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

???????

I thought that's what I was talking about -- the "realities and necessities of society". One of those "realities" is that we're not all the same. I don't understand your statement.

Andorra, I don't understand your statement either. My understanding of the German education system was similar to this Wikipedia entry(for what it's worth):

"Tracking (education)

Tracking is separating pupils by academic ability into groups for all subjects or certain classes and curriculum within a school. . . Germany uses a strongly tracked system. In Germany, students' achievements in their last of generally four years of primary school determine the type of secondary school they will be permitted to attend, and therefore the type of education they will receive."

I think you're thinking of "front end" necessities, where he may be mentioning "back end" necessities. Inputs vs outputs. (Of course, I could be wrong -- not very familiar with Germany's education system. It just sounded that way to me.)

Good evening.

Quite exactly, whether we are all the same (or not) has nothing to do with the structure of education in Germany (or anywhere else, I think). I don't think that whether we are all the same or not has anything to do with "no child left behind" policy in the USA. I don't see why you bring these things into the discussion because they have nothing to do with questions of different talents or inborn abilities.

Good evening.

I think "these things" have quite a bit to do with questions of "different talents or inborn abilities". It's called "options". And I happen to believe that the US, unlike Germany, has done a miserable job of providing a variety of educational options and pathways. I couldn't care less about the motivation behind Germany's policies. The important thing is that a structure is in place that values all of its citizens, and allows each person to progress in a way that suits his or her abilities and desires.

As far as NCLB goes, I actually do suspect the motivations of policy makers here in America. Because it's based on the fallacious notion that "every child can succeed" if only teachers would teach better. No one believes in teacher accountability more than I do, but teachers cannot control the raw material that is presented to them. And the mantra that every kid must attend college is even more ludicrous. Yet that is the message that every child receives: Go to college, or you will be deemed worthless. And if you can't read, or add and subtract, or speak English by the time you arrive at college? No problem. We will "remediate" you (or inflate your grades). How enlightened!

I am not resurrecting the thread to introduce new arguments, but to supply an article I just read that, ironically enough, was published on the 13th and addresses many of the topics we've discussed over the last few weeks.

For anyone interested, a copy is here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/of-mice-and-men.html

The article discusses genetically identical mice, and how a combination of the mice's choices through life, their environment, and the universe's "accidents" created and shaped the abilities of each mouse, and how choice, in particular, was far more significant than genetic makeup. A very interesting read for anyone, well, interested..

Good evening. It is evident that the authors of the study were inspired by your posts!

If one is comparing mice that are genetically the same, then it seems obvious that environment and choices would be far more significant.

This also seems to have little to do with any debate about how important genes are where two mice(or people) are genetically unequal. To do a study relevant to the discussion on this thread I think the researchers would have to make environment and choices the same and compare the results of mice with different genetic capabilities.

I see what you mean. This shows the limits of a "No mouse left behind" policy!

And the NCLB policy is equally limited.

And just as I was about to say that it's too bad we can't test for the innate musical ability of mice . . .

I remembered a Bob and Ray routine. Ray plays a general who enters his 88 mice in a military base talent show, and assigns each mouse to a key on the piano. And once he has them all lined up, he directs them in this honky tonk piano piece that's absolutely hysterical. IMHO, the funniest 2 men to ever grace the planet. They were one of the few acts that would reduce Johnny Carson to tears every time.

Can one of them play the piano?

Another relevant article has been posted in the thread "Do Musicians Have Different Brains?"

But I'll admit I haven't read this whole thread--maybe that stuff has been discussed here already.

My God, if only I had that much influence!


I think the discussion of genetically identical individuals is entirely relevant. In fact, we even discussed the idea of performing very similar studies on humans.

That said, I have been persuaded that genetic differences may represent a significant limiting factor. I do believe that I, at least, tried to address the idea of a "handicap" or a "disability" by ruling it out of the discussion; but I'm not sure that idea took in everyone's minds and arguments. Be that as it may, I wasn't really trying to rekindle anything .. just sharing a very interesting read.


Man, if they can, I want exclusive rights..

From that article:

'This expertise in fine finger control
has a correlate in the brain. A morphometric
study revealed that the intrasculcal length of the precentral
gyrus (ILPG), a marker for the cortical motor
hand area, is longer in keyboard players relative to
non-musician controls. Although it is possible to
propose that individuals born with a longer ILPG
will have greater aptitude for playing the keyboard
compared with those with a shorter ILPG; the association
between ILPG and the age at which training
commenced suggests that anatomical differences in
motor cortex are the result, not the cause of learning.'

Yeah, you've to love human beings, always comparing our gyrus to the next, to see who's got the longest!



As said the virtuoso, "Why Madame, whatever makes you think that I play with my hands?"

To be quickly recognized, there has to be someone who knows enough to recognize them. They also have to have a piano, or there is nothing to recognize. If these children were to be brought to a piano, and on the very day that they encounter a piano for the first time, someone was at hand to recognize them, would they be able to do anything recognizeable? That piano has to be there for them. And the "little guidance" needs to be proper guidance, and not nonsense.

Of course each person is born with a set of innate abilities or potential, and is wired toward this or that --- the world of sound, the world of the visual, the world of scientific exploration. But opportunity must be present too. And the right guidance, for long enough.

In regards to the OP, wherever you are now, whatever you can and cannot do, that has to be dealt with by someone who knows what he's doing combined with your effort. I assume that what you want to do is to learn to play the piano very well, and are calling that "virtuoso technique".

(I've been reading this thread from the beginning after starting at the end, to get a handle on it, and got stuck on the present post in regards to which to respond to.)

Good morning. I'd just like to point out that it is exactly this "of course" that has been the subject of disagreement in this thread. That each individual is born "wired" toward this or that, visual or sound or science, is an idea that is erroneous, "of course "

You have quoted a portion of what I wrote, and that distorts the message. I do know what was discussed, since I responded to it. (I mentioned about reading through the whole thread.) To understand what I'm saying (then you can respond to what I'm saying), please read the entire post. Thx.

That blog entry (it's not an article) doesn't focus on "choice", but on "chance". To me, that's a pretty big difference.

It seems to me that what is being discussed is a sort of "butterfly effect". In other words, very tiny variations in the mouse's environment early on, perhaps ones due to chance, can eventually have quite significant results, regardless of genetic material. It could be really just be pointing to certain kinds of environmental variables that simply have been downplayed or overlooked previously.