I can only play these pieces at about 80% tempo; I have the humility to see that. But I see now that to achieve this much without a teacher in only a short year cannot be talent alone. When I look back to see all the work I've put in and how much better than everyone else I've become, the correlation is obvious. With hard work you can achieve all your goals, especially those concerning the use of others' achievements as a metric for your own self-worth.

Maybe later I'll post some videos and you can see for yourself.

LOL this is great. 

[adodd81802]

LOL this is great. 

I personally wasn't convinced at that mysterious 5 Chopin Ballade, but I decided to entertain the rest of the comments.

If I had a penny for every pianist that said "I can play this piece... but not at full tempo"....

[visitor]

If I had a penny for every pianist that said "I can play this piece... but not at full tempo"....

i chuckle when i read others saying this. if you cannot play the piece up to the tempo the piece calls for, then you cannot play the piece. so when they say i can play it just not up to tempo, it really equates to , i cannot play the piece . either the work is performed as the composer/score calls for it, or it's not ready. by their rationale, every time i sight read or isolate a passage when learning, i can also play the piece, i guess i can start saying when i sight read, i can play the piece, just not up to tempo, or with all the right notes, and some rhythm is off, oh some parts hands separate only, but i can play the piece. lol

[mjames]

You guys should listen to naruto
No matter how hard it is, never give up
That way you'll be able to achieve great things like he did

....

Then again he was the son of a legendary ninja and a legendary clan
Had a legendary monster inside him

.....

OK BUT IT WAS HARD WORK GUYS!!!

....

Even though he probably trained half as much as everybody else

...

Is there any shounen character you can take advice from? What about the dude frm nodame cantabile?

[adodd81802]

You guys should listen to naruto
No matter how hard it is, never give up
That way you'll be able to achieve great things like he did

....

Then again he was the son of a legendary ninja and a legendary clan
Had a legendary monster inside him

.....

OK BUT IT WAS HARD WORK GUYS!!!

....

Even though he probably trained half as much as everybody else

...

Is there any shounen character you can take advice from? What about the dude frm nodame cantabile?

I don't know about quotes, but if I could LOOK like I had as many fingers as the puppet master had puppets... Damn.

[outin]

The piano was invented a few hundred years ago and that same century we got the greatest pianists of their time, Liszt, Chopin, Debussy to name a few. In what genetic situation did they obtain that "raw talent" for an instrument that had only just been invented.

I don't deny similar instruments beforehand. but nothing truly like the piano.

Ok, now you must be joking? Don't they teach basic genetics where you come from?
We don't need specific genes for playing the piano. Pianism consists of different cognitive and physical tasks. The same skills we need for pianism are very useful in many other activities. So evolution did not have to make pianists, only make individuals that happened to be predisposed to pianism. Pianos were developed for players, not the other way round. A species with 3 hands and one leg would have made a pretty different instrument

[distantfieldrelative]

Don't be silly. Pianos are grown in Europe on large piano plantations. Why else would it take so long for one to be completed?

There is a piece called Chopins 5th ballade; however it was "interpreted" by a "psychic" from "Chopin" in a "room" for "piano". So call it whatever you "want".

[outin]

Don't be silly. Pianos are grown in Europe on large piano plantations. Why else would it take so long for one to be completed?

Please, you're not supposed to reveal the big secrets!

[reiyza]

Quote from addod.

You say you had a talent. But you've already mentioned one of the key methods of piano practice is that you practiced slowly, and yet something so obvious is not always apparent to others especially their perception of "slow"

Do you have problems with slow practice? I too have been puzzled by the statements made here in the forums regarding slow vs fast practice. I find slow practice very effective in learning the correct fingering, notes and rhythm. Of course I'm not talking about the slow practice that rachmaninoff did(holding down 1 note for 4 beats? Not sure where I read this. But it's crazy). I worked on the invention 8 and started with slow practice(Hands separate then H.T), and when I got comfortable with the piece, I began comfortably playing up to tempo. That works for me up til now.


Quote from Visitor

if you cannot play the piece up to the tempo the piece calls for, then you cannot play the piece. so when they say i can play it just not up to tempo, it really equates to , i cannot play the piece . either the work is performed as the composer/score calls for it, or it's not ready. by their rationale, every time i sight read or isolate a passage when learning, i can also play the piece, i guess i can start saying when i sight read, i can play the piece, just not up to tempo, or with all the right notes, and some rhythm is off, oh some parts hands separate only, but i can play the piece. lol

This hurts me way more than it should. If you are unable to play a piece upto tempo, you are still in the process of learning it? Even when you have had the piece memorized?(then almost 90% of the pieces I've learned, I am still in the process of learning)?

I remember glenn gould playing a slow version of mozarts rondo alla turca, does that mean he's still learning the piece? Or it's just his way of interpretation.? Getting real confused here.

[visitor]

Quote from addod.

Do you have problems with slow practice? I too have been puzzled by the statements made here in the forums regarding slow vs fast practice. I find slow practice very effective in learning the correct fingering, notes and rhythm. Of course I'm not talking about the slow practice that rachmaninoff did(holding down 1 note for 4 beats? Not sure where I read this. But it's crazy). I worked on the invention 8 and started with slow practice(Hands separate then H.T), and when I got comfortable with the piece, I began comfortably playing up to tempo. That works for me up til now.


Quote from Visitor
This hurts me way more than it should. If you are unable to play a piece upto tempo, you are still in the process of learning it? Even when you have had the piece memorized?(then almost 90% of the pieces I've learned, I am still in the process of learning)?

I remember glenn gould playing a slow version of mozarts rondo alla turca, does that mean he's still learning the piece? Or it's just his way of interpretation.? Getting real confused here.

on slow practice, it has it's place for a while, but you will not learn a fast piece properly with only slow practice, the movements can are many times are different.  there are different things at play at full speed, so fast practice when done properly after appropriate slow practice helps you get better at playing fast. slow practice is not a linear step to playing fast and playing fast well.


so couple things at play here. i'll expand a little on my remarks. they're not meant to be hurtful, they're not angry or emotional, just matter of fact statements.
tempo is usually a range but within reason (except for some modern pieces that are explicit in their calling for a very specific beat mark or pre specified range), also as time goes on practices of what a particular pace is can change, but it's within reason, but a piece marked vivace and played at a quick andante is wrong.
we are never really 'done with pieces' , there's always room to improve or expand our understanding and interpretation of it.
your remarks of interpretation have a two fold implication. 1. Glen Gould in particular did not like Mozart's music after his time in Vienna, he felt it corrupted him, he purposely took some very unconventional approaches to many pieces (and i feel , as do some other musicologists i read in the past on purposely butchered some of the works).
Glen was certainly capabale of playing the pieces at specified tempo and even faster than called for, so his technical apparatus was there but he chose for his own quirky reasons to play it slow in your example. that is different than playing it at the fastest tempo you are capable of and still getting most of it 'right' and it still being under tempo. In that case you are not done and still in a learning phase, maybe an extended or stalled out one, but likely still not done. if you get to the low end of an acceptable range that's likely fine most of the time (ie allegro is not one metronome marking, but a narrow range, then being on the low end of that accepted range is going to be acceptable in some cases).  usually it is better to learn the work at a higher end of the tempo marking/called for then when you perform the called for tempo , you are choosing to play it slower than you are capable of and are then making a choice based on the music/score and character, not a technical limitation on your part.

if 90% of the pieces you've learned by the above discussion are not there yet you are either moving on to other pieces too soon/prior to truly learning them or you are picking pieces above your level for now, or both. You can have the pieces fully  memorized, analyzed, know the history, background, etc. but it still be in learning phase. actually this is where the best and most work is done, after you have the music memorized*** and really understand it, then you are working on speed/agility, accuracy, shaping, pacing, tone production, 'color' etc. thats where your interpretative skills are developed.

***actually on the above, one of the top professors at my  old school would not even listen to you until you had the piece fully worked out and memorized (could be slower/slowish early on but students were expected to quickly bring the tempo up as needed). if a student showed up to the first lesson and could not get through the piece by memory, the lesson ended abruptly and they were told to go practice, little she would do until this pre lesson prep was done. all her students did this and they were all the as a whole the very best pianists from all students in our lot. professor was really  nice, but tough, and and a great pedagogue, here students routinely went on to be accepted to prestigious grad and artist diploma programs or festivals etc.

[adodd81802]

Quote from addod.

Do you have problems with slow practice? I too have been puzzled by the statements made here in the forums regarding slow vs fast practice. I find slow practice very effective in learning the correct fingering, notes and rhythm. Of course I'm not talking about the slow practice that rachmaninoff did(holding down 1 note for 4 beats? Not sure where I read this. But it's crazy). I worked on the invention 8 and started with slow practice(Hands separate then H.T), and when I got comfortable with the piece, I began comfortably playing up to tempo. That works for me up til now.


Quote from Visitor
This hurts me way more than it should. If you are unable to play a piece upto tempo, you are still in the process of learning it? Even when you have had the piece memorized?(then almost 90% of the pieces I've learned, I am still in the process of learning)?

I remember glenn gould playing a slow version of mozarts rondo alla turca, does that mean he's still learning the piece? Or it's just his way of interpretation.? Getting real confused here.

Visitor has covered the main points to be honest. I know the Rachmaninoff story that you're referring too, I believe it was a piece of Chopins, a particular trill that he was practicing at mega slow speed for around an hour - as the story goes.

We should understand that slow practice alone is not enough but its certainly the key early on in your piano practice.

The reason why and you have pointed out some of the obvious points such as working out fingering, notes and rhythm, but where it really counts is RIGHT at the start.

When you're learning 3rds, when you're learning note distances, when you're learning arpeggios, the practice needs to be slow because it needs to be accurate. every time its accurate you strenghthen the notions in your brain and increase your ability to maintain accuracy at faster speed.

Every single piece you learn or will ever learn, at the core, is just a combination of notes, and you can guarentee that every piece could be tore apart to different levels in which you can then find identical combinations in all pieces. If you are not accurate at the very beginning of your studies, you are making it more and more difficult for every piece you'll ever learn that has that combination of notes that you keep getting wrong.  This is why slow practice is so important.


To just reinforce visitor here. It's not paritcularly just a case of somebody saying i can play this piece but only at XX tempo. The problem is this statement is usually in combination with "i've only been playing XX amount of time AND i can play La Campenella, Islamey and Chopins Ballds.. but only at XX tempo"

You must understand the difference between being able to play at piece at speed but interpreting at a slower tempo, and not physically being able to play at speed without it falling apart.

Any basic musical education can tell you Gould was very capable at playing faster than tempo, listen to his Bach Prelude in C minor, the start is much slow than many others, and yet still very beautiful in my opinion, he still then perfectly performs the presto movement effortlessly.

Interpretation isnt about what tempo you're playing, I think the interpretation chooses the tempo, and if that tempo is not appropriate for the piece, then the interpretation would not work.

[andreslr6]

Talent is bull%$#

No human has been born, yet, knowing how to play the piano or knowing how music works or knowing at exactly what frequency does D ends and D# starts. So far, everyone who has ever lived in this planet has been born with complete zero knowledge. It's all about how our own individual brains are wired. Some have different abilities to solve problems, some can figure out more intuitively how to play an instrument, understand numbers, etc.; quoting flavenstein "Somehow all the notes just made sense when I tried to match the notes on the page to the ivories on the keyboard." That 'somehow' is what differs from person to person. And in the end, it will all be for nothing if there's no hard work involved, no matter how "talented" you are. "Talent" without work is worthless.

[briansaddleback]

"Talent" without work is worthless.

Thank you. end thread.

[pianoplunker]

I am sick of reading that Mozart wrote his first symphonies before the age of 10 and that  Mendelssohn was writing masterpiece  octets by the age 16 and that Liszt was the greatest natural pianist ever.

I want some people who worked their ass off for what they earned Not for what was given to them.
Where are the composers who were sh*t all their life and we're just average until after working for it they were geniuses.

I'm sick of the child  prodigy bullshit.

It makes me suicidal. Perhaps then my music will be enjoyed. Lol

Anyway, are there Any composers who actually had to work hard?

That censorship is funny.

It seems having a gift is actually having the gift to work hard at wjatever and succeed. Plus all the composers had to write almost everything note for note. I probably would get tendonitus trying to write all that.   I see that as hard work

[outin]

Talent is bull%$#

No human has been born, yet, knowing how to play the piano or knowing how music works or knowing at exactly what frequency does D ends and D# starts. So far, everyone who has ever lived in this planet has been born with complete zero knowledge. It's all about how our own individual brains are wired. Some have different abilities to solve problems, some can figure out more intuitively how to play an instrument, understand numbers, etc.; quoting flavenstein "Somehow all the notes just made sense when I tried to match the notes on the page to the ivories on the keyboard." That 'somehow' is what differs from person to person. And in the end, it will all be for nothing if there's no hard work involved, no matter how "talented" you are. "Talent" without work is worthless.

Which of course does not equal talent=BS as you first stated. It helps a lot in many ways. So the more you have the better, unless it makes you lazy, then it can actually be a curse

I can see two possible reasons for people to stubbornly deny the importance of talent for developing skills (in addition to simply being totally ignorant about genetics, biology and psychology). Because they had it, but don't want to admit that they might have got there a bit easier than others, so like to stress how important work is. Or they have little and don't want to admit it's important, because that would lessen their motivation to get better regardless of what they have.

[briansaddleback]

Which of course does not equal talent=BS as you first stated. It helps a lot in many ways. So the more you have the better, unless it makes you lazy, then it can actually be a curse

I can see two possible reasons for people to stubbornly deny the importance of talent for developing skills (in addition to simply being totally ignorant about genetics, biology and psychology). Because they had it, but don't want to admit that they might have got there a bit easier than others, so like to stress how important work is. Or they have little and don't want to admit it's important, because that would lessen their motivation to get better regardless of what they have.

I am pretty sure you have  tons of talent. God given. But your output whatever I have seen hasn't shown it. Why? Not enough work?

[outin]

I am pretty sure you have  tons of talent. God given. But your output whatever I have seen hasn't shown it. Why? Not enough work?

Whatever talent or lack of it I have is definitely not from any god 

[briansaddleback]

Whatever talent or lack of it I have is definitely not from any god 

There you go. You passed my 'here's a taste of your own medicine"

kudos outin, I will give you some street cred around here

[outin]

There you go. You passed my 'here's a taste of your own medicine"

kudos outin, I will give you some street cred around here

My interest in this issue is intellectual rather than emotional. If I ever felt my lack of talent was too great an obstacle for my personal goals in piano playing, I would just do something else instead of whining over it...But that is unlikely, since my personal goals seem to be adapting to the reality quite well;)

[bronnestam]

I dont' know whether I'm talented or not. I don't like to compare myself with others, and that seems to be the main issue when you talk about talent: how good are you COMPARED TO OTHERS? How fast do you learn COMPARED TO OTHERS? How much do you have to work COMPARED TO OTHERS?

The latter one seems to be the real tricky question, as it is almost impossible to know how much other persons really work - some work much more than they say, and some work much less. We all try to look at good as possible ...

[andreslr6]

how good are you COMPARED TO OTHERS? How fast do you learn COMPARED TO OTHERS? How much do you have to work COMPARED TO OTHERS?

The latter one seems to be the real tricky question, as it is almost impossible to know how much other persons really work - some work much more than they say, and some work much less. We all try to look at good as possible ...

On point. That's what people end up asking anyway since that's the practical way to measure "talent". I'm really curious to see real scientific evidence regarding musical talent.

Also, most of the time the difference is not that some work more or less, but rather some work in smarter ways than others. I've been witness of "talentless" people making much more technically and expressively than talented ones just because of the smarter ways they use to practice. Thus, once again returning to my previous point, talent without [smart] work is worthless.

[distantfieldrelative]

I don't think that science is fit for quantifying something like talent. At least not very accurately.

[outin]

I don't think that science is fit for quantifying something like talent.

It is, after you stop thinking of talent as one solid entity. When broken into its components, they can be researched, even measured. We are not talking about some mystical "musical talent" here, but playing the piano, which consists of many skills. We can easily define talent as having properties that make it easier to learn those skills to high level. The more of such properties you have the more talent you have. 

You can only research something you have defined. Many components of talent can be defined and studied (and have been), although the whole picture is complex and there are too many variables to compare two person's talent level accurately, unless the difference is so great it becomes obvious.

[mjames]

bad@ss

*agrees with above post*

[distantfieldrelative]

It is, after you stop thinking of talent as one solid entity. When broken into its components, they can be researched, even measured. We are not talking about some mystical "musical talent" here, but playing the piano, which consists of many skills. We can easily define talent as having properties that make it easier to learn those skills to high level. The more of such properties you have the more talent you have. 

You can only research something you have defined. Many components of talent can be defined and studied (and have been), although the whole picture is complex and there are too many variables to compare two person's talent level accurately, unless the difference is so great it becomes obvious.

Well said.