Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Realistic Goals as adults/late starter

Snarky, indeed!



Just have a look at sotto voce's photo.

The Anglicans (essentially equivalent to US Episcopals with some important exceptions) accept compatibility of faith and science, and fully respect evolutionary science. Aside from internal squabbles over ordaining women and gay bishops (which few outside of the Church could care less about), most of the differences within the Anglican Church relate to (and I'm oversimplifying) how close or far from Rome any given church is. Canterbury has no set guide lines, and some Anglican churches are very 'low', i.e grape juice, whilst others -in Brighton or Cornwall for example- are almost indistinguishable from an RC church.

You did?

H, like Steven said, I wasn't insulting the US, just questioning the ignorance of a certain set of people, generally found in the Bible Belt. Faith and Science should coexist, not be mutually exclusive. I totally fail to understand those who, against overwhelming scientific evidence, still think the Earth was created only 10,000 years ago, etc, etc. It's all rather beyond me, and OT anyway!

Thanks, Damon.

It's all good then.

Many thanks my good mate, Horowitzian, though Damon seems to have a problem with me. I suspect it is more political -ultra liberal I am - than musical.

I always enjoy Damon's posts. Whatever his experience and age, I don't feel that my musical knowledge is in any way inferior.

Thanks, I enjoy yours too, when they are musical. I live in the bible belt and don't know anyone who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old, or flat. Darwin is another matter. As you guessed, my politics are 135 degrees from yours.

Okay Damon, no problem. Thanks for your post, and cheers...

So musically we will still interact... and you might PM me sometime. Would be interested to know more about your background.

A few thoughts here (mainly for Monica, I think):
[1]You appear to be assuming that performance ability is where it's all at. There is much more to being a musician than technical facility. It's not just an athletic skill but an artistic one. The fact that deliberate and sustained practice leads to technical facility shouldn't surprise anyone. What I'm wondering is about that extra which goes to make an outstanding musician (who may in fact not even be able to play an instrument well but still may have considerable ability in areas such as composition).
[2]Are there really no tests of musical aptitude which don't rely on learned performance? Are there no such tests of pitch discrimination, rhythmic perception, musical memory etc? Or are you just saying that there are no tests like these which prove a correlation between such abilities and achievement as a musician?
[3]I wonder how the "hard work only" camp would explain the musical savant? And if in this case it can be explained in terms of some inbuilt gift, then why not in anyone else?

These are rather random questions, but I thought we were going too far down the technical ability=musical ability path.

I still don't see where the "hard work only camp" is. I haven't seen anyone defending this idea.

Music is like love, it is not a private club for a select few, it is for everybody. Every human being has this capacity.

There are countless reasons, countless factors that can keep a person from developing their potential, in love as in music, starting from the first days of their life. The famous 10000 hours of practice are not what will unbind a frustrated potential. It is a much more profound human experience, that might dure 5 minutes.

A case of adultery: the mistress says, he's an Adonis, a wild animal, his Apollo-like body is insatiable. And the wife's jaw drops with disbelief, it isn't her poor slob of a TV watching, lawn cutting husband, with whom she's been bored for years. 10000 hours in the matrimonial bed together would never have brought to life this big, this enormous, this gigantic ... how can we say ... potential.

Anyone remember Babbit?

The genious gene, or the virtuoso gene, will never be found, or the gene of aptitude for the violin instead of the piano, because, like the lover gene, they simply don't exist. Genetics is a new field; the study of the brain as well. All of the studies that orient towards a precise identification of behavior in the genetic pool will be laughable in a few years.

Trying to understand human behavior as individual behavior, viewing a human being as an individual alone in the universe, with a certain dose of potential, is absurd. Human beings are social animals. Playing music is a social activity, a kind of communication, a confirmation of the essentially social existence of the human individual.

A music teacher only wants to work with kids who are ready. OK. An advanced teacher only wants to work with students who are ready to advance rapidly. Ok as well. It is not their problem to unlock the potential of "every Tom, Dick and Harry".

But that doesn't mean that this potential doesn't exist.

That works in the opposite sense as well.

Outstanding musicians can become mediocre. It is a frequent occurence.

Philip Lu did, back a page or two. And this quote from Monica seemed to suggest her leaning that way:

And Monica also wrote:
"Innate talent" (if it even exists) plays only a negligible role (if it plays a role at all).

A very good thread that I've chimed in late to, just to say that Monica K writes fantastic posts, sensibly thought out, logically argued and backed up with data and references. Puts most of the rest of us to shame, and I thoroughly agree with her.
Anyone can learn to read Chinese (just ask one of the 1 billion or so literate chinese), speak French, drive a car, fly a plane, play golf and play the piano.
Differences will be found (I guess in a gaussian distrubution pattern) in the rate of progress in piano playing ,and the amount of effort that an individual has to expend to overcome difficulties.
I assume - but have no data to support this- that the final proficiency beyond which any individual is capable of reaching given all other equal factors (ie that put down to innate talent) is also in a gaussian distribution pattern.
The original poster asks "how far can a late starter get?". I take this to be where is the peak of the Gaussian curve descibed above and I suspect a realistic goal for any pianist is beyond grade 8 ABRSM provided they have suitable environmental circumstances such as lack of physical disability, motivation, time to practice, good teacher and of course a reasonable piano to practice on.
Not sure where God, Darwinism, Protestantism and the innate stupidity of Americans fits into this - but any other calls apart form "Beyond grade 8 ABRSM"?

So, Wombat, you genuinely believe
"Innate talent" (if it even exists) plays only a negligible role (if it plays a role at all).

???

What are you smoking today that made you feel so good? Just curious...

So, of course, every one of us is a potential Confucious, Voltaire, Dale Earnhart, Claire Chennault, Tiger Woods or Lang Lang?

Somehow I doubt it.

Proclaiming talent doesn't exist is like saying bears don't exist. If you haven't seen one it just means you haven't been in the woods long enough.

Perhaps Monica has an innate talent for cogent verbal self-expression.


I reckon that precious few of those one billion or so people had a different native language and learned Chinese in adulthood. The fact remains that even if every adult could learn any of those tasks, they can't learn to do them equally well even with comparable background, motivation and amount of practice.


No one has postulated anything about "the innate stupidity of Americans" until now, so perhaps you can elucidate us.

Steven