Is it possible for a late starter to acquire a virtuoso technique

[rovis77]

Hi, Is it possible for a late starter to acquire a virtuoso technique similar to a concert pianist with lots of hard work?

[marijn1999]

Hi, Is it possible for a late starter to acquire a virtuoso technique similar to a concert pianist with lots of hard work?

May I ask what "late" means in this particular case?

[adodd81802]

.

[worov]

May I ask what "late" means in this particular case?

+1.

There's a difference between a late starter at 20 years old and late starter at 55 years old.

[georgey]

Hi, Is it possible for a late starter to acquire a virtuoso technique similar to a concert pianist with lots of hard work?

I was a late starter at age 47 (messing around at piano) and am now more serious at age 57.  I'm going to go out on a limb and just answer this plainly:  NO, not possible.

EDIT: I mean for someone starting in their 50's

[mjames]

i am no virtuoso but I started playing around 4 years ago and am now playing stuff like chopin's op. 44 . . .which I consider to be quite difficult. I've also learnt quite a few 'grade 8' pieces too. It's no cake walk, I've had to do a lot of experimenting and butchering to find my away around an acoustic piano (electric was far easier) and for around 3 or so years I spent around 3-4hours practicing piano. I'm bit more relaxed now lol.

Was sightreading medtner's op. 5 and scriabin op. 19 and I am pretty confident I can handle it. Will think about it once I'm done tinkering with the stuff I'm focused on. I started out as a teenager though, not a 60 year old.

[georgey]

i am no virtuoso but I started playing around 4 years ago and am now playing stuff like chopin's op. 44 . . .which I consider to be quite difficult. I've also learnt quite a few 'grade 8' pieces too. It's no cake walk, I've had to do a lot of experimenting and butchering to find my away around an acoustic piano (electric was far easier) and for around 3 or so years I spent around 3-4hours practicing piano. I'm bit more relaxed now lol.

Was sightreading medtner's op. 5 and scriabin op. 19 and I am pretty confident I can handle it. Will think about it once I'm done tinkering with the stuff I'm focused on. I started out as a teenager though, not a 60 year old.

I would say you have the chance of being a world class player with enough hard work even though you started as a teenager.  I just edited my prior response to say it was not possible starting at age 50.

[mjames]

World class? Ew no. Out of my league! I do want to at least get to conservatory level by the time I'm 30. Which is pretty far away so...I got time!

[richard black]

Most virtuosi started playing (seriously) at the age of 5 or 6. Most lyrical pianists (soloists who can get round the keyboard fluently but don't have the pyrotechnics of a Horowitz or Volodos, say) started at 7 or 8. A few accompanists (professionally performing ones) started as late as 9. I'm sure someone can give the very odd example of a pianist who made a living as a performer who started at an age in double figures but they are VERY rare.

[ajlongspiano]

Yes. It just requires an immense amount of work. You have to want it with an unquantifiable level of desire. If music is something that almost never leaves your head, I'd say you have a pretty good chance at it!

Best,

AJ

[ted]

My guess is that the mental, physical and emotional effort needed would at least equal that of a pianist with a focal dystonia attempting to recover a previously brilliant technique. However, for a late starter, all the mental and physical pathways would have to be wired from scratch, as there would be no memory of past sensations to aid the process. But just as people have fought and recovered from dystonias, so we must not rule out the late starting virtuoso. It is just that the struggle is immense, requiring unceasing, almost manic determination over several years, and the life regimen and responsibilities of most older people probably imply a prohibitive time limitation. Nonetheless, I would like to think that somebody of independent means and plenty of free time could do it.

[outin]

Yes. It just requires an immense amount of work.

Plus suitable physical and mental charachteristics... which you seem to have

From all the kids who did start at 5 how many actually can become "virtuosos"? Those who won't despite being very hardworking and dedicated will gradually become aware of their inherent limitations in maybe 5 or 10 years. A late starter has it more difficult because he has to assess this without having a reference group and even for the teacher it may be difficult to see the potential behind the lack of experience normally seen with a certain developmental stage (age).

[lostinidlewonder]

If you are asking this question then you are not an autodidactic and thus you better find a good teacher who will guide you through the process. I've tested the mettle of many who imagine they can achieve it and when it comes to the crunch and hard work needs to be done, they crumble. The dream is lovely but the reality of the work crushes that rose tinted glass many look through! Are you "really" serious about it all?

From my experience teaching hundreds of students individually I can tell if a late starter will go far. If coordination is a big issue, sense of timing, beat, rhythm etc, if these foundations are a struggle to improve then acquiring a virtuoso technique is quite a fantasy. What is ones musical journey, it certainly is not always to achieve virtuoso ability, one needs much more realistic goals if they want to achieve something in this case. I've taught one student for close to 20 years now and seen him go from nothing to a fine musician but the amount of struggles we went through is immense and continuous throughout his musical journey. We build towards realistic short term goals which set up the mid term and thus long term goals start to be realised. Most haven't got the dedication to piano, they usually have a short affair for a year or so then once they become frustrated or hit plateaus to their progress they give up or happily exist within a certain level.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

"Late starter" and "virtuoso technique" are very much subject to definition. For someone starting in their twenties or later, to get to a competition-level technique really is asking an awful lot. I agree with outin that a lot of child prodigy types are sooner or later going to plateau / get disenchanted / find that it isn't really what they want to be doing with their life.

If you are asking this question then you are not an autodidactic and thus you better find a good teacher who will guide you through the process.trated or hit plateaus to their progress they give up or happily exist within a certain level.

From direct personal experience, I wasn't really an early starter - I started playing at seven but didn't have proper lessons till 11. By the time I was 16 I could play things like the Waldstein and the Chopin op.53 but in no way would I have considered myself a prodigy. Then, when many like me would have gone to music college, I didn't play piano for most of a decade and after that self-taught for a few years, so I suppose I was a late-returner, but the foundations had been formed. If I hadn't had the sense to ultimately get a proper teacher I would have in all likelihood remained at that level and ingrained bad habits even more thoroughly. My technique is now miles ahead of where it was at 16, so it certainly makes the point that technique doesn't need to be fully formed when you are young - whilst I remain conscious that it would have been harder to build technique without the foundations being acquired comparatively early on.

[georgey]

.

[lostinidlewonder]

From direct personal experience, I wasn't really an early starter - I started playing at seven but didn't have proper lessons till 11. By the time I was 16 I could play things like the Waldstein and the Chopin op.53 but in no way would I have considered myself a prodigy. Then, when many like me would have gone to music college, I didn't play piano for most of a decade and after that self-taught for a few years, so I suppose I was a late-returner, but the foundations had been formed. If I hadn't had the sense to ultimately get a proper teacher I would have in all likelihood remained at that level and ingrained bad habits even more thoroughly. My technique is now miles ahead of where it was at 16, so it certainly makes the point that technique doesn't need to be fully formed when you are young - whilst I remain conscious that it would have been harder to build technique without the foundations being acquired comparatively early on.

Someone of your standard ronde has gone through many levels of improvement and beyond what people might consider virtuosic. Being able to rattle through the Beethoven and Chopin at your younger age many would say yes, you already are a virtuoso. What is a virtuoso is very subjective and depends on peoples personal experience, for us as pianists personally it seems as we get better the bar raises for many of us as to what we believe is a virtuosic level. When I was younger everyone was such a virtuoso but now with more knowledge I see/hear things differently. I much preferred being ignorant as an observer as nowadays I don't enjoy listening to performances as much as I used to!

Certainly as we find more instances of improvement in areas we never/hardly considered we realize how much we don't know and need to improve, we realize our limitations. I don't think we ever stop improving, I don't like the idea of not having somewhere higher to go, something to improve, some practice or technical process that needs more efficiency. We should avoid becoming complacent if we want to achieve our full potential, easily said though and very difficult to follow through.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Being able to rattle through the Beethoven and Chopin at your younger age many would say yes, you already are a virtuoso. What is a virtuoso is very subjective and depends on peoples personal experience, for us as pianists personally it seems as we get better the bar raises for many of us as to what we personally believe is a virtuosic level.

Much to agree with. I would say that if being able to play such pieces is what quantifies being a virtuoso. then in reailty I think someone who starts in their twenties will often be capable of doing so given hard work. Personally I think a virtuoso is someone who can be given a very difficult piece of music and come back the next week and play it with technical command and dynamic control. This is hard enough for people who have been playing all their life, nevermind those starting at 25! "it seems as we get better the bar raises for many of us as to what we personally believe is a virtuosic level" may well contain an important truth.

[ffchopinist]

I think it depends on a few things:

1. your personal definition of "virtuoso" --- ex: being able to play fast pieces? being able to play Liszt etudes? or being able to play fast Liszt pieces faster than any professional pianist has ever played? etc.  I'm hoping your definition is one of the first 2 and not the 3rd.

2. how hard you work

3. how much time you have to practice

4. if you have an excellent teacher that you're working with

5. how dexterous you are with your hands currently outside of piano

It may be harder for someone who started later in life. However, nothing is impossible if you work for it. I say do your best, work hard, and most importantly have fun - either way, if you set a high bar for yourself, you'll make progress toward that goal and become a better musician.

[rogerbann]

Most virtuosi started playing (seriously) at the age of 5 or 6. Most lyrical pianists (soloists who can get round the keyboard fluently but don't have the pyrotechnics of a Horowitz or Volodos, say) started at 7 or 8. A few accompanists (professionally performing ones) started as late as 9. I'm sure someone can give the very odd example of a pianist who made a living as a performer who started at an age in double figures but they are VERY rare.

Hi Richard,
I find that strict division into 2-year intervals very confusing. What developmental or psychological processes would that be based on, or is it just the extra years of work added to the total?
Developing complex motor skills (in athletic terms) is usually a function of bodily scale and measures with the development level of the neural system (about 90% at the age of six). 
Later (after onset of puberty...?) the aquiring of new skill would be based on re-using and combining older motorical patterns. A large pool of skills aquired earlier and embedded in the cerebellum is a great thing BUT patterns are developed also by just listening to music, performing rhytmical movement (dancing) etc. They are not specific.
Then again: the special talent can be the person ability to combine old patterns. This type of "learning" would not be limited by developmental age ....?

[mrcreosote]

Depends where you're performing.

If it is Piano Competitions, while anything is possible, I would seriously question why any "old" person would want to do this.

If it is playing randomly, when a piano "shows up," like in a restaurant where they encourage patrons to give it a whirl, it doesn't take much to impress a lay crowd - especially since virtuosi is about he performance and wrong notes (Anton Rubenstein had lots to say about his collection of hem) is virtually a non-issue - but you have to perform and excite the crowd.

I discovered late in life that it is much more effective to sacrifice accuracy for speed - it is imperative to play your repertoire at the proper speed - other wise it simply will not work.

I have heard pianists play impeccably and totally boring and others, spectacularly with lots of wrong notes - if you can make it through Horowitz's Stars and Stripes with some feeling, it's a winner - and you can eliminate the piccolo pass and no one will be the wiser.

Remember, it's all about the performance an exciting the crowd.

[mrcreosote]

I was just thinking a "virtuoso technique" in whose eyes.