A theory

[athykay]

A piano friend and I were talking recently about genetic propensity toward piano playing.  She's a pianist as am I.  She has two daughters, and woe to her, in spite of her good hearted attempts at  teaching them and having them taught, piano never stuck.  I have two sons and a daughter.  One of my sons has fulfilled the dream all of us pianist parents undoubtedly has - a pianist that shines brighter than we ever did.  Her theory is that pianist moms seldom have pianist daughters, but very often have pianist sons.  We then knocked heads and spun off a multitude of examples to prove the point.   Other stories to prove or disprove this theory?

[Bob]

Interesting idea. 

[rhapsody in orange]

Ah well, interestingly enough, I've got friends who are brilliant pianists, and their moms are piano teachers. But since they were young they've been taking lessons from another teacher =). Their moms do teach people of that standard as well, then why not teach their own kids? 

[jlh]

Ah well, interestingly enough, I've got friends who are brilliant pianists, and their moms are piano teachers. But since they were young they've been taking lessons from another teacher =). Their moms do teach people of that standard as well, then why not teach their own kids? 

Maybe pressure from someone other than "mom" would make her kids want to practice more?

[rhapsody in orange]

I would guess so. Maybe kids would listen more to their teachers. =) Actually I was wondering if  pianist parents would have  higher expectations of their own children than the teachers would. This would probably depend a lot on the individuals though. Not a parent yet and my parents don't do music. Wondering what would the differences be, learning from a teacher and your own parents.. =)

[pianonut]

Well, I have a son and two daughters.  It is my third and last child/daughter that i hope to be a success in music with.  Both of the other two have had a few lessons, but my son is more into computers, and my middle daughter just brought home her national test score (99%) in math!  I wonder if the teachers at school get them at the best part of the day.  And, she has a great math teacher.  She often has homework for 2-3 hours after school, so I don't want to meddle (she also is in choir and goes swimming).  BUT, you know when i think is the time to teach children.  PRESCHOOL.  then you get them set in their ways (used to it all).  I'm just trying to figure out when I can have the same time every day to teach her.  Unplugging the phone helps.  And, not worrying about the house being semi messed up.  She loves doing whatever i do, and of all my kids, she sticks to me like glue.

[kaff]

Ooh, interesting!  I'm a pianist and a mother, and I have a daughter and a son, and have been observing with interest how each responds to music from an early age.  We've always had a piano in the house and there's always been music going on, so they've had similar exposure since birth.  My daughter never showed much interest in it at all as a very young child.  She's always had a bit of difficulty holding a tune - once any interval gets beyond a fourth she finds it difficult to reproduce it singing, so that if the interval is, say, a sixth or seventh, she'll sing only a fourth or fifth and the song will end up gradually descending in key.  However, when she was nearly eight she decided she wanted piano lessons, because one of her friends was learning and she thought it might be fun.  She goes to the same teacher as her friend.  She's working steadily for her teacher and is making progress and enjoying it, which I'm pleased about.  She's very good at the theory, as she's bright and learns quickly.  But she can only play what's on her sheet music - she has great difficulty picking out even simple tunes without music in front of her.  She's learning Alfred's at the moment with her teacher, and I think this method is quite good for her as it teaches chords in each key.  That means that with a bit of work and explanation, she can manage to improvise.  She can't do it at all by ear, but she can do it from her theoretical knowledge, although it's very hard work.

My son has been entirely different and it's been so interesting to watch this!  From a very early age he's been able to sing anything perfectly in tune.  He's now five, and is getting interested in the piano and asked me if I would teach him.  He can pick out tunes by ear and annoys his sister by playing her pieces although he can't read the music yet.

My son has inherited my musical abilities - I have good pitch and have been able to improvise from a very young age.  My husband is verging on tone deaf, can't reproduce a tune singing, and like my daughter can't distinguish between intervals beyond about a fourth or a fifth.  My daughter seems to have his genes!

I'm going to be so interested watching how both children progress musically as they grow.  My son seems to have more innate musical talent.  But my daughter works hard, so maybe she can turn into a reasonably competent musician because of that.  Maybe both of them will hate the piano and give up in their teens. I'll post back in 20 years with the results....


Kathryn

[rhapsody in orange]

Hello Kaff,
Yes that's interesting and I would like to know how 2 of them develop too! 

[ted]

The posts so far seem to imply that musicality at the piano is determined principally by aural acuity (recognizing and reproducing sounds) and, to a lesser extent, knowledge of theory. These things are convenient benchmarks because they are easily measured and compared. However, I think they fall a long way short of being either necessary or sufficient to define the musicality of somebody, particularly a young person. This is especially so in the areas of appreciation, composition and improvisation, that is to say the creative side of piano music. Some of the most interesting piano music I have heard has been created by people who, I am sure, would fail most of the criteria quoted above. In contrast, the spectacle of somebody very highly qualified, with a near perfect ear and tremendous technique, who cannot produce anything of his own with any originality or life seems pathetically common.

But leaving aside the creative aspect, which cannot be quantified at all and may not manifest itself early on anyway, I would still have to answer that I cannot see any correlation aside from the purely environmental to support the theory. Perhaps somebody with hundreds of students would be best qualified to pass an opinion.