YES, it's a myth. Let's go by our individual experiences - which we can only do if we reach such ages - because we are individuals. I am learning faster, and there are a few reasons for that.
I'll be 70 in a couple of months. I learn and achieve faster because I have a handle on efficient learning and doing which I didn't have when I was in my 20s and earlier. Without that, I would be "as fast". There are some physical setbacks. That means learning to use one's body efficiently at the instrument, and possibly correcting poor habits in everyday life (Feldenkrais, Alexander, Dr. Osar) is a good thing to do. I learned my 5th or 6th language a decade ago, and have dabbled with the 6th or 7th now.There is a danger to this belief in "decline" - it is a psychological detriment. That goes to any blanket statement about supposed weaknesses of any group - history bears it out. We are individuals with individual makeups. What is an idle curiosity when you're in your thirties, is something different at a later age. Then it becomes a belief about yourself.
IMO, when you are older you learn something really new much slower (and sometimes you may even fail), but you would learn a new piece faster if there are no new cognitive or technical/physiological challenges involved. Just because this would be just a repetition of a process you did thousands time before.But it would be harder, or even sometimes impossible to learn, say, complex polyrhythm (cognitive challenge) or tremolo (physiological one) in an older age if you never played them before. Or to start playing with orchestra.But learning a new waltz, a twenty third in your career? Piece of cake!When you are older you recognize and employ well remembered patterns easily, but it is harder to learn new ones.P.S. Just look at "conservatism" where, say, new music is criticized by older generations as something wrong, terrible, inappropriate, etc. Because it goes against well established patterns all their experience was built on. But when you are young you just easily absorb these new patterns and add them to your universe.
IMO, when you are older you learn something really new much slower ....
But it would be harder, or even sometimes impossible to learn, say, complex polyrhythm (cognitive challenge) or tremolo (physiological one) in an older age if you never played them before.
When you are older you recognize and employ well remembered patterns easily, but it is harder to learn new ones.
P.S. Just look at "conservatism" where, say, new music is criticized by older generations as something wrong, terrible, inappropriate, etc. Because it goes against well established patterns all their experience was built on. But when you are young you just easily absorb these new patterns and add them to your universe.
I'm in my early 70s.I learn just as fast.But forgetting is the problem. I forget much faster, sometimes so fast I have to relearn every time.
I've taught a number of people 70+, even more 60+, and one that was 90+. We must treat everyone as individual. ..........
I'm not sure I'd limit it that way. I started piano at 40, gave my first recital (small, of course) at 60, and it's only at 65 that I've gotten fast, smooth scales and trills. The advantages of age are motivation (Time's winged chariot hurrying near), nothing left to lose, and plenty of experience figuring out how to learn new skills. You never know what you can learn until you try, and I think it's always a bad idea to assume it's just going to be too hard at this age or any age.
I dislike all general statements of this kind, encompassing all people in a given group. You may say "As I got older ...." or "friends told me that as they got older ...." I do not learn "slower" and definitely not "much slower". I know a few people on either side of 80 (i.e. older than me) who also do not have that experience.In fact, I went after polyrhythm for the first time two years ago, starting with 2 against 3 and vice versa, and then expanding to 3 against 4. I will be going on to more complex ones. Tremolo for the first time also two years ago. The deciding factor was approach each time, and along the way there were some bad ones or ones that didn't work - then other approaches that did work.If that were actually true, then I should give up right now and not touch music again, because it is precisely new patterns, new skills, and new ways that interest me and keeps me going.Also a stereotype, going two ways. There are "conservative" (close-minded) young people, and there are curious, open-minded, experimental old people.The worst thing, when you are a student, is being pigeon-holed by a teacher according to what "your kind" is like, wants to learn, is capable of etc., and teaching accordingly. We are individuals.
I've taught a number of people 70+, even more 60+, and one that was 90+. We must treat everyone as individual. The 90-year-old I taught actually learned lots of new subjects even at her late age. She studied languages, participated in different exercise courses, learned new arts and craft and probably more skills she did tell me about! She actively engaged her brain to learn new things and she thoroughly enjoyed it. How did she do in piano? I wouldn't say that much worse than beginners I've taught in the past, she played simple tunes with two hands and was content.I currently teach two over 70s, one is better than the other but both do well and enjoy their work and progress. Would it have been faster if they were younger? Perhaps but it's impossible to tell really.I taught many years ago a lady in her 60s who never played piano before and within a year or two she was playing at diploma levels playing works like Chopin concertos and mid/late Beethoven sonatas! She was a super talent where age did not restrict her. She even took up drawing and painting and did photo realistic works!So we need to take each person individually and I don't think that speed but the journey has really much relevance. From my experience coming across young children who are super interested and dedicated to piano is a rarity, older adults with longer-term motivation to learn piano tend to be more common by comparison.
Do you find yourself learning faster now than 25 years ago when you started piano?
Absolutely; I learn much faster now than I did when I started. I have much better ideas about how to practice efficiently, I've solved a lot of problems with my technique that were holding me back and slowing me down, I've a better kinesthetic sense of how the keyboard lies and where all the notes are, I've hard some years now working on sight reading. It's definitely faster and easier for me to learn new music than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
It is great to know that you learn faster now at 65 than in your younger days applying more efficient practice methods. Do you still memorize as good as in your younger days?
Thank you for this, and everything after.It is refreshing to hear from someone who has worked with people, rather than read theoretical ideas about people.
Nice post!. So can we assume that someone who has been playing the piano for many years can still learn as fast in old age compared to when he was young?
Certainly I think actual experience with many people can give a different perspective. Many studies don't have a large sample space so you'll get bias, I'm sure if my sample space was different I might have come to different conclusions but I think that individuality in students remains quite consistent even as one ages. Sure I've taught older students who absolutely struggle, those have almost always been those who never had any music skills taught to them during their early childhood development like clapping beats, singing etc. Overall though I've seen older students thrive and enjoy the challenges faced, something all musicians face as well no matter the age.This kind of question is relative to the individual. Personally I learn faster than when I was younger but that's because I've trained my learning skills and improved them over many years. I have several students I've taught 20+ years, most have improved their rate more so than those who have slowed down. There are many factors that can contribute to this, one of my 70 year old students learns slower due to emotional challenges increasing, loss of spouse, family affairs etc. These of course all impact upon one's ability to learn with freedom of thought which I think is necessary for efficient learning. It can be frustrating if one feels like they slow down. It is noticeable in disciplines such as chess that the huge amount time to study because difficult to maintain at older ages. We have to realise that our world view also changes as we age, being competitive at a younger age might fall away as you age, being content with what you have might become stronger as you age and realise what loss really is like. I think those who study piano for most of their waking hours every day for their whole life really are missing out on what life really is about, that might sound strange coming from a professional musician but I really think we should live a balanced life and not be obsessed with one thing or the other. As one ages I think this becomes clearer and although it may seem we work slower it really is a life style choice. One of my 70+ year old students studies piano at least 3 hours a day, that's quite an amount that even younger pianists might struggle to maintain. But he loves doing that, it's fine for him, he displays more discipline and focus than many younger than himself and thus learns at a good rate. I couldn't imagine doing 9 hours a day every day like I did when I was studying piano "seriosuly", it's a waste of life. There's a saying in chess, I forgot who said it but it runs along the lines of " A good chess player is a gentleman, a grandmaster of chess is a wasted life". I think the same holds true for masters of piano, when I look back at it probably I wasted much of my life sitting in front of the 88 keys, I'd likely do it again if I lived my life over but the opportunity cost when pondered over can be frightening.Sure a dedication to something might be a personal choice in itself too! So those who really want to pour their entire life into one interest should do so. Personally I think life has more to offer than that.
I did not know that you were a professional pianist. What was your practicing schedule back then?
What methods did you employed to learn a lot faster this days compared to when you were young. Thanks for your great advice in each post you share with us.
I had different periods of study when I was younger so it is not just a single way. During my more serious periods I was doing some 9 hours per day for several months, then around 3-5 hours. When I started teaching more full time my own personal practice went to around 0-3 hours a day, but teaching can be practice in itself. The synergy between sight reading and memorization has improved considerably over the years. I wouldn't say my reading skills are at a super powerful level but I can play the majority of repertoire at slower tempos without problem which allows me to get my hands around pieces and naturally memorize them and become faster through multiple reads. When I was younger it was more of a step by step memorisation process since my reading skills were not as strong. Today I can play plenty of music at tempo with full expression with zero practice, just using sight reading skills which is empowering. Also I think reading skills can exist undisturbed far into late age (given your vision allows you to still read), there is a case this man here below who can still sight read even after suffering an extreme condition of the brain.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing
What is your age?, I haven't asked that
. Do you find it easier to memorize with strong sight reading skills than without them?.
What does that matter? You can look at my profile.If you read my previous response I've answered that.
It is actually very, very complicated and highly individual, and much more a matter of type than degree. Do I have the same intensity, drive and obsession at seventy-six that I had for piano playing, music, sports and mathematics fifty years ago ? No, not in the sense of the narrowly directed passion and determination needed to learn and excel in these pursuits; but then excelling and linear comparison and competition of any sort have become grotesquely irrelevant to me anyway
The original question is easy to answer personally. I am lucky and grateful that my memory, mental acuity and, more strangely perhaps, physical technique, seem to be better than they were in my twenties, with far less time and effort and virtually no practice. I do spend and hour or two at the instrument most days but it's close to 95% improvisation and recording, that is to say creation.
There is also a deeper moral aspect to all this which, to my detriment, I did not perceive when younger. I am not a good enough creator or player to allow my musical obsession to impede the lives of my family beyond a reasonable level, and even if I were I doubt moral justification exists for doing so. In the end goodness is more important than beauty.
So yes, in the absence of medical causes it is a myth and a most destructive one, but the deeper implications of the question deserve thought.
Is it a myth that as one ages one tends to learn slower or this is just a myth?. I read posts of people saying that they even learn music a lot faster when they are older compared to when they are younger. I would like to hear opinions.
...., is that aging might make improving sightreading more difficult. ....
Did the author of that book teach reading music, and specialize in it? My sight reading and my reading skills have improved exponentially. The teacher I study with makes reading skills a priority for all students, and I've not been told of any such problems among older students.
One item, unrelated at first glance: 10,000 hour meme. He cited a study of chess players learning masters level skills, which involves memorizing about 300,000 chunks of positions. They took an average of 11,500 hours, which would seem to support the Gladwell and Erickson statements. But he points out Great sightreaders don't read note by note, they recognize chunks like the chess players do. (Grandmasters level chess players can completely reproduce a chess board layout from a 3 second glance, as long as it's from a game. With random layouts they do no better than the rest of us.)
I don't have time to respond to everything but this here is quite a bit of misinformation by the source of your info. I'm good at chess but far away from being a grandmaster let alone an international master and I can reproduce by glance any position. Magnus Carlsen and many other GMs can play many multiple boards blindfold, so reproducing a position even if random would be absolutely child's play for them.300k positions memorised is totally unnecessary too, that would be akin to sight reading note by note.
I think sight reading difficulty mostly lies in being able to retrieve patterns from memory. .....
Quote Did the author of that book teach reading music, and specialize in it? My sight reading and my reading skills have improved exponentially. The teacher I study with makes reading skills a priority for all students, and I've not been told of any such problems among older students. Ah. But are your memorization skills improving? No, the book isn't on music, it's on sports.
The difference between random positions and positions from a game is analogous to the difference between random notes on a score and an excerpt from a (pre-20th century) piece. For the same number of notes, it's a lot easier to sight read or memorize the latter. My understanding is that grandmasters remember positions by chunking (such and such a pawn structure, parallel rooks, threat to a piece, similarity to a game they remember, etc) just as musicians chunk (circle of fifths progression over an Alberti bass) rather than reading or remembering individual notes.
Glancing skill for sight reading to allow a persistence of what you see in the mind is certainly trainable.
Could you explain how this could be trained? I think that would be really useful.
There are lots more papers. It does look like the basic finding that the difference between the ability of masters and novices to recall positions at a glance is much greater when the positions are taken from actual games versus random positions (with the random positions generated as described in the papers) and that chunking explains the difference - ie real games generated meaningful, easily recognizable chunks more readily than random positions.
A possible reason to ask this question is to decide whether learning a certain skills is a worthwhile time investment. Learning anything has an opportunity cost. OP, consider this: Even if we take for granted that you are slower as you age, the question really is: by how much? If it's 1% slower, it should not really affect your decision either way. If it is 20x slower, then that would likely be a different story. And given that the extent to which it differs seems to vary so widely among the population, good luck finding an exact answer to that.
Topic: Is it a myth that as one ages one tends to learn slower? 