Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Are professional pianists highly intelligent?

Your point on class and social wealth could also be argued against, far more than I care to do ; in early XXth Russia, the Moscow conservatory was, I think, known for having less than wealthy students - so much that teachers such as Glazunov were quite famous for helping gifted individual progressing despite lack of parental or monetary support.

I'm really looking for specific examples(although names can be omitted) of people who personally know or have read enough about specific professional pianists to judge how "intelligent" they are in the sense I mentioned in my OP.

The exception that proves the rule.

That's a really hard if not impossible task to do. You can't really judge of someone without meeting and chatting with them.... Pianists with great recordings or, for those that came before, with great reviews, are judged "intelligent", "gifted" in piano playing.

One can also judge their intelligence by their writings, interivews, what their biographies have said about them, etc.

I would like to argue with your signature.

I don't mean to argue semantics, but that really isn't true. While classic music might be prevalent in the more bourgeois and materialistic class, being a professionnal pianist is not a direct effect of belonging to that social class ; the fact that the parents of most professional musician, independly of social class, are musicians themselves is really more relevant.
It's also not really relevant to music itself ; since the dawn of humanity, children have often followed in the footsteps of their family's craft. Even nowadays, teachers' children often become teachers themselves, doctors' children etc.

Your point on class and social wealth could also be argued against, far more than I care to do ; in early XXth Russia, the Moscow conservatory was, I think, known for having less than wealthy students - so much that teachers such as Glazunov were quite famous for helping gifted individual progressing despite lack of parental or monetary support.

Your point on class and social wealth could also be argued against, far more than I care to do ; in early XXth Russia, the Moscow conservatory was, I think, known for having less than wealthy students - so much that teachers such as Glazunov were quite famous for helping gifted individual progressing despite lack of parental or monetary support.

As I said in my OP, I'm not talking about musical intellgence here, so your second sentence doesn't apply.

One can also judge their intelligence by their writings, interivews, what their biographies have said about them, etc.

Sorry to be picky but Glazunov was director of the St Petersburg/Leningrad Conservatory (not Moscow).

It does apply, I was trying to see what the "measures of intelligence" would be in the relevant fields, and illustrating my point with various fields, including piano playing.

One can also judge their intelligence by their writings, interivews, what their biographies have said about them, etc.

I'm not really sure that's true...

???YOu said "Pianists with great recordings or, for those that came before, with great reviews, are judged "intelligent", "gifted" in piano playing." I said in my OP the topic wasn't about how gifted or intelligent great pianists were musically because the answer was obvious.

I think how someone write and what they say are a clear indication of how intelligent they are.

but that might be the Sartre in me talking.

Obviously gifted pianists are gifted in piano playing, that's a tautology I'm saying that regardless of the fact that there are pianists. Doesn't really matter, but it's for reasoning's sake. By wondering why gifted pianists are considered gifted pianist, you can understand how they would be considered gifted-anything-else, and see if they are. That was the general idea.

I both agree and disagree...

I wouldn't say a blog qualify as a valid measure of "intelligence". That may just be me, but it seems shallow to think so...

I've a copy of Schnabel's Music and the line of most resistance. I've read it twice and still don't know what it's about!
Would that be the ten minute argument or the full half-hour?

I don't mean to argue semantics, but that really isn't true. While classic music might be prevalent in the more bourgeois and materialistic class, being a professionnal pianist is not a direct effect of belonging to that social class ; the fact that the parents of most professional musician, independly of social class, are musicians themselves is really more relevant.
It's also not really relevant to music itself ; since the dawn of humanity, children have often followed in the footsteps of their family's craft. Even nowadays, teachers' children often become teachers themselves, doctors' children etc.

Your point on class and social wealth could also be argued against, far more than I care to do ; in early XXth Russia, the Moscow conservatory was, I think, known for having less than wealthy students - so much that teachers such as Glazunov were quite famous for helping gifted individual progressing despite lack of parental or monetary support.

While learning piano seriously can no doubt be an expensive thing, I don't think money is really what matters for a child to become / to not become a pianist.


I'm not sure of what you mean exactly by reason ; in fact, piano playing is for the most part a most reasonable and reasoned thing. There is musical theory to guide our understanding, and technical theories and practices to guide our fingers.
I don't see either the point of saying "nerds" can't play an advanced sonata in a matter of weeks either. Piano playing, like mathematics, like chemistry, like physics, like video gaming, like literature, are complex processes that result of a multitude of underlying knowledges and habits. Trying to understand the Appassionata without any prior knowledge would be like trying to synthetize a specific protein or demonstrate an advanced theorem without knowing the basics of chemistry or mathematics.
Likewise, moving your body in a coordinated fashion must be learned and practiced. Some people such as gymnasts or dancers spend their life perfecting these functions.
You really shouldn't confuse innate and acquired knowledge.

Cognitive functions heavily factor in what we usually call intelligence. The ability to analize heavily relies on the ability to perceive - and perception is both the reception of information, and the organisation of that information (seing shapes, seing objects, instead of mere dots of colored lights.)