Too late to start piano at age 9 or 11?

[pianoplayerstar]

Members:

I heard this one old lady say, if your kid did not start piano by age 5 (or was it 4?), then she wouldn't take them as her student.

?

. curious.

YES, it is true that a baby does develop neuron pathways much easily than those who are a lot older.. once you're too old, it's more difficult ---- NOW, I don't know if this is simply unsubstantiated Neurological studies debated over and over in the latest JAMA magazines.. but it does sound quite convincing.

-that, the younger you are, the quicker you learn a language (the LANGUAGE OF PIANO)... or simply put:  "Ya' Kant Teach 'an Ol' Dog New Tricks" [please, don't post your funny old dog doing tricks here..

So, my question to you who are CONCERT PIANISTS or who ASPIRED to-be a CONCERT PIANIST and never quite reached your goal..... when did you start the piano? 4? 5? 7? 11? or even 12?

Have there ever been a Lang Lang, Herbie Hancock, Billy Joel, Yuja Wang, Kissin who start their piano training late? .. really late? like 9? or even 12?!?!

---reason is I have NEVER heard of any Star Concert Pianist start so late... sure, there ARE those who may scrape close to a so-called "Late Start", but the only one I can think of is JOHN TESH, who in my mind was an ET entertainment reporter-turned-pianist -- I believe he started at age 6? ... if so, then that old lady up above would not take him as a pupil.

"she' got too high 'uh standards!"

PRINCIPLE:  the principle I was thinking is the speed in which a newborn baby learns a language vs. a 19 year old adult.  It would take the baby about 4-5 years to only begin learning a language.... and adult of 19, 20, or even 68 years old would learn a language probably within 1 or 2 years of living in a country.. assuming she asserted herself to learn it -- NOW HAVING SAID THIS ....

...... CAN AN OLD FOLK, EVEN A 19-YR. OLD BECOME A CONCERT PIANIST IF SHE PUT IN THE 10,000 HOURS ?[average this 19-year old would be around +8 yrs.. and he'd be 27 years old.. or a 50 yr old putting in 10,000 hours.. reasonably speaking would take around 8-14 years since he's gotta work, too = 50+14=64 yrs.. then the 64 yr old can call himself Vladimir H... or the 27 year old can compete with Lang Lang ------ WELL, YOU GET THE CONTEXT IN WHICH i'M TRYING TO POSE THIS QUESTION.

-- so with this background, now reasonbly speaking, can a KID WHO STARTS, SAY, AT AGE 12, STILL BECOME "A GREAT", OR MORE-THAN-A-TOP PIANIST....?.... NOT JUST A CONCERT PIANIST, BUT REACH STARDOM?   or do they have to get luck on America's Got Talent or X-FACTOR or some Korean Talent Show or some Thai or Singaporean type of X-Factor?

to me this is an interesting issue, because to answer this question would help parents from all over the world WHEN to start their kid with music/piano/golf/tennis/baseball... or any other career for that matter.

.. i know many of you will and may rebut EXCEPTIONS to this.. which I fully understand... but I'm not talkinga about the exceptions.. because again ------> I DON'T AND HAVE NEVER HEARD, SEEN, OR READ ABOUT A STAR CONCERT PIANIST IN THE LIMELIGHT WHO DID 'NOT' START THEIR PIANO CARERR AFTER 5 (OR 6?) YRS OF AGE..

THEY ALL STARTED VERY VERY YOUNG.. SOME EVEN TOUT TO HAVE STARTED AT 3 OR 4.. WHICH I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK MAKES A DIFFERENCE..

.. 5 IS JUST FINE.

[visitor]

yes starting young is better for most for multiple reasons.
yes people can and have reached very high having started 'late' and have lead/currently lead very successful performing, recording, and teaching careers.
10,000 hours is not causal. read the data, it is highly correlated, but the aptitude must be there and it has to do with an convergence of the data points for total average amount of hours worth of exposure and application  vs. the high level of achievement and performance observed.

[dcstudio]

I believe in the 10k hours. I think I reached that about 20 yrs ago. It doesn't automatically mean concert pianist though. It takes a serious obsession to put in that much time. To be able to practice 8 hours in a day without losing your mind is required. Sometimes I do 12 hours.  You really have to be a little crazy to even want to do this.
Starting very young is preffered  but not absolutely necessary to achieve jamming chops status.

[pianoplayerstar]

but what's considered late?

.. or is the rule AS LONG AS YOU PUT IN 10,000 HOURS ANYTIME OF YOUR LIFE, YOU WILL BE AN EXPERT------} if this is the case, then this the most enocuraging news for anyone

..meaning.. you just gotta work to get it done and become an expert

[tenk]

$^&*@

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND USING WEIRD PUNCTUATION ))(!µ}{z

==-1&#&*$@()

[pianoplayerstar]

then 10000 hours is not just a theory.. it's a fact a truth a law.. just like the law of gravity

[dcstudio]

then 10000 hours is not just a theory.. it's a fact a truth a law.. just like the law of gravity

No it is not a law. It's the approximate amount of time it took those people who have achieved piano greatness to "master" the craft.  You could conceivably spend 10k hours practicing chopsticks and you would still be no closer to piano nirvana.  

There's more to it than just practicing. Way more.

.  

[adodd81802]

It's probably also worth expanding on that this is 10k hours of improving practice.

As DC stated practicing chopsticks does not prepare you for harder music, but that improvement needs to be in every aspect of your skill.

If you try and play a hard piece and play it wrong over and over again, you're not going to master it 10k hours.

If anything the theory is misleading just as most "methods" are as they lead you to believe that you should then be prioritzing time over actual improvement with the delluded idea that wrong practice = perfect.

[dcstudio]

It's probably also worth expanding on that this is 10k hours of improving practice.

As DC stated practicing chopsticks does not prepare you for harder music, but that improvement needs to be in every aspect of your skill.

If you try and play a hard piece and play it wrong over and over again, you're not going to master it 10k hours.

If anything the theory is misleading just as most "methods" are as they lead you to believe that you should then be prioritzing time over actual improvement with the delluded idea that wrong practice = perfect.

10k hours of practice must be healthy for the hands as well or you will end up with nothing but carpal tunnel and a stiff neck.

[falala]

"10,000 hours" is utter nonsense. It was concocted as a catchy soundbite by a taking a few examples of success from the billions that exist, with no consistency whatsoever about what activity exactly is being measured, where its boundaries are or how you account for transferable skills. Or for other factors like quality of teaching and practice. Barry Tuckwell who took up the French horn age 15 and was playing professionally a year and a half later can't possibly have done 10,000 hours practice in that time. But do you count his previous experience as a chorister and pianist? And if you do, why didn't the guy who came up with it all count all the instrumental practice time of the Beatles, but only counted the amount of time they played together as a band?

The point underlying it - that it requires A LOT of work, far more than most people realise, to become expert at a complex skill like playing an instrument - is certainly valid. But the idea you can put a number even on the hours behind musical excellence, let alone the same number on learning a language or winning wimbledon, is ridiculous.

As for the questions in the OP: 4-5 is a bit extreme. I'm pretty sure there are concert pianists who didn't start till they were 6 or maybe 7-8 or so. 19? No way - noone ever took up the piano at that age and became a successful classical soloist, 10,000 hours or not. It's just not going to happen.

But then you also mentioned some jazz pianists in you post. People have become highly successful in fields like that without the extreme level of technical perfection required to be a classical soloist, and factors such as creativity and originality are relatively more important.

[pianoplayerstar]

WOW.

!!!

"falala" has hit the dot bullseye on multiple fronts.
... meaning one cannot reach star quality if one starts too late... 19 yrs old is dreaming... 6?.. maybe.... 7?... you're pushin' it...

best to start at 5 latest.

"dcstudio" also hit it by saying 10,000 hours WITH improvement ... this is the same as saying QUALITY PRACTICE... or in another way... practice and training WITH a teacher, a 3rd party who can correctly critique and nurture development.

..so it's not sheer 10,000, but that , with improvement and accuracy .

.. and then "falala" did it again...

he is saying that jazz theory can be learned fast and faster than classical.


jazz can be learned practically ANYTIME and one can be an expert.. even a true expert.. even if the Jazzist wants to enter into Pop.

classical cannot be learned and mastered anytime and overnight like jazz since classical requires much more nuance, subtleties and every other idiosyncracy.. something jazz theory does not demand, at least of the similar likes of that of classical theory and music.

ANSWER: you can't be Lang Lang if you start piano at 19... but you might be able to be billy joel if you start at 19( I still doubt this though)

BUT THEN WHAT ABOUT AGE 12?(reason: they're still young at this age although getting older)

.. what about starting at an early age and then stopping after some years of training, only to go back and learn after years of absence?

[adodd81802]

Honestly why all the questions? What is the purpose? You're like a toddler that's just learnt "what's that"

FYI this is me

.. what about starting at an early age and then stopping after some years of training, only to go back and learn after years of absence?


You may be rusty, but you will pick it up as if you had continued. Physically your body changes and so there are peak ages but we see fantastic pianists well into their 50's 60s and so if you get the initial training done within the right age, I believe you have the ability to pick it up again as if you never quit.

[pianoplayerstar]

.. but the issue is "once late... IT'S TOO LATE."

meaning, if one is 50 years old... or even 19 years old, anything but making piano a "hobby" is dreamin'... a mere fantasy... one has to sigh and say "[sigh]...[sigh again]... i guess i'll have to go back to my cubicle and keeping drilling away at these codes and do what i do best - coding......OR [sigh].... I guess i'll just continue to do my piano gigs for a mere $50 per show for a good 30 minute performance.. and keep scrounging around for gigs elsewhere and WAIT for that audience that really really appreciates my music."

.. the latter may be making just around $30,000/yr  if at that.. and maybe even $60,000/yr if they so-called 'break-through".... BUT NOTHING LIKE the $30,000,000/year many Stars make.

So there IS a "deterministic-too-bad-sort-uh" principle here, where if you DID NOT START the piano at 5, then "FUHGEDDABOUDIT" ----

.. OR is this being Too HOpeful?

.. I DO appreciate your comments, as it helps gauge whether or not PERFORMING certain pieces is doable 'if' say, 10,000 hrs are infused into practice OR whether it makes a difference WHEN a pianist began playing the piano OR whether QUALITY PRACTICE is all that is necessary.

.... a STEELY WILL is what I hear all the time to be able to PERFORM with success.. not just having start the piano at 4 years old.

[adodd81802]

I think your head needs to come back to reality man.

just for example take football (english) There is the Champions league, there is the premier league, there's league 1, league 2 etc etc they're all professional footballers and they would all wipe the floor with any casual player, but the fact is when we think of the best footballers we say Messi, we say Ronaldo, the few players that shine through.

But let's never forget at that level of playing, the margin is so small and one could honestly not put  the finger scientifically as to what gives those special players the edge.


Now let's go back to piano playing, too many people see only the best on youtube, and go "oh well i might as well not bother because I will never be as good as Horrowitz, Richter, Cziffra, Katsaris bla bla"

The fact is, like Football, like any specialized subject, sure there will only be a handful of people that truly stand out, but let's not be delluded as to not realise the 100s, the 1000s of others that make a very good living out of the same subject.

How many countries, how many cities are there in this world, do you think these handful of pianists can be everywhere, that everybody can afford to see their performances?

No, and so your aims should not be right at the top, but to keep pushing your self goal by goal and see how far you can take it.

Too many people quit before they have started because they know they don't have it in them on the basis they want the results without the work.

[bernadette60614]

I, for one, feel that I would be able to better answer questions if I knew the context:

Are you a parent who has a child whom you are hoping will become a star?

Are you adult who is wondering if it is too late for you to become a star if you start now?

Are you a neuro scientist who is gathering anecdotal evidence on learning and performance?

I did a quick google dive, and on Wikipedia there is a list of musical prodigies.  For pianists, 4 seems to be the "sweet spot" in regards to pianists (e.g., Glenn Gould) to begin their studies. 

Wikipedia will also give you an extremely long list of classical pianists.  And, I recognize only a handful of names.

It may well be that those who are considered prodigies also become stars...and that there are stars who are not prodigies.

Again, however, it would help if you could just describe your situation and the context for all these questions.

[pianoplayerstar]

Yes , 4 does sound right... Kinda like "ahead of the game" instead of starting at 5.

Ronaldo and messi I believe started really young.. Ronald is known for moderate talent with incredible work ethic = great talent

Messi is know for incredible talent and very good work ethic .. Possibly not as aggressive as RONALDO (but then again I may be wrong because it's all relative)==== great talent

Thus they both achieve great talent

Still.. Had they started at age 12, I don't think they'd be recruited by Barca or RM..

Now with performance , if someone started at 4 vs 12, the 12 yr olds brain neurons have been formed already with "other stuff" whereas the 4 yr old only has piano to start with... This is why my theory is:

THE SOONER YOU START, THE MORE EASILY YOU CAN PERFORM THE PIANO WITH LESS IF NOT ANY MISTAKES. (Remember I'm talking about huge piano concerts.. Not just small gigs)

.. Many will hope I'm wrong.. I may very well be wrong.

[mrcreosote]

Depends on the talent.

I know TWO kids that never played anything and then when they turned 16, they picked up a guitar and well within a year mastered it.  One kid could completely shred Alvin Lee's I'm Goin' Home and the other one could play anything he heard.  The first kid is a blues musician now and the second kid went from a slacker, to dating super models, and works for Trump now.

And so it is with any instrument.

The bad thing about early lessons is that you are at the mercy of your parents and teachers and in most cases, the results are lethal.  Finding the right instruction is monumental - unless, of course, you are gifted.  Then nothing stops you.

I started at 6, bad teachers, they tell me I was gifted, and the result was nothing although piano is a major part of my life and probably defines me.  I'm 63.

[dogperson]

Yes , 4 does sound right... Kinda like "ahead of the game" instead of starting at 5.

Ronaldo and messi I believe started really young.. Ronald is known for moderate talent with incredible work ethic = great talent

Messi is know for incredible talent and very good work ethic .. Possibly not as aggressive as RONALDO (but then again I may be wrong because it's all relative)==== great talent

Thus they both achieve great talent

Still.. Had they started at age 12, I don't think they'd be recruited by Barca or RM..

Now with performance , if someone started at 4 vs 12, the 12 yr olds brain neurons have been formed already with "other stuff" whereas the 4 yr old only has piano to start with... This is why my theory is:

THE SOONER YOU START, THE MORE EASILY YOU CAN PERFORM THE PIANO WITH LESS IF NOT ANY MISTAKES. (Remember I'm talking about huge piano concerts.. Not just small gigs)

.. Many will hope I'm wrong.. I may very well be wrong.

Where do you get this nonsense about performing concerts with less if not any mistakes?  every concert pianist, regardless of the age they start piano, makes mistakes.  Some of these have been relatively seamless, and some have been huge show-stoppers.

You need to stop posting these ramblings which have no basis in reality....  but just your inner ramblings about what you HOPE is right.  You have been given real-world examples previously of concert pianists and the errors that are continually made.  But yet, for the 1,000 time, you ignore all postings and all evidence....... except what is in your brain.

STOP IT!  NO ONE NEEDS TO READ YOUR RAMBLINGS WHICH ARE NOT GROUNDED IN ANY SORT OF REALITY.   If you have meds you have forgotten to take, go take them.

[dcstudio]

I, for one, feel that I would be able to better answer questions if I knew the context:

Are you a parent who has a child whom you are hoping will become a star?

Are you adult who is wondering if it is too late for you to become a star if you start now?

Are you a neuro scientist who is gathering anecdotal evidence on learning and performance?

I did a quick google dive, and on Wikipedia there is a list of musical prodigies.  For pianists, 4 seems to be the "sweet spot" in regards to pianists (e.g., Glenn Gould) to begin their studies. 

Wikipedia will also give you an extremely long list of classical pianists.  And, I recognize only a handful of names.

It may well be that those who are considered prodigies also become stars...and that there are stars who are not prodigies.

Again, however, it would help if you could just describe your situation and the context for all these questions.

I get the feeling that the OP is not new to the forum at all.  Only the account is new.  He does not seem to have the maturity to be a parent...this is about him. 

[pianoplayerstar]

sure, Joao Pires had a show stopper

Yundi Li just stopped in the middle of a performance (didn't he leave?)

.. these are different.. they still WITHSTOOD the test of their mishaps;

.. what i'm talking about is THE ABILITY TO GLOSS OVER/COVER OVER mistakes in a fast Prokofiev Toccata (which is probably easy to to do except for the true professional listener of which there are only 1 out of 500), or in a Mozart piece

Mozart - you can't really cover this up because it's so simple to listen to yet difficult to play; Schiff, the Bach specialist I believe said he used to think Mozart was a joke (or implied it?).. and now realizes what a genius this little guy was and still 'is'.

Performing a Mozart - very very tough to cover up a mistake.
___________________________________________________________  

This is important to know because if someone started piano at 9 or 11 or 14, it is possible that the brain may much easily trip up than someone who started piano a lot earlier as it may be "more" ingrained in their blood.

"mrcreosote" had some good comments too; thank you for sharing with us your history of when you started piano.

Members, as mrcreosote had shared, it elucidates the fact that to BECOME A CONCERT PIANIST of the likes of the Kissins and all, one MUST start early .. bar none [ i know this bothers many of you, as I'm speaking too deterministically... but remember there are MANY EXCEPTIONS.. and "you" can be that exception too! Go!}

mrcreosote refers to other who started music late; with guitar however, it is a lot easier than piano; i've heard many pick up guitar and become very good, but not the best

GUITAR - this is an instrument where starting at age 4 is not necessary: i don't know why.. whether or not it's the simplicity of the chords.. i don't know

...... i know that Clapton started i believe well into his teenage years (was it 16 or 17? or 15?) and just look at him now -- however, he's not a Classicist.. HE'S A JAZZIST/JAZZER.

This is the point, to be able to PLAY AND PERFORM THE PIANO at an early age for CLASSICAL MUSIC is C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E-L-Y Necessary

With JAZZ - it can be started anytime.. because it's fun!

Classical - this is serious serious business (not $ commercial business per se), meaning, there's no foolin' around with this stuff.... it's total straight-laced (at least initially for serious classical pianists) ..... improv comes laters.. if you're a Classicist, you've gotta put in the sweat and hours and pay your dues.. and maybe even tears and rear-end flattening on the bench for hours on end before you can fool-around/improv/ and do other 'fun' things -- THIS IS SIMPLISTIC THINKING, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN

.....( .. by the way, i didn't change the subject.. [i don't know how to ]... i believe the Moderator did this without my knowing]

So is starting at age 9 or even 11 late?
ANS:  Yes.
ANS:  No, "if" you don't quite care about becoming "THE" #1... if you don't care about Stardom

[themeandvariation]

PPS you say:
" very important themes in our piano playing "..
In 'Our' piano playing?.. Inclusive of You, one must deduce!

PROVE IT.

Prove that you actually have experience with playing by Posting A Recording!

If you don't, i would posit that all of your posts are tainted with disingenuousness, as well as a labyrinth of confused thinking.



(i suspect you'll breeze over this, as you are not really even having a conversation.. )

Post a recording --  or just STOP!    STOP!

[pianoplayerstar]

i saw this online

-- 8 yrs old appears to be the implied cutoff

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR READINESS
The best time to start piano lessons will be different for every child, but most will be ready between the ages of 5 1/2 to 8 years old.

====> https://www.hoffmanacademy.com/blog/best-age-to-begin-piano-lessons/

[visitor]

(i suspect you'll breeze over this, as you are not really even having a conversation.. )

[pianoplayerstar]

.. there's a reason why many say to start early.. and this is the reason.

starting to groom a student at 9 is just too late... but it depends on the parent in terms of WHAT KIND OF PERFORMING she want the little girl to do when the little girl grows up.

... it's popular thought that we should LET OUR KIDS DO WHAT THEY LIKE BEST AND LET THE KID DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS AT ANY AGE.

... while other parents will think (but will not say or reiterate, because it's not pc): "my kid depends on me; i have to create a path for her whether she knows it or not; i must control, manage, direct, nurture, love, and balance my little girl/son's path... AND THEN LATER AND ONLY LATER will I think of letting her fly.. but not now ---- "phooey, to those people who think they should let all kids fly and become independent asap.... they don't even know my child.. they don't even know other children.... i mean who do they think they are to JUDGE other people's children based on WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT?!"

.. this is a bit of an interesting topic.

[mjames]

I've been playing for four years now, started when I was 16. Until June I was mostly self-taught and when I began taking lessons I was afraid I'd have to start all over again (self taught usually get terrible habits) and luckily enough I was told that I already had a solid foundation. Guess being careful helped out.

Right now I can confidently play Chopin's polonaise op. 44 [though it still needs a bit more work, but w/e I'll worry about that later in the year] and that's considered to be an 8+ piece. I've worked on a few other 8+ pieces too [a schubert sonata for ie] but I've spent the majority of my time playing 6-8 level pieces. First year I started playing I was butchering them, now I can play them properly. Currently working on various grade 6-8 level pieces, and one 8+ which is Chopin's rondo al mazur.

Sure I'm no Yundi Li or whatever, and I have no intentions to be one, I just want to tell people that it's possible for you to play difficult pieces even if you're a later starter with no prior musical experiences.

Don't let aholes like pianoplayerstar discourage you.

[pjjslp]

.. this is a bit of an interesting topic.

No, it's not. At least not the way you approach it. Your posts make absolutely no sense!

[ilovepianoxd]

No I think this age is alright. You just need to practise more. Practice makes perfect. Add oil!:)

[pianoplayerstar]

the intention is not to offend, but perhaps to instigate thought and discussion about this age.

someone mentioned they started at age 16 or so - great job! keep up the good work.. work hard and it'll bring great results.

... what i'm trying to express here is that someone who starts late like age 9 or 11 or even 15, and thinks they can be a horowitz is dreamin'.... however, to think that they can become 'good' is very attainable, so long as they work hard.... actually, it's not really dreamin if you get the BEST teachers, and really work hard.. it may just take longer.. but you'll have to do some serious work on lost time.

.. i understand it is quite bothersome to hear the TRUTH that if you have a love of say golf at age 14 or so and begin to play 8 hours/day... this will NOT amount to someone who started at age 4.

WHY ?!  
ANSWER:  Why should it?

FOLLOW UP ANSWER:  ... because why should someone who started piano at age 4, who played everyday be at the same level as someone who started at age 12? that's 8 years of LOST TIME If you will... to think that someone starting themselves or their child at age 12, thinking they can COMPETE with the 4 year-old [who may nOW BE 12]... IS dreaming.... hOWEVER, Dreams Can Come True, I must say.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I'm SURE MANY or [ALL] will agree with me that a 12 year old pianist who just took it up, vs. a 4 yr. old who ARE BOTH NOW 15 YEARS OLD.... are in totally different states of mind and worlds... the 12 yr old who has been practicing for now 3 years, even 8 or 9 hours a day, will not and cannot even THINK about getting up the 4 yr.old-starting child [who may also be now 15]... IMPOSSIBLE.

YES, this is quite bothersome to many to hear.  I'm not talking about just the SHEER ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC, I'm talking about SERIOUS CONCERT PIANIST.

.. Now here is the silver lining:  The now-15 year old CAN perhaps reach the 4-yr old littel girl/boy who is also now 15 (although very very difficult), after someon time.. there are a lot of factors.


.. every personality is different.. .. if the 4-year [now 15] is the lazy type, or has a personality of apathy.... like the tortoise and the hare, she may play the hare.

.... the 12 year old [now 15] may be playing the tortoise, and may well catch up to the little girl/boy within 10 years... but it would require a lot of time.

This topic/thread is NOT ABOUT THE SHEER ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC/PIANO for "fun".
This thread is ABOUT PROFESSIONAL CONCERT PIANIST level - "Can a 9 or 11 yr. old become a highly acclaimed Professional Concert Pianist?" ----> a tough, and difficult question [actually, it's an easy question to answer] to answer, WITH A QUALIFICATION.

So, if you started at 10 or 15 or even 20 years, old, do you want to get good?  SURE YOU CAN?
.. but can you play at the CONCERT PIANIST LEVEL?  Yes!  But it will be difficult... MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN HAD YOU STARTED WHEN YOU WERE A LOT YOUNGER


.. I dont' know if there is a science to this, but i'm sure all the 4-year old starters would agree with me ... AND SOME [they just won't admit it or would wna to comment on it]....

THE HOPE:  if you started late [whatever "late" is].. i belive you can become a concert pianist if you read literature, get good lessons from the best teachers, and practice practice practice.... I'm guessing at least 4 hours a day (but how are you going to keep your day job?)... AT LEAST..... because trying to catch up will require a good 8 hour day.... THE MATH OF TIME AND PRACTICE does not discriminate.. in general.... but if you PRACTICE SMART AND EFFECTIVELY AND PURPOSELY.. 2 HOURS OR 4 HOURS OF PURPOSEFUL PRACTICE in my opinion is better than mindless hitting of the keys for 8 hours a day.

...YES, YOU CAN DO IT!

[flashyfingers]

So is starting at age 9 or even 11 late?
ANS:  Yes.
ANS:  No, "if" you don't quite care about becoming "THE" #1... if you don't care about Stardom

Do you know how many people have their entire careers ahead of them...little 14 year old girls playing piano with technique on youtube, (same etude i just started learning and i'm in college, turning 25...lololol)

I don't feel bad tho, because she isn't going to be famous either. You know why? Because people don't become famous at the age of 12, typically. Never forget Richter, auditioning to the Moscow conservatory in his 20's, first debut at 25, recorded the WTC I&II at age of 40 or 50 yrs of age...

None of us will ever play as much rep as he did, but what about Michelangeli, the olympic skier? Small repertoire.

I say, f*** the odds. The odds are against me, so I have nothing to lose. I'm literally the worst pianist on earth right now, so nowhere to go but up.

It is what it is. There are always disadvantages an advantages. I refuse to believe that starting as an adult only has disadvantages. (Not that I literally started as an adult, I've played piano before and read music fairly well, but never practiced a day in my life until I was 20.) There cannot be only disadvantages, at any age. Where there is disadvantage, find advantages!!!!

[mousemat]

I hope not as I was 64 when I took it up.

Tip: avoid stupid teachers! It depends on if you intend becoming a world famous concert pianist or just if you just want to enjoy the music or the 1000 other reasons for playing any instrument. I take a dislike to closed minded individuals very quickly and my philosophy on life is just to avoid them as  I find they contribute nothing worthwhile but can really be a great drain on people.

Mousemat

[nocturne518]

I'm 18, is it too late for me to study piano?

[adodd81802]

Not too late now, but just never expect to find it a breeze, and don't plan on going professional.

[bronnestam]

I'm 18, is it too late for me to study piano?

Of course not, just start. This whole discussion is soooo ridiculous. First we have a myth saying you cannot get anywhere if you start "too late", that is, after you are out of your dipers. Then we have the triumphant exclamation "the proof is that there are no exceptions to this rule, or at least too few exceptions to be relevant".

Okay. What about this: the real reason there are so few exceptions is not a proof that the myth is true, but it it the myth's FAULT. People never become better than they think they will.
If you don't believe me, then tell me why there are so many young kids who excel at piano playing when they are 8 and work hard even after and still not become famous concert pianists? According to the myth, this should be impossible. Well, I'll tell you what happens: either they get tired of the whole sh*t when they grow up and launch another career instead, or they work as ... concert pianists. Because most concert pianists don't become world-wide famous. Just like if you study computer engineering and design, this will probably give you a good job, but there is no guarantee that you will become the next Bill Gates or Steve Wozniac.
 
Make a distinction between fame and profession here, please. Yes, you can study piano playing and you can get an education to a concert pianist if you work diligently and have a bit of luck too.  But this does not automatically mean that the agents are fighting over you and that you will be most wanted for the next big event in Royal Albert Hall or Carneige Hall. Or that you will be treated like a rock star in every country you visit and will be fronting every music magazine and be added to every stupid "Top 10 pianist list" poll in every piano forum ... Not even that you will be mentioned in any music dictionary even long after your death.

The harsh truth is that even awfully good concert pianists often have to struggle in these days to get gigs. And they often have to play for half-empty concert halls, and they have to give lessons - sometimes more than they would like to, and they have to pay for their own recordings just like the rest of us, and they don't make more money than most of us, and they simply have to accept many jobs that are not that glamorous and fancy.  AND even if they are successful in their own countries, this does not mean they are known all over the world. I can mention a lot of terrific pianists from Scandinavia that you outside Scandinavia know very little about. You can mention 100 terrific Chinese pianists who are not Yuija Wang or Lang-Lang but probably just as good, and I have not heard about them either.
But you know, this does not mean they don't exist and that they are not good.

So just start playing the piano and let the sky be your limit, and don't worry about your age.

[bernadette60614]

PP raises a good point. The life of a professional musician is not a glamorous one.

My teacher, who has a Masters' in piano performance with honors teaches 46 students a week (many children), practices 5 hours a day, gigs as a page turner for performers (I'm in Chicago, so CSO soloists), and performs in smaller venues.

Recently, I commented that I was impressed by her self-discipline. She replied that she was looking forward to Columbus Day so she didn't have to teach and could stay up till 10:30 p.m. the preceding night. My comment was made in August...there is that much discipline involved in this life.

I, like many people, imagined that the life of a musician was all about passion, glamour and inspiration.  There is that, but I think what we don't see under all the glitz in the honors of hard work alone in a practice room.  It is way more like being a professional ballerina...hours of grueling practice, and few ever perform as the prima ballerina, and many are thrilled just to work hours each day to get time on stage.

[mjames]

I'm 18, is it too late for me to study piano?

Too late for what? Just know your skill level and progress APPROPRIATELY. Don't be like one of those idiots that go from learning a Bach invention to learning Ravel's Scarbo and quit because of frustration, lack of motivation (I'm not talented, it's too late for me!), and so on. Not realizing that making nonsensical leaps like that is stupid from the get go.

I'm an adult learner like you, I actually started a little bit younger than you but still considered a "late-comer." However I've been very consistent with my practice, I have taken a few leaps of faith but I still play pieces according to my level. Initially self-taught but I am now playing some pretty difficult pieces with guidance! In 4 years of playing I am now learning stuff like Chopin's rondo and a Liszt etude! I am certainly not special and I still have a lot of things to improve and fix - but I think I am doing fine. If an average joe like me can do that in a short amount of time, then so can you. Just remember, learn things properly. If you don't pay attention technique you will suffer later on it might cause you to quit. It's something that happens with a lot of self-taught adult learners.

By the way, Glazunov started at 9 and later became a child prodigy. This thread is stupid, don't listen to them. 

 

[beethovenfan01]

I'm sixteen ... I started at eight. Did piano for about year, very non-seriously. Stopped for a couple years, convinced I wasn't musical. Then I started again at twelve. I only practiced thirty-minutes a day, ish. Then at fourteen, I really fell in love with music. Now I practice two--plus hours a day, when I can. At only about four/five years of playing, not all of it really learning, I've learned Chopin's Nocturnes Op. 48 No. 1 in C minor and C-sharp Op. posthumous, the Rachmaninoff Prelude in C-sharp Minor, and I'm currently working a number of like pieces (like Debussy's Girl with the Flaxen Hair, Chopin's A major Polonaise, the Larghetto from Chopin's F minor Concerto), and I fantasize about playing more advanced work a year or two in the future (Chopin's Ballades, C minor Polonaise, Etudes, Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, Beethoven's Appasionata and Waldstein Sonatas, etc.).

I'm hoping to go to the International Chopin competition in 2020.

The key to starting later is practice!

Don't burn yourself out. Set a goal and work towards it. It took me six months to finish the C minor Nocturne. In the future, like pieces will take shorter periods of time to learn, as you gain more experience ... it's like a snowball. Music begets music. Like mjames said, it only a matter of time before you will start learning the big pieces, the "cross on top of the cathedral" as my teacher has called it. Don't rush the small foundational things (like I was and still am tempted to do with the Bach Inventions), but always look forward to your goals.

And don't start to get serious about music before you're ready!!! Some people do start pining for classical music at four. They will get lots out of piano lessons from an early age.

At four, was I interested in becoming Mozart?

No. I was nuts about trains, planes, and automobiles, like most little boys. I would have gotten absolutely nothing out of piano lessons by starting early. Even at eight, I wasn't ready. At twelve, I was, kind of. At fourteen, I definitely was. You start when you're ready to go down that long, hard path that will take you to someplace you can't even imagine.

[louispodesta]

I, for one, feel that I would be able to better answer questions if I knew the context:

Are you a parent who has a child whom you are hoping will become a star?

Are you adult who is wondering if it is too late for you to become a star if you start now?

Are you a neuro scientist who is gathering anecdotal evidence on learning and performance?

I did a quick google dive, and on Wikipedia there is a list of musical prodigies.  For pianists, 4 seems to be the "sweet spot" in regards to pianists (e.g., Glenn Gould) to begin their studies. 

Wikipedia will also give you an extremely long list of classical pianists.  And, I recognize only a handful of names.

It may well be that those who are considered prodigies also become stars...and that there are stars who are not prodigies.

Again, however, it would help if you could just describe your situation and the context for all these questions.

Once again, the voice of experience and reason avails itself to this website.  Good job!

Now then, has anyone ever heard of the late Dorothy Taubman, who when asked about this traditional theory of pedagogy, responded in the negative.  Her protégé, Edna Golandsky, has never contradicted this, and instead focuses on what can be accomplished by each individual pianist.

Further, my coach, Dr. Thomas Mark, "What Every Pianist Needs To Know About The Body," teaches a whole body approach for "adult" bodies!

As a pianist/philosopher (just like Dr. Thomas Mark), I consider it pure idiocy to seriously discuss what is not only physically impossible, but what is also not neurobiologically impossible.  Physically, the human body does not attain mature muscle-skeleton maturation until the age of 27 (ask a Chiropractor or an MD Orthopaedist).

Never mind that a five year old cannot reach the pedals and has to play everything at the keyboard with an up an down motion with their shoulders.  There is absolutely no way she/he can effectuate a normal adult whole body weight/choreography at this young age.

Isn't it funny that the "Powers That Be" designed us to see to it that our brains and bodies kick in at the same time.

And, that age is not four or five.  So, why do all piano teachers recommend this?

Figure it out!

[tenk]

Blah blah Dorothy Taubman blah blah my coach Dr. Thomas Mark blah blah pianist/philosopher blah blah..

Louis if you're interested I'll write a Python script to auto-generate and post responses (like this one) for you on the forum. Would save you the trouble of having to write the same thing in every thread, and would save everyone else the time of figuring out you're a charlatan hack.

[debussychopin]

It'll be too late to start if all you do is just spend time on the internet asking strangers and just wishing and dreaming and regretting. 

[debussychopin]

and would save everyone else the time of figuring out you're a charlatan hack.

Sorry but it doesn't take too much time to figure that out by anyone. 

[louispodesta]

Depends on the talent.

I know TWO kids that never played anything and then when they turned 16, they picked up a guitar and well within a year mastered it.  One kid could completely shred Alvin Lee's I'm Goin' Home and the other one could play anything he heard.  The first kid is a blues musician now and the second kid went from a slacker, to dating super models, and works for Trump now.

And so it is with any instrument.

The bad thing about early lessons is that you are at the mercy of your parents and teachers and in most cases, the results are lethal.  Finding the right instruction is monumental - unless, of course, you are gifted.  Then nothing stops you.

I started at 6, bad teachers, they tell me I was gifted, and the result was nothing although piano is a major part of my life and probably defines me.  I'm 63.

Once again, we are presented with a logical well-thought response.  Thank you very much.

And what is also tangentially referenced, is the universal confidence game played by all of the so-called great piano teachers of this world.  That is the effectuation and optimization (taking advantage) of a particular student's natural ability, AKA one with large hands and fingers, who can reach a tenth by just opening their hand.

Per the OP, most piano teachers go through the motions and regurgitate what they were taught themselves by their teacher, and then pass it onto the next generations.  They don't even remotely associate with Taubman/Golandsky/Mark or even Alan Frazier because "THEIR TEACHER" would not approve and then stop sending them "beginning" students.  It is just that simple!

Now OP, are you starting to get the picture associated with the approximately 200,000 so-called piano teachers in the U.S., with their 2 to 3 million (nine and ten year-old) students?  And, most importantly, most of whom (Louis Podesta included) quit after two to three years.

My video is entitled "Your Piano Teacher Taught You Wrong."  It should be entitled:  Your Piano Teacher Ripped You Off."

[debussychopin]

^ I just read the quote above about how one's children "mastered" the guitar in one year. Perhaps can finger a few songs im sure..but..  Including that, the rest I take it pretty is safe to say whoever replied that, loves to talk hyperbole about their children. Amusing. Will keep that in mind going forward.

[mrcreosote]

ABSOLUTELY NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!

I know of 2 ordinary (actually kind of slacker-ish)  kids that at 16, within a year, became self taught shredding guitar virtuosos - like nailing Alvin Lee's I'm Going Home.

And then there is Einstein.

And then, of course, there are those that will never get it no matter how young they would have started.