Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VIRTUOSO TECHNIQUE!!!

Yeah, but often it isn't. Some people who lack the potential to become masters still might aspire greatly to be one, yet they never will. When it comes to the "gifted/ungifted" notion, it does matter IF their goals past their potential.

And... that's exactly why I said "a practical outlook."

What do you mean by "practical"?

Oh now surely, you know what "practical" means.

In the case you talk about above, practical could mean "not delusional"... e.g. forgetting about being the next Horowitz, but putting one's efforts into developing a good basic technique, competent musical skills etc. It would also be a cure for discouragement, as you'd be too busy working to worry about your lost fame and glory.

Or, if the person *did* have maestro quality, practical could mean seeking out and sticking with a plan to develop that potential. Not resting on one's laurels, not getting a fat ego, etc., making an effort to reach out and share one's gift with the world.

In either case, hard work and a *practical outlook* would maximize the person's potential. That goes back to the OP's original question. Although he was probably referring to more *practical* concerns like Hanon and practice methods

I agree that we, the listening audience, couldn't care less about how many hours of practice they need. We care about the beauty of the music that flows from them.

I think you raise an interesting topic, but I think the people you mention still fall within a very narrow range of the pianistic spectrum. Yes, some may need to practice more than others, but I still maintain that all of them fall within a very elite group of people I would call "prodigies". IMO, anyone who becomes an internationally known and well-respected pianist is, by definition, a "prodigy", and was born with exceptional and extraordinary ... oh boy, I hate to use the word... sorry Derulux ... t*l*nt. I would submit that even poor Alexander Brailowsky, who did require long hours of practice, was still a prodigy. He may have been at the opposite end of the "prodigy spectrum" from Horowitz, but he had an innate musical ability that could not be explained by environment alone.

One cannot become a prodigy. Either you are or you aren't. If you are, AND you have the required dedication, training, nurturing etc., you have a chance of becoming a famous pianist. If you aren't, you can still become a pretty-good pianist, a very-good pianist, or even an excellent pianist, but I think it's impossible that you will ever become a great pianist.

And like you, Derulux, I'm finding much of my own thinking to be evolving on this subject. Near the beginning of this discussion I believed that no one past a certain age could ever hope to become a virtuoso, because prodigies, by definition, are presumed to be very young. But what if a child is truly a prodigy (born with innate musical gifts), but never sees a piano until the age of 20? I think that if this 20-year old prodigy-in-waiting began his musical training alongside a 20-year old of "average" talent, the difference in the rate of progress would still be dramatic. He may never wear the mantle of "great", but I suspect that his innate ability would come to the fore, and that it would be quickly recognized. And not only would it be readily observable, but measurable as well. (I'm trying to ingratiate myself to Derulux the Physicist ).

Absolutely. Agree 100%. As for what causes those differences, I think personality plays a big part. I'm not sure genetics is as big a factor in this area, because I believe twin studies have shown genetically identical kids, brought up in the same environment, to have differing interests. What do you think is this cause?


I think this bears repeating. And add in Rachmaninoff, who supposedly practiced painfully slow and for many hours.

I think your last sentence has largely been the point of this entire discourse: people determine "talent" based on the results. Talent is defined as some mystical "innate" ability. Then, the measure of talent is how well that person does that thing. If the person does it well, they have talent. If they do not, they didn't have talent. To me, basing something on the thing itself is circular logic. It's supporting a premise with a premise, rather than a conclusion.

Your other example is outstanding, concerning the autistic children. You certainly said it better than I did... and I don't think the NYT will mind that you did so. haha


So, perhaps the numbers are slightly different. I think mermily addressed that in the post. But rather than focus on details, let's focus on the idea behind it, which is sound: if one virtuoso practices more than another, does that mean the other has more "talent"? In other words, if Richter did, indeed, practice more than Horowitz, does that mean Horowitz was more "talented"? In other words, is it process or result that defines "talent"?

Of course not.
I gave two major reasons in my post why any comparison of Richter's hours vs. Horowitz's hours(if, in fact, his statement was true or just an exaggeration to impress) was basically meaningless for the purposes of this thread.

Practicing "painfully slowly" has nothing to any lack of skill or talent or anything else. It's a basic technique used by a significant percentage of professional pianists. This is yet another example of you trying to fit facts to your ideas.

As far as the number of hours Rachmaninov practiced, if he did practice more than most(I have never read anything about this in several biographies)it could have easily been due to his perfectionism or some other reason not related to his ability to learn works quickly.

In fact, it is well known that he could learn works with incredible speed. One little story to illustrate this. He was planning to give an all Scriabin recital and realized the day before that he needed 10 more minutes of music. A teacher or friend suggested the Scriabin Fantasy and he learned it in one day.

Then, I suppose I am at a completely loss in trying to figure out what you mean by "talent". It is not a physical endowment. It is not a question of time. It is not a question of ability (since you believe that this thing is "innate", which means "existing before ability was learned"). It is not potential, since the "potential" for anyone is, in fact, the same; that is, we are describing reaching the virtuoso level, which is static. It is not in the amount of practice time it takes for one pianist to be equal to another. So far, it would seem that this "talent" thing exists nowhere, and is certainly not quantifiable. What can we say by that? Where, exactly, does it exist?

In the brain...

I didn't say it was not a physical endowment. That's just your opinion and everything you wrote after that is just also your opinion also.

Your post reminds me of a few other ones on this thread where you kept on saying "we" and you should have said "I".

Finally your comment has nothing to do with my point about the irrelevance of comparing the practice hours for Richter and Horowitz. If one pianist has a gigantic performing repertoire and another has a tiny performing repertoire, if one give numerous concerts and the other gives few concerts there is relevance in trying to draw conclusions about their practice time no matter what is being discussed.

hahaha very nice!


What makes you a prodigy? Is there a time-limit on this?


I agree that that is the presumption about prodigies. Would you consider it factual? In terms of the mantle of "greatness", I think that is more marketing/PR than actual ability. I've never put much stock in it, largely because it requires the consensus (read: "groupthink") of many people. I suppose one could equate "greatness" with "famous" (not to be confused with "infamous"). It is difficult to acquire the mantle without the fame, though a better pianist one might be. (IMO)


hahaha man, twice in one post?



I can work with this. You must believe, then, that it is genetic? Otherwise, it would be learned, and talent is, by definition, "innate", not "learned".

If that is so, why aren't the great virtuosos the product of great virtuosos? That is, why wasn't Horowitz's mother/father a great virtuoso? Or Rachmaninoff? Or Kissin? Or Argerich? Or, well, virtually every single virtuoso out there. Pick any field--virtually none of the "prodigies" are the product of "prodigies". If it was all about the ingredients, there should be at least a significant percentage of examples.. no?


Fair enough. Then you do believe it's a physical endowment?

I think the best thing about "musical talent" is that I don't really know if I have any of it. I don't really care either, because I know that if I keep practicing and listening carefully, I'll start to sound the way I want to sound, which is good enough for me. Why would I want to sound like Richter or Horowitz anyways?

Myself, I don't trust the self-reporting of these virtuosos about how much they practice, unless they are clearly trying to be honest about it. In the case of Richter, there's a funny story of him telling someone about his practice regime, and his live-in companion immediately contradicting it.

Regardless of that, I was talking about the differences between how fast people learn, especially young ones, and not about practice time.

One virtuoso practice story that I do believe is from Backhaus, who said that he worked on scales and arpeggios for an hour every day, and that accounted for much of his technique. That time is not time spent learning, it is time doing a daily calisthenic routine. Similarly, if Schiff spends the first two hours of his daily practice playing Bach, he is not learning new repertoire, but going over music he already knows.



For all that, I don't think there's a single classical pianist with a major career who has been identified as being a savant.

Are they not just savants with brains?

Well, that's a lot of googling, but all for naught, I'm afraid. For one thing, nothing in the links you provide refute the fact that kids go through an explosive learning period that is unmatched in adult life. But that's not the main issue, anyway - which is that if two people within the same age cohort are learning at very different rates, the overall capacity of the one learning faster will be greater.




I know what you wrote - given your bias, I hardly expect it to be an executive summary, unless the executive you had in mind is particularly gullible.



There's not a lot there to understand, and selective misquoting on your part doesn't really add much to your position. As far as "reading to refute" goes, you certainly have surpassed me by a wide margin in this thread.



The Human Genome Project announced that mapping was essentially complete back in 2003. There have been developments since then, but the main mapping work seems to be done. Interpreting it is a whole different matter...

You seem to be assuming that the ability to see differently is not part of one's genetic raw material, or at least that genetics don't play a role in it. But why? To me, it seems quite possible that ability could tie in with some genetic factors, in some artistically inclined people.

You are right, but for the gifted people a problem remains, which is that they have been singled out. And that can have all sorts of practical ramifications.



Well, sure, we can continue to learn and grow, thank goodness, but the capacity for it is fixed to some degree by the amount of time in which we have to do it. If I had died 10 years ago, my capacity would have be fixed exactly at that point.

Afraid it's not. I wasn't aware I had to refute that, and I wouldn't try. Are you trying to find an adult who was never exposed to music to use as an example? If so, I'm sure you'll have a tough time, but even if you did manage, I'm equally sure that doesn't really represent the cross-section of real life.


I am so glad you appreciate the argument of semantics. Pardon me if I don't entertain. As for your other purely argumentative statements, I'll leave them to their graves as well.


Great. Go out and find evidence of it and get back to us. I, for one, will wait.


Such as?


It is amazing in all of this, that no one has referenced my signature line. I had expected it to happen some time ago. Of course, if you died ten years ago, you couldn't, under any circumstances I'm currently aware of, be a virtuoso today. If a two-year-old dies suddenly (for any reason), they will never have the chance to be a virtuoso. Does that mean they didn't have "talent", because they didn't "make it"? I'm not sure how that would help your position, unless you are off the "talent" argument and on to something else entirely?

What does finding an adult never exposed to music have to do with what I said?

I didn't say that adults can't learn, or that they are less intelligent than kids. Just that in terms of learning music, they are slower when old than when young. Ask any classical pianist who was learning advanced music as a teen, and who is now over 60 and is still learning the music of the same level of difficulty, for a comparison.



I'm not arguing - just providing a fact regarding the status of mapping the human genome.



http://jmg.bmj.com/content/45/7/451.full



Well, for one thing, depending on location, it may mean that an entirely different education track opens up.



Don't be amazed - there's an option not to view people's sigs that can be set in the forum preferences. I've never seen yours.



I was responding to a specific post about capacity for musical learning.

I think that one aspect of musical talent is demonstrated by the capacity one has for the learning and understanding of music. Because our lifetimes are finite, there's a built-in limitation to that capacity. That limitation doesn't limit talent, but it does limit one way in which it is manifested.