Is it too late?

[decadent]

I have a number of students who started piano in their early teens.  Some of them are extremely musical, and understands rubato naturally.  They are able to play very musically chopin nocturnes, some schubert impromptus, and many mozart and haydn.

My question is, will they ever develop the technique to play, say the faster chopin etudes.  I find it hard to imagine, due to their lack in finger dexterity.  They are able to manage op.10 no.3, or the black key, but will they be able to develop the technique to play say op.25 no.11, or the easier (for my self) Op10 no. 4?

is there a age where its just to late for them to develop a natural technique? Ashkenazy said if students do not have a solid technique by 14 or 15, they will not be able to play more difficult pieces without a foreign accent, but of course, volodos apparently started seriously at 16.

i understand a lot is inborn.  but i dont want them to be so limited in their repertoire.  Should I push them to learn something that they might never be able to play convincingly, or should I simply face it and give them what they are able to play?

[Toivot]

I think it's never too late.
When you seriously want to learn playing piano and are ready to put time and effort in it, it will work. 

[Dazzer]

could work either way

if you started early, but without proper training, you might end up learning the wrong things. and undoing the wrong is often harder then learning the right thing, even if it is later.

there's alot of factors in play... you just can never know.

[BoliverAllmon]

I have a number of students who started piano in their early teens.  Some of them are extremely musical, and understands rubato naturally.  They are able to play very musically chopin nocturnes, some schubert impromptus, and many mozart and haydn.

My question is, will they ever develop the technique to play, say the faster chopin etudes.  I find it hard to imagine, due to their lack in finger dexterity.  They are able to manage op.10 no.3, or the black key, but will they be able to develop the technique to play say op.25 no.11, or the easier (for my self) Op10 no. 4?

is there a age where its just to late for them to develop a natural technique? Ashkenazy said if students do not have a solid technique by 14 or 15, they will not be able to play more difficult pieces without a foreign accent, but of course, volodos apparently started seriously at 16.

i understand a lot is inborn.  but i dont want them to be so limited in their repertoire.  Should I push them to learn something that they might never be able to play convincingly, or should I simply face it and give them what they are able to play?

you never know what one is capable of until you try.

[raffyplayspiano]

I personally believe that how determined one is, and how efficiently one practices does far more that at one age one begins, althugh i do feel that the eariler the better. 

in the long run, those who love music will be able to tackle pieces they might have thought unable to play, if they really are efficient in their practice, and have some sort of musical ability, which is ussually (in my opinion) what fuels the desire to practice. 
  my first post
raffy.

[thalbergmad]

I believe it is possible to reach an extremely high standard, but if you made a list of the 100 greatest pianists of all time, i doubt if you would find many that started beyond 10. Saying that, I expect the next few posts will start to list some.

[i_m_robot]

NO NO

NONONO

NO


NOOOOO

it's not too late

Self started 2.5 years ago and self is developing... nicely (or not )

but still they are younger than self

stop being so easy on them and saying they have no dexterity

they can change that with proper training

otherwise you are just letting them be lazy

how does self know?

cuz self is just like them

[i_m_robot]

i understand a lot is inborn. 

not many things are inborn

they develope in enfancy

doesn't mean they cant be changed

or a least manipulated for the duration of time a piece requires

[mound]

i_am_robot - why do you keep using the word "self" instead of "I" and "self is" instead of "I am"  etc. in all of your posts? Is English not your first language or are you doing that on purpose? I find it very odd.

[i_m_robot]

I M Robot

https://www.pianosociety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,122.msg86311.html#msg86311

self knows two languages well and pieces of many other languages

Here's a neat question

Why do you not keep using the word "self" instead of "I" and "self is" instead of "I am"  etc. in all of your posts?

for the record: sometimes self types self are

pour la raison plus simple regardez-vous a ma signature

[Glyptodont]

Well, I am 64.  I played as a child, and then a couple of times I went back to piano over the many years of my life.  Then perhaps I would move, and the residence did not have a piano, and for various reasons I would not play for a few years.  1990 was a good year for me-- I took lessons for about three years.

I think the gentleman's post is very patronizing.  For one thing, this matter of speed.  I have been playing the Chopin Waltz in A-Minor, Op. 34, No. 2.  For some of the fast passages, I memorize the runs, because reading sheet music is a slow-down at those places. Once memorized, those passages move very fast under my fingers.

I may be old [by your limited standard] but my fingers are fine.  I type at about 115 words a minute.  The back of my hands may be very wrinkled, but they move very rapidly on occasion.

Fast enough? What IS fast enough to please someone like you?   Well, let's take Artur Rubinstein's recording of the waltzes as a touch-point.   If people had to meet the standard of a Rubinstein, few of us would play well enough.   I read an old (1950s) copy of ETUDE magazine in which one musicologist tackled this very subject.  Must we struggle to match virtuosos to feel satisfaction in playing?  The writer stated that these performances are "a goal to which we ASPIRE."  On rare occasions, we may over-reach ourselves.  We may play better than we expected -- we may do a terrific job and really surprise our music teacher. 

We ASPIRE to great examples -- the performances -- and we (including us fellows in our 60's) can -- drawn by the music -- play very fast. 

I suggest that if you, sir, take the piano and somehow do not attain the full velocity of playing that critics suggest is "optimal" in a particular piece -- [and virtuosos almost by their nature love to show off, so play passages at blinding speed] -- then I suggest that a group of irate music teachers with armbands sieze you and firmly, if gently, drag you from your grand. 

It is NOT as though there is no hope for us senior pianists.  Or even beginners in their late teens [could you have actually SAID this?].   I question whether there is any hope for YOU. 

[i_m_robot]

oh now self gets it

you're talking about the guy who made this topic

[tocca]

Ah, the old "when must you start to be able to excel at Piano" question! 

Answer: It's very individual, there's no set rule, no one will ever know for sure...

Of course there is an advantage to starting early, if you get a proper education, kids have a learning rate that surpasses the adult. Doesn't mean that an adult can't learn the same thing though.

I believe you can be equally good when starting late, it might take a little longer to get there. The main disadvantage is that many school/competitions and so on have an upper age limit for admittance that can be a problem.
So, by starting late you might put yourself in the situation where you'll have less choices which way to go.

Look at how some of the older master play/played. Look at Rubenstein when he was 75 or so! Don't tell me that someone who starts at 15 will have less dexterity 40 or 50 years later than someone starting at age 7... i don't believe it.

Biggest hurdle is other peoples narrow-minded thinking in my view.

[decadent]

not many things are inborn

they develope in enfancy

doesn't mean they cant be changed

or a least manipulated for the duration of time a piece requires

If not a lot of things are inborn, then could it be that pianists like Hamelin just practices harder than everyone else to attain his degree of technique, and that Kissin practiced so hard that he was able to achieve at 12 what other pianists might achieve at 20?

Do finger excercises such as Hanon, Beringer at the like actually work? or can one achieve enough by playing the repertoire?

I myself have benefited from practicing finger excersise, but over the years i have read so many writings and opinions that disregards the usefulness of them.  Im interested in what people here think.

[pianonut]

i am of both opinions.  i am an older student (in early 40's) and yet began at age 8.  my family enjoyed listening to music and we heard concerts, played for choirs, church, etc. so i am a fairly good sightreader.  at several points in my life, i have done well performing, too, but it is usually with 4-5 hours of practice per day on a regular basis.  as you get older, it is hard to put in this amount of time unless you are very frugal.  (small practice keyboard in the bathroom?)  and, spend more time thinking about your music than your phone conversations (and forum time).  the really big thing, i've found, too is that if you set your mind to a goal, you can accomplish it (but you have to set aside practice time and tell people that they can't bother you during it - or practice late at night).  energy is a factor.  i have found that if i exercise a lot, i improve.  there's always room for improvement and i think teachers should never 'give up' and stop challenging students to move farther.

if i did what i expect students to do, i would actually write down my practice time every day.  it's rather realistic.

[decadent]

Well, I am 64.  I played as a child, and then a couple of times I went back to piano over the many years of my life.  Then perhaps I would move, and the residence did not have a piano, and for various reasons I would not play for a few years.  1990 was a good year for me-- I took lessons for about three years.

I think the gentleman's post is very patronizing.  For one thing, this matter of speed.  I have been playing the Chopin Waltz in A-Minor, Op. 34, No. 2.  For some of the fast passages, I memorize the runs, because reading sheet music is a slow-down at those places. Once memorized, those passages move very fast under my fingers.

I may be old [by your limited standard] but my fingers are fine.  I type at about 115 words a minute.  The back of my hands may be very wrinkled, but they move very rapidly on occasion.

Fast enough? What IS fast enough to please someone like you?   Well, let's take Artur Rubinstein's recording of the waltzes as a touch-point.   If people had to meet the standard of a Rubinstein, few of us would play well enough.   I read an old (1950s) copy of ETUDE magazine in which one musicologist tackled this very subject.  Must we struggle to match virtuosos to feel satisfaction in playing?  The writer stated that these performances are "a goal to which we ASPIRE."  On rare occasions, we may over-reach ourselves.  We may play better than we expected -- we may do a terrific job and really surprise our music teacher. 

We ASPIRE to great examples -- the performances -- and we (including us fellows in our 60's) can -- drawn by the music -- play very fast. 

I suggest that if you, sir, take the piano and somehow do not attain the full velocity of playing that critics suggest is "optimal" in a particular piece -- [and virtuosos almost by their nature love to show off, so play passages at blinding speed] -- then I suggest that a group of irate music teachers with armbands sieze you and firmly, if gently, drag you from your grand. 

It is NOT as though there is no hope for us senior pianists.  Or even beginners in their late teens [could you have actually SAID this?].   I question whether there is any hope for YOU. 

Hi sir, I did not mean to dismiss the likes of you in my post, Im sorry if you were offended.  

Few things came to mind after reading your post:

I do not compare myself at all to Pollini or Ashkenazy, and would only dream to be able to play like them.. I do believe there is a certain 'optimal' speed, a speed to make a piece make sense.  surely playing say liszt's feux follets at a very slow speed would not do justice to the piece.

The chopin's A minor waltz is not a particularly fast piece, and therefore I think is out of point to my topic.

Typing speed has nothing to do with piano playing ability.  I congratulate you for being able to type 115 words per minute, the you can not compare the piano, which has much for resistence, and require tonal control, to a computer keyboard.

[i_m_robot]

Cant tell whether you are apologizing are being a bit negative

If not a lot of things are inborn, then could it be that pianists like Hamelin just practices harder than everyone else to attain his degree of technique, and that Kissin practiced so hard that he was able to achieve at 12 what other pianists might achieve at 20?

Do finger excercises such as Hanon, Beringer at the like actually work? or can one achieve enough by playing the repertoire?

I myself have benefited from practicing finger excersise, but over the years i have read so many writings and opinions that disregards the usefulness of them.  Im interested in what people here think.

Self believes that all external factors surrounding a person determines his or her mental abilities

it has a lot do with the childs determination, attention span, and psyche (?)

anything from the temperature of a room in a house to the amount of light that hits the child eyes can affect temperament

self believe that these great pianist are merely the result of the right conditions at enfancy

if it is inborn then there would be a lot more musical couples who get together and have baby prodigies

and their baby prodigies could get together with more baby prodigies and there could be a new race a musical prodigies

instead they have regular children who learn to play an instrument

it would be of no surprise that a child who grows up in a relatively happy family would not be a "prodigy" while a child who grows up around abuse and barries itself in music would become the greatest child pianist ever

would it have anything to do with genetics? - not as much as to do with psyche

a child who grows up around heat might have a short temper while a child who grows up around cold might be too lax or the other way around

if you need more convincing have Steven Hawkings and Martha Argerich make a baby then toss it in the woods for ten years - self can bet it would turn out just like any other baby you tossed in the same woods at that very day - unless it were eatten

[Dazzer]

Ewwwww hawkings and argerich is just wrong...

though i did hear that argerich had a few illigitimate children...

[bernhard]

Going back to the very first post:

I have a number of students who started piano in their early teens.  Some of them are extremely musical, and understands rubato naturally.  They are able to play very musically chopin nocturnes, some schubert impromptus, and many mozart and haydn.

My question is, will they ever develop the technique to play, say the faster chopin etudes.

What will stop them? What is stopping them right now?

(This is a very serious question. Give it enough thought, and the path is open for you to bring them to any technical level you want ).

  I find it hard to imagine, due to their lack in finger dexterity.  They are able to manage op.10 no.3, or the black key, but will they be able to develop the technique to play say op.25 no.11, or the easier (for my self) Op10 no. 4? is there a age where its just to late for them to develop a natural technique? Ashkenazy said if students do not have a solid technique by 14 or 15, they will not be able to play more difficult pieces without a foreign accent, but of course, volodos apparently started seriously at 16.
 

Again, what will stop them?

However there are many hidden assumptions here that need to be brought into the light.

1.   Finger dexterity – Everyone (assuming normality, that is ignoring special conditions like arthritis, for instance) has enough finger “dexterity” to do anything. The problem is never finger “dexterity”. The usual problem is actually lack of complete knowledge of the piece/passage. As some research showed, accomplished pianists and non-pianists had the same finger speed. It was just that the accomplished pianists knew where to place their fingers. This very misguided idea: that what someone needs to be an accomplished pianist is finger dexterity (one does not: one already has it) has lead to infinite hours of drudgery at the piano doing silly exercises that claim to increase dexterity but actually doing nothing of the sort.

That time would have been much better spent getting to know one’s piece inside-out. This ultimately means that a teacher trying to improve a student’s playing by focusing on “technique”, or “strength” or “dexterity” will fail. Hence the often held (wrong) conclusion that teenagers/adults cannot develop technique beyond a certain point, when the correct conclusion is that the teacher’s perception of the problem and prescription of a solution is completely off the mark to start with.

2.   Natural technique. What is meant here by “natural” technique? Everything that occurs in the Universe is natural by definition. Or is it meant here a technique that looks “natural” (that is, easy and effortless). Have you ever considered the high jump, where the athlete jumps over a bar by jumping backwards and falling on his back? Athletes look very “natural” doing it, but is the technique “natural”? Not until 1968 when Dick Fosberry surprised the Olympic world by doing it. And since he established a new world record, clearing the bar by almost a foot above the previous record, by the next Olympics everyone was jumping the same way, even though jumping backwards can arguably be classified as one of the most unnatural movements on the planet.

3.   Famous pianists opinions. They are to be taken with huge amounts of salt. Most of these pianists acquired their technique at an age where they simply cannot remember how they developped it. Most of it is now unconscious patterns. They will say one thing with the utmost conviction and do something else altogether. Besides, for every famous pianists that endorses method A, there is another who assure you that method A is crap, and vouches for method B. Did Volodos started at 16? Sure, this maybe the marketing, but I wonder… Like the myth of self-taught pianists, all you have to do is dig a bit deeper and out come the names of the several teachers they had over the years.

4.   “foreign accent”. What is that supposed to mean? Everyone will play with a “foreign accent”. Or does German music has a German accent? And if this is the case (which I very much  doubt it is),  are we supposed to believe that Ashkenazy being Russian can play Beethoven without a “Russian accent”?

i understand a lot is inborn.  but i dont want them to be so limited in their repertoire.  Should I push them to learn something that they might never be able to play convincingly, or should I simply face it and give them what they are able to play?

Ears, and the capacity for hearing (making sense out of sounds), five fingers in each hand, and the capacity to move them at will, these things are inborn. Nothing else. The piano was invented less than 300 years ago. How could this have any evolutionary influence whatsoever? This is the same as saying that Chinese people have an inborn facility to speak Chinese. We all have an inborn capacity (precluding abnormalities and diseases) for language, but there is no gene for specific languages. People like Kissin and Hamelin may have inborn superiorities (like superior ears, superior intelligence, etc.) but these inborn charcteristics would serve them well in any area - not just piano playing. That they are superior pianist can be traced down to their environment - just like the fact that a Chinese speaks Chinese is environmentally caused. Yet this very same Chinese may have inborn facilities that make him a literary genius. But he would be so in English, had he been born in the UK.

Anyone at any age has the potential to achieve virtuoso level of playing (this is a completely different statement that anyone can become a concert pianist – since then market factors enter the picture). Very few achieve this potential. But the reasons have nothing to do with finger dexterity, “natural” technique, age and so on. And amongst these there are a few who will excel beyond anything imaginable. Take ohysicists. Anyone has the potential to become a physicist. But only a few will get a Nobel Prize. Surely some inborn talent will be at work, but it has nothing to do with physics per se. There is no "gene" for Physics, and it would be silly to state so. Yet the idea that somehow piano playing is genetically determined hangs on.

Unfortunately these ideas (finger dexterity, “natural” technique, ageism, and so on) are deeply ingrained in the tradition of piano teaching. I suggest that if you want to further your student’s development in these areas, that you thoroughly and critically re-examine them.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Typing speed has nothing to do with piano playing ability.  I congratulate you for being able to type 115 words per minute, the you can not compare the piano, which has much for resistence, and require tonal control, to a computer keyboard.

Actually it does. It shows, as I mentioned above that anyone can have finger speed. The difference between a typist and a pianist is knowing which keys to press (a typist with no piano instruction would not be able to play the piano, and a pianist who never tried his/her hand at a typewriter would not be able to type fluently, showing that the limitation is not finger dexterity but knowledge of their respective instruments).

The consequence for a piano teacher is simple: concentrate on the music instead of on (unnecessary) exercises and strategies to increase finger dexterity (which is already there).

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Do finger excercises such as Hanon, Beringer at the like actually work? or can one achieve enough by playing the repertoire?

Do exercises work? It depends what you mean by work.

Personally I think they are a waste of time.

At the same time you cannot achieve enough by playing the repertory.

One must work on the repertory.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[whynot]

Brilliant answer, Bernhard!  A home run once again.

[dinosaurtales]

NO.  I am 49 and am doing Chopin for the first time.  I work my buns off, and after doing a nocturne, my teacher gave me a the first ballade.  It's quite doable, since I will simply work it till it's done.  That's it.

[bernhard]

I will simply work it till it's done.  That's it.

Indeed that is it. And it is this attitude that actually makes adults more capable of progress than children - although some very rare children will have it as well ("the rage to master" an expression that I read in regards to the young Mozart).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ahmedito]

Bernhard, Volodos started at 16 with my teacher. Galina Egyazarova. He did not play the piano, at all, but he was a singer and knew a great deal about theory, so at 16, even though he wasnt able to play chopin etudes and the like, he was able to play from memory in any tonality the harmony of complete symphonies and operas. My teacher insists that in his case, and in Radu Lupu (another student of her and a quasi late starter, though not so extreme as Arcadi) their inner ear, and mind were so developed that the technique simply fell into place with a few simple guidelines. As soon as he started to develop a conscious control over the relaxation of his arm and hand, and over 2 or 3 years, a fisical relationship with the insturment, his technique became phenomenal. He simply knows where to put his fingers, and how to put his fingers there at the right time, its amazing.

[musicsdarkangel]

I am a pianist and I type 115 

[bernhard]

Bernhard, Volodos started at 16 with my teacher. Galina Egyazarova. He did not play the piano, at all, but he was a singer and knew a great deal about theory, so at 16, even though he wasnt able to play chopin etudes and the like, he was able to play from memory in any tonality the harmony of complete symphonies and operas. My teacher insists that in his case, and in Radu Lupu (another student of her and a quasi late starter, though not so extreme as Arcadi) their inner ear, and mind were so developed that the technique simply fell into place with a few simple guidelines. As soon as he started to develop a conscious control over the relaxation of his arm and hand, and over 2 or 3 years, a fisical relationship with the insturment, his technique became phenomenal. He simply knows where to put his fingers, and how to put his fingers there at the right time, its amazing.

There you are. It does not surprise me in the least. In fact this ties up very nicely with your recent post on your breakthrough. Well done.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[sznitzeln]

I believe it is possible to reach an extremely high standard, but if you made a list of the 100 greatest pianists of all time, i doubt if you would find many that started beyond 10. Saying that, I expect the next few posts will start to list some.

True, but that doesnt really prove that starting early is an advantage!
Maybe when 1 000 000 talented pianists start early, only 1 000 start late. Then it would not be so strange that among the best 100 the majority started early...
But starting early is probably a good thing.

I am a late starter (started at 15, but didnt study properly until 21 or so). And I feel that the passion for the music and a healthy attitude is much more important than starting early... Having a good teacher is also very important.

If you have students that are starting late, it is important that they should listen to many concerts and CDs, and you should discuss both interpretation quality and the meaning of the compositions with the students. And you should be more demanding, because those late starters have a lot of catching up to do... but its not impossible to catch up. Always have high standards and NEVER lower them, even if the student fails many times. Eventually he or she will succeed if you inspire them and give them some credit.

[pianowelsh]

I have heard it said that if you dont have a complete by the time your tendons firm up 12-16 (depending on individual) then you have had it! However the number of people i know who have bucked this trend is enough to disprove this actually rather stupid argument. It may be the case that the ratio of work done to actual improvement in dexterity increases beyond this age but i see no evidence to believe that it automatically stops all incomers at the age of about 14. I can say that i didnt start serious piano study until i was about 16/17 and although i perhaps put in more work than some of my college contemporaries at technical work i still manage to pass technical examinations with some distinction.  I have found that the single biggest problem is not physical ! its actually people saying - you cant do this or this will be hard for you because... technicque is more about the mind than physical movements and if you win the battle there then you are actually more than halfway. Encourage them - take it as read that they may take longer to develop speed and dexterity and schedule their repertoire carefully so these can be target areas without overwhelming them and explain to them how to practice technical difficulties efficiently and you will im sure see vast improvrments in that direction.. Seriously though the biggest factor is encouragement... If technically difficult pieces are equatable with jumping through a burning hoop at the circus you need to make sure your students know what they are doing and have confidence in you to take them through it otherwise they wont jump!

[nanabush]

What would you consider starting serious piano?  Would it be starting performance level music?  Or is it actually beginning to put several hours a day into practice?

[sznitzeln]

1.   Finger dexterity – Everyone (assuming normality, that is ignoring special conditions like arthritis, for instance) has enough finger “dexterity” to do anything. The problem is never finger “dexterity”. The usual problem is actually lack of complete knowledge of the piece/passage. As some research showed, accomplished pianists and non-pianists had the same finger speed. It was just that the accomplished pianists knew where to place their fingers. This very misguided idea: that what someone needs to be an accomplished pianist is finger dexterity (one does not: one already has it) has lead to infinite hours of drudgery at the piano doing silly exercises that claim to increase dexterity but actually doing nothing of the sort.

Research or no research, I have felt dramaticly how my finger dexterity has improved. Of course the greatest part of the technical overall improvement lies in development of reflex patterns and knowledge. But I clearly feel that the hand itself is gaining in strength. One example is arpeggios that have large intervals. These used to be a physical (not neural) strain for my hands, but now they have gotten stronger and more flexible from these arpeggios, and now its much more natural for me.
Another example: I tried to play chopin 10/4 before, and my hand was in no condition to do that, my fingers could not be stable on the keys... and this was only due to the awkard position with big stretches and pinkys on black keys... not due to the speed, because I played really slow. Now I feel that I can begin to tackle this piece.
Last example: Can a beginner play a note repeatedly and fast with the 4th finger? An accomplished pianist can certainly do this a lot faster. This is both physical and neural.
I do agree that the neural development is 95%, but the physical development was atleast for me indispensable. Maybe my fingers were weak, but I wouldnt say abnormally weak.

[SDL]

I started at 15.  I play/learnt several chopin etudes incl 10.2.

[clem4705315]

i agree with everything that Bernhard had said.

i started quite late, 14, i'm now 22 years old and  my repertoire includes works like the schumann concerto, prokofiev op. 4, chopin 2nd sonata, a few chopin etudes, etc.

the brain really is a wonderful organ. the mind is an amazing gift. i firmly believe that technique is all in the mind. technique for me is the ability or the skill of being able to produce different sounds and colors on the piano, whether in fast and virtuosic music, or in slow and lyrical ones (or in any other character).


i used to practice with open fingers, really loud, because it was what my teacher told me to do so. he says it would make my fingers strong. i did it for a year and i injured my left hand, i wasn't able to play for a few months. now, it's healed but unfortunately it's already there, the injury. so i had to think of a different way of practicing and playing.

Sound-
i realised that using the fingers to make the sound (whether loud or soft, slow or fast) can be very tiring since it had very small muscles. it also did not a make a very good sound too. i started utilizing the whole arm, with a good approximation of how much weight to put in every time, whether it'd be a running passage or a big chord. it's more relaxing and natural.

Dexterity-
everything that deals with speed is mostly for my mind to achieve. i think of the changes of positions of my hands: fast, fingers positioned on the correct notes of the next position as fast as possible, relaxed arm muscles in the process of changing a position in order to avoid making accents.
i also think in groups of notes, the larger the better, although not large enough to get myself lost.

Memory and being able to play fast-
everything has to be backed up by a very good memory of the music. not just memorizing by sections, but in the smallest details possible. i'm not saying that i was able to do all the techniques in memorizing, but i'd do anything (sometimes i make or improvise my own) that i think might help with my memory like playing in the air a whole piece.
for me, memory has speed! the faster i can think of the notes (almost automatically, because we also memorize the feeling of the muscles working), the faster will my fingers respond.
not only will I be able to play fast, memory slips are avoided. if ever there would be a memory slip, i would know exactly where to go or what to play to get out of it. that's because i tried to know the music in many ways i could possibly do.
What about clarity like in a mozart?
i practice open fingers but this time NOT loud. i don't try to achieve stronger fingers but i just feel the stretch that tells me that i'm currently playing this particular note with this particular finger. so it actually has to be very slow, like 60 to a 16th note.

Starting at 14-
it's quite late. i never played classical music before that time, and piano was just a hobby. the only disadvantages i experience right now is that i learn pieces at a slow pace (actually, i like it that way), and i sightread very slowly.
i think that those who started at a very young age had the advantage of collecting certain hand positions, certain passages or groups of notes, that pop out of music pieces, and everytime it does, they'd know exactly what to do, what to think of.


it's never too late.

good luck to your students and to you, too.

[Corsair]

Barry Douglas started at twelve i think. No technique worries there!

[pianonut]

ooh.  besides my teacher, barry douglas is my hero.  when will i ever get time to write him some fan mail  (actually to say what i thought of his 'pic's at an exhibition' in 1985 or so).  he's composed some stuff too.  and, he's irish.  probably one of the few irishmen to play piano since there wasn't (in his day) any music schools to attend in ireland.  forget where he studied.  anyway...he's got feeling.  i suppose 12 is a later start for professional pianists, but when you hear him you think he'd started much earlier.  i'm really amazed at his interpretations.  stokowski (i know, i repeat myself too much) did a rendition of the 'pics' that sounds kinda similar, but i really think barry did his own on this one. 

[krittyot]

I think the opposite. Learning piano at the early age and mastering certain techniques surely have impact on your further development. Forget the case about Volodos or Rupu (Talent cannot be taught) since they are exceptions. Don't you think there will be any differences compared a kid who has been playing piano, say just scales and basic techniques, from 7-15 years old to a young teenage who started to seriously learn scales and other techniques, but started at 15 years of age? Playing scales has never been easy and it takes years and years mastering it at decent speed. Do adults really learn faster than kids? Well, I tend to disagree. They learn faster because they are more concentrated? Considering weaknesses since adult students do not properly trained, they actually end up spending more time practicing and learning than younger students in the long run. One more thing, the problem I have encountered many times over the internet is that many people claim (no offense to anyone) they can play this certain pieces, that particular pieces...bla bla bla, and when some of them post a recording. Geez, an F grade might be too high for them. Not sure if that is the self-taught case or the case when piano teachers do not exactly know where their students are heading, or they push their students too hard by assigning difficult pieces without considering the reality. Play what you can handle and learn what you think you can achieve at a standard where you are proud of it. At the bottom line, each individual sets different standard of playing. Some people think it's acceptable to play a few wrong notes in 1 page, whereas others donot. As long as mistakes are allowed, I don't think your standard is universally accepted though.

[ahmedito]

Here, Ill tell you my own story:

In my own experience, starting an instrument late is VERY VERY difficult, if you want to be a good profesional with a competitive technique. I know the difference, because I started the trumpet when I was about 6 or 7 years old, played proffesionally and was a student of very famous trumpet players, such as Phillip Collins. I quit when I was 16, for very personal reasons. I started the piano when I was 17, with an awful teacher, then I went on to study with a great teacher, and now at 23 I am with one of probably the greatest teachers in the world in one of the best music schools in the world. This may sound like another one of those "go for it" posts, but actually its the other way around. At 23 I have a very hard time with the instrument, because I lacked a long period of physical contact with it. In every aspect, easy of playing, speed of memorisation, technical facility, improvisation, speed, presicion and touch; it was a million times easier on the trumpet, because I had an early education.

If you have absolutely no musical background and want to start this late, its in my opinion nearly impossible to master the instrument as pros must. The only reason I am making a painstakingly slow advancement is because from age 7 I have had close contact with music.

My first teacher, obsessed with the idea that I started late, loaded me with scales and czerny and such, and it was a terrible idea. My new teacher has taught me that you play the piano with your mind. It is much more important to develop mental dexterity, than finger dexterity (and it is much much much harder). I still think music in terms of the trumpet, fingering, lips and tongue; not the piano. I practce long hours, and constant. To start late you need:

a) A teacher who understands your situation, and the way to work around it.
b) A musical background, a developed inner ear and musical mind.
c) Extraordinary discipline and intelligence.

Even then, though not impossible, it sure is VERY hard, and I wont recommend it to anyone.

[markj]

Anything is doable. It comes down to commitment. If you have the patience and time to practice many hours every day, I believe you could learn to play ANYTHING.

[dinosaurtales]

Anything is doable. It comes down to commitment. If you have the patience and time to practice many hours every day, I believe you could learn to play ANYTHING.

And if you DON'T have hours a day to practice, it will just take longer.  I have a friend who is an ER doc, and she learned Beethoven's Waldstein over 3 years!  It just takes that when you don't have a ton of practice time.

[etcetra]

I am a late starer too (started at 15), and I have recently changed my mind about the whole issue, because I recently had a lot of breakthrough in terms of achieving high level of facility.  I am far from playing at virtuosso level, but from the progress i am making in the last 6 months, it certain seems more doable than ever.

I think the problem with late starter is that they have a lot of holes that they need to catch up on, and sometimes teacher and students don't give enough time on the fundamentals..A lot of it has to do with this perception of where a student is 'supposed to be', rather than taking them for where they are.. so both the student and teacher feels rushed to make these unreasonable deadlines.   Many adult students might not have learned anything to the point where it became "natural", and with that kind of practice one will never feel secure about their ability to play.

One thing that made a huge impact on me was the change in my practice habits.  I stopped expecting myself to learn x amount of music, but expected myself to master whatever i was working on, no matter how little that is.  nowdays i don't focus on technique but whether i can play something without thinking about it... or as berhard says, to learn something inside out.

I've  seen good number students whose playing has transformed in a very short period of time because of their dedication and excellent instruction.  I had a chance to study with this teacher briefly.. and one thing that made this teacher so great was that he actually taught students how to practice.. he showed a great intellegence in how he teaches and you knew exactly what your problems are and how to fix them.  I know a lot of students who were ok at best when they started, but by the time they were graduating they were going to top graduate schools with scholarships.

I think a lot of that inborn ability is a myth, a misunderstanding.  Its true that kids can learn faster than adults.  But i think the reason the so called 'talented people' progress fast is because they know how to practice without being taught.. on the opposite end you have people who has been playing for years but never improve because they never practice right.  I met a lot of talented people who are 'natural' at what they do, and when i talked to them, it really boiled down them having a very intellegent and disciplined practice habits.

So i guess regardless of what age you are, if you are  were given the tools of great practice habit, you should progress just like anyone else.  I guess the sad thing is that a lot of teachers don't know how to teach that tool.. its funny but i learned more from these talented students than some of my teachers.

[etcetra]

My first piano teacher started piano at the age of 15, he was playing the black key etudes and the revolutionary etudes for his senior recital in college.  I don't think that's the norm but it does happen frequently enough.

[db05]

Unfortunately, all of my piano teachers so far started early so I don't have accounts of pianists. However, guitar is said to be more difficult than piano, and my first teacher/ mentor started studying it at 15. You won't notice it in his playing. But the attitude is different, much different. I studied with him at 15, and it sure inspired me to continue music.

He tells me about his experience learning and meeting fellow musicians. Conservatory students/ graduates, those who didn't start so early, they'd get really worked up. Working musicians in bands too. Stressed, so they end up with vices and poor health. He didn't go on to conservatory himself, and cautions me a lot about health.

Too bad he's not so organized with lessons, and finds it hard to explain how he was able to progress that much. But he's very very meticulous. Unlike any other teacher or musician I've met. He has great hearing. He will criticize you a lot. Notice things that you don't.

I think this musical hearing ability is key. The opposite extreme would be to start as a baby but not have any musical thought and bad hearing. That is very very difficult to teach, maybe harder than teaching practice habits.

[birba]

I believe it is possible to reach an extremely high standard, but if you made a list of the 100 greatest pianists of all time, i doubt if you would find many that started beyond 10. Saying that, I expect the next few posts will start to list some.

The myth goes that Richter started studying at the age of 18.  But I think he probably started studying seriously at the age of 18.  I think he wanted to be a conductor.

[birba]

NO NO

NONONO

NO


NOOOOO

it's not too late

Self started 2.5 years ago and self is developing... nicely (or not )

but still they are younger than self

stop being so easy on them and saying they have no dexterity

they can change that with proper training

otherwise you are just letting them be lazy

how does self know?

cuz self is just like them

This is probably coming from the Japanese conviction that NOTHING is impossible if you want it bad enough and apply yourself.  I taught at Geddai for a year and the talent and capacity for "learning" was remarkable.

[Petter]

Are the motoric skills and reflexes needed for piano playing really that isolated from anything else you would do as a kid? What about computergaming, knitting, finger wrestling, chating with dirty old men on messenger, god knows...
 I know for a fact that the problems I face are 1 billion precent related to mental blocks of different kinds and not necessarily connected to piano playing. To me that seems to be the only kind of reason it would be "too late". Just by asking if it is "too late" kinda makes it "too late" per se...

[rene_ceballos]

i understand a lot is inborn.  but i dont want them to be so limited in their repertoire.  Should I push them to learn something that they might never be able to play convincingly, or should I simply face it and give them what they are able to play?

Well, if evolution would have really served piano players, we wouldn't have those weak and semi-connected 4th and 5th fingers anymore 

It's never too late. I started very early (5yo), and played for many years, had many teachers, etc. Then I got married, had kids, etc.

It wasn't till I really had the time, commitment and *the internet* that I really achieved a level I'm reasonably happy with.

I wouldn't give this as advice, but it has worked wonders for me to face a ridiculously-above-my-level piece (I use Godowsky for that) to understand where I am and where I need to go from here. Sometimes the concept of measuring the distance helps me. Doing this too much might be demotivating, but I feel that a bit is good.

It is true that probably top-N players in the world started piano before they could walk. But the truth is, even if a student would have started at 0, they have good chances of never become a top-N player anyways. And unless they have some personality trouble, it shouldn't really matter. Art is much transcendent to competition 

[nearenough]

The question is, is it too late to do what?

After all, one can take up the piano, or the trumpet or the violin (most difficult) at any age, but to what level of accomplishment do you aspire? I would say (confirmed by several books I have read) that if you want to be an accomplished performer, than learning how to play the standard (difficult) repertoire must be done by the age of the mid-teens (I think Charles Rosen said this). I believe the most excellent pianists have an inborn ability that is essentially non-teachable.

Rubinstein was said to have memorized a concerto on a train trip and to have played it the next day.

Josef Hofmann once heard a newly composed Rachmaninoff piece played by the composer and played it perfectly at a his performance the next night.

Saint-Saens was able to play symphonies at the piano, transposing them in any key on request.

Horowitz played entire symphonies and operas by ear. He remembered pieces learned in his youth not having played them for decades.

My own piano teacher related many such astounding feats of memory to me. He had "perfect pitch." I tested him once by playing a random 12 note chord and he blindly named each note one by one.

I was practicing one day in a student's practice room at the Peabody Institute in Baltimore and a young Philippino girl came in and said this was her room to practice. I gave up the piano but asked if I could listen. She played Ravel's Jeaux d'eau and a Ginastera Sonata, using the sheet music, and I asked her how long she had to study the pieces to pay them so well. She responded that she had just bought the music that day and was sight-reading!

So there are many, many performers that have innate abilities to do amazing things. But I have never abandoned my efforts in spite of these wonders. You just keep doing what you can to the best of your ability.

[goldentone]

If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.
       Henry Ford

[m19834]

I believe the most excellent pianists have an inborn ability that is essentially non-teachable.

Something about this has just recently struck me.  If what you say is true, and there is some element to making somebody an excellent pianist that is essentially non-teachable, then teaching is a non-issue for that particular element of the individual's ability.  Along those lines, if that ability is inborn and non-teachable, whether a person was born with that ability yet did not start lessons at a young age, or started lessons late (or even very late), then there couldn't really be a "too late," since the ability is just there and independent of being taught.

What if an individual is born with that ability but doesn't recieve proper lessons for years ?  If it's non-teachable, why would it matter whether somebody has lessons or not ?

[go12_3]

The journey of learning an instrument is never too late.  There are some of those who have that inborn ability to capture the skills of playing the keboard.  I was one of those as a little child, however, I never had the proper training throughout my childhood and high school years.  However, I taught myself and learned to play piano quite well.  Went to study with a professor at a university for a couple of years of quite difficult pieces....memorized them all and became an accomplished pianist.  Now, 8 years ago, I learned to play violin and became proficient on it as well.  It's the gifted and talent that goes hand in hand.  Along with hard work and practice.  I love what I do in learning music.  It's within me.  I compose some too.  We can be impressed with those with a perfect pitch, indeed, my violin instructor told me that I was gifted.  My strings were always in tune.  I can tell as I play.  I'm not a young person and oh, how I wish that I had piano lessons all through my childhood.  I know I would have been a lot better than where I'm at now.  Yet, I am happy with what I have accomplished in my lifetime.  And that is what matters to me.  Music is a journey and we all can embrace everyday.