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

I will only say I cannot agree with virtually a single thing you wrote. Just one point: Did you realize that what Kissin did at his audition most people can't do after a lifetime of practice and he clearly hadn't spent endless hours learning how to do this because he was so young at the time? Hence the title of the video "The Gift of Music". To deny that someone like Kissin has a gift or talent really makes no sense.

Can everyone potentially jump as high as Dick Fosbury, sing as low as Barry White, understand math as well as Isaac Newton? Do you deny physical and mental differences between people as factors?

1. If you can't measure something, that does not mean that it doesn't exist. There are many things that we cannot measure, yet they exist, and have an impact upon our lives. For example, we sometimes cannot measure the extended long-term negative effects of a new medical drug, yet the drug certainly does exist.

2. If we cannot fully understand something, and thus define it "properly", (talent, for example), that should not mean that we not view it as a component of learning.

I don't think anyone is going to convince Derulux.

Well as a biologist I can say that you are just simply wrong... ectomorph, mesomorph nonsense is simply scientifically unfounded. Look up the scientific studies on how the scientist came to those conclusions. Its laughable. People are more susceptible to obesity due to sugar and starch and some people have slightly better muscle building potential but not by much. And for you to go use such a simple hypothetical is absurd. Two students with the same teacher for 5 years? Really? You say nothing about their parents, motivation, work ethic amount of practice, lifestyle, persistence etc. Honestly it would be a miracle if they were at the exact same playing level. Once again you are trying to simplify a complex issue.

Iq doesn't work either. There have been countless studies that tracked kids with high IQs only to find no correlation with adult success. There was even a study done with Nobel Laureates (the people who make the most significant achievements in their field) and they saw that past an IQ of 120 there was no correlation to achievement which suggests that once one reached a certain level of intelligence things like creativity, persistence, determination etc., take over and become much better indicators of success. But some people are so convinced that this esoteric idea of talent is so profoundly indicative of one's chances of reaching a high playing level that it's almost absurd.

You can't even measure talent and if we can't why does it matter? How in the world does it help anyone by telling them you need to have the talent first? Should that child go on a quest for talent? Should that deprive them of working as hard as anyone else? Human beings are one of the most genetically uniform species on the planet. We are practically identical because humans who can speak languages all descended from a group in the horn of african about 70,000 years ago. The thought that only a few human beings have this special gene that allows them to use complex movements on a piano sounds more and more like an outdated tribal dogmatic concept that has no reasonable utility.

That is a good point. Early in my teaching career, I had several young students who were very bright, did well in the advanced classes at school, and who also did very well in the grade 1 - 2 piano books.

They sped thru them, played everything fairly well, and quickly grasped the intellectual concepts of theory.

So, I made the mistake of classifying them as "musically talented".

Unfortunately, as time progressed, I soon deduced that although they were quite smart, and thus able to learn the simple things, that did not indicate true "natural musical ability".

They could not hear nuances in the music;They had great difficult with more complex rhythms, hands together, and many many other things.

I learned that some bright people can learn the basics easily, but that does not mean they are musically talented, any more than an average bright person can learn to do simple math, but they will never be able to grasp abstract and advanced math concepts, which require "math talent".

I also learned to keep my mouth shut vis-a-vis talent at an early stage.

Oy.

Count me among those in disbelief over your posts here -- not mainly because of how mistaken they are, but because of how out-of-keeping they are with your posting in general.

The philosophy you express here is admirable, and sweet. Unfortunately, it's very false. The fact is, for better and worse, that we are not all born with equal potentialities, and very very few have the potentiality of a Kissin, whether we're talking about playing the piano or any number of other things.

BTW do you also think we all have the potentiality to be Mickey Mantle? If so, I've been wasting my time on other things....

Go practice.

I just wanted to say I do agree with Derulux (sounds like we're in a minority).

Talent sounds like a generic name for all the factors we overlook when we're dealing with thing such as being a virtuoso instrumentalist.
Have you ever thought how many things (none of them innate ?) can influence someone to the point of making him doing huge progress ?
It's so big it's hardly conceivable...

What is interesting in the fact that Kissin began to sing subjects from the WTC being 11 months old is that he was (extensively, I guess) exposed to such music and to persons who practice it right from the beginning of his life. When music is a part of you right from the beginning, no wonder it's as natural as walking.

This is getting rather long, but I do want to be fair and respond to everyone to keep the dialogue going. I've put everyone's names in the quotes to which I've responded, so if you want to skip around, feel free.


I'm not sure if there is or there isn't. I don't believe in the concept of "talent". I believe that a set of characteristics and circumstances that defines who we are and what we become is taken for granted as "talent", but it is not, in and of itself, "talent". (So, perhaps this is "semantical" after all?)


Measurements "in theory" are not measurements.

Let's take your example: you've entirely neglected what happened from age "birth" to age 8. That's neglecting more formative years in which the brain develops than the entire length of your study. I'll throw in a variable that will most assuredly skew your hypothetical situation:

Student "A" was born to a mother and father who are both teachers, athletes, and musicians. From birth, this child is exposed to a wide variety of mathematics, language, physical coordination skill sets and music.

Student "B" was born to parents who, while loving, did not value education, were not intellectual, had no great skill for sports, and did not own a single radio.

It is natural to conclude that student "A" will outperform student "B" in every respect, because student "A" was prepared for the "study" since birth, while student "B" was not at all prepared.

Now, let's throw in another variable that will skew it even further: suppose student "B" excels over student "A". Then what? It must be talent, you say? Hardly.

Student "A" is involved in a tutoring club, plays four sports, reads avidly, and spends maybe 30 minutes every other day practicing. His practice time is not spent actually practicing, but rather, running through pieces.

Student "B" on the other hand, has nothing else to do but play the piano. This student spends hours every day sitting in front of the keys, working on mechanics, motion, technique, sound production-- all skill sets that will allow her to succeed at the piano.

Wow, student "B" wasn't prepared in the least, yet far surpassed student "A"! It must be talent, right? Hardly.


I disagree with this idea. I think everyone's brain is basically wired the same way at birth, and that, as a result of your surroundings, what you are exposed to, and what you take an interest to, your brain re-wires itself to succeed in that thing.

Trouble for adults is, you may now have different interests than when you were 10 months old. So, you may have to develop what someone else has already developed. But at some point, everyone had to develop that thing. No one comes into this world "naturally" able to do anything.


I've never met someone who worked their tail off, and worked correctly, who didn't see results on par with how they worked. If it should become impossible for this person to see the results, then it falls under my "if you're missing a hand" disclaimer in what I think was my first post on the subject.


That's fine. I'm not arguing for the sake of persuasion, but merely expressing my views.

I didn't hear anything special that Kissin did in his audition. If, for some reason, he had never improvised a day in his life, and that was his first attempt -- and the result was on par with the expectation of excellence that Kissin's name implies -- then I should say there is an interesting example. But we have none of that evidence available, and I'm sure he practiced improvisation ahead of the audition.

I can improvise, too. It's not that special a gift if you practice it. I heard a guy on a Carnival Cruise ten years ago who was probably the single best improv pianist I ever heard. Nobody knows his name (I do, but I won't repost it unless he were okay with it). He couldn't make it as a classical musician.


No, absolutely not. I'm glad you brought up this clarifying point.

I did say, in one of my first posts, that "people missing hands" could obviously not play two-handed repertoire. If you can't reach a tenth, you're not going to be able to do it no matter how hard you try. If you're 4'7", you're not going to be able to jump as high as somebody 6'5". You have less muscle.

So, if you want to talk about hand size, then yes, there is certainly an argument for why nobody can play "like Kissin". Nobody has hands exactly his size.

But many people have beaten Dick's record. I believe the current world record is nearly a foot taller.

Two of your examples rely on physical characteristics. The third relies on an intangible. Isaac Newton. I would argue that every undergrad coming out of a university today understands math and physics better than Newton. Why? Newton's theories were wrong. Einstein was not the first to discover that.


There were two parts to my answer for a reason. Please understand both parts before assuming to understand what I wrote. Once you do, I'll be happy to reply.


Most-likely not. Unless someone has tangible evidence. But so far, every shred of it is intangible. It's perception, not reality. Of course, we are all entitled to our own perceptions, but nobody will convince me of anything based on a perception.



Thank you so very much for chiming in. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, except that humans developed 70,000 years ago. I wasn't there to see it.


Yeah, I have a few boxes on which I stand. Don't mess with kids trying to do something to the best of their ability. Don't treat other people like crap. Don't tell me talent exists.

As for the Mickey Mantle comment, I was a switch-hitter myself growing up through early high school. I batted 3rd in the lineup, played center field, hit homers from both sides of the plate, led the league in stolen bases, and who knows what would have happened if I stuck with it? But I chose other passions (martial arts, golf, track & field, music, and a few others). I have heard, however, that pretty much every one of Mantle's records has been beaten, so obviously there are some other people pretty clearly able to do what he did, no?

It's almost against the Yankee religion to say that, I know--Mantle is still my favorite all-time baseball player--but it's true. Same with Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Maris, Berra, Mattingly, Boggs, Rose, Williams, Mays, Mays-Hayes ("Major League" reference there), and everybody else who played the game. You think Hank Aaron holds a record Ruth wouldn't have crushed if he hadn't led the league in walks? You think if just one of Foreman's punches landed squarely on Ali's jaw, that we'd still remember Ali as the greatest boxer of all-time? It's all subjective. There isn't a shred of "fact" anywhere in their accomplishments about "talent".

Are they the best at what they do? Yes. Is it because they had some "free ride" or "easy time" called "talent"? Absolutely not. It's because they worked harder, longer, and better than everybody else.

The original point of this thread was based on two questions:

What are the most effective ways to obtain virtuoso technique???
What is the most efficient way to improve via practice time?

Neither question addresses "talent" or "musical ability", only technique. If the OP wants to develop vituroso technique, it would be best to define, as precisely as is possible, what is generally meant by "virtuoso". Not easy I imagine. Is it "fast" playing? Is it playing that speaks to the "soul" of the listener? Is it playing that provides the player with large financial rewards?

He was a young child of 6 at the time of the audition. He didn't have much time to practice anything. That's the whole point. Everything he did he accomplished at an astronomical rate compared to others of the same age.

Did he practice singing Bach fugue themes he heard a lot before the first time he did it? Do you think many 11 month olds can do this?

re: being kissin

I don't believe anyone can, through hard work, be as good as Kissin.

I don't believe anyone can, through hard work, be as good as Tiger Woods.

I do believe that anyone can, through hard work, learn to play golf well enough to enjoy it.

I do believe that anyone can, through hard work, learn to play the piano well enough to enjoy it.

Also, I don't believe talent is a "have it or don't" proposition. Pretty much everyone, except in rare cases, has some kind of musical talent. It's part of being human, just like language. And that talent is like linguistic talent - not everyone can become a great orator, but everyone can become good enough to be conversant and be understood.

Exactly.
Most here are aware of this, but "talent" discussion seems more interesting for most of us (including me) than discussing the rather naïve questions of the OP.

Hakki,

My interest here is the definition of "virtuoso", which was included in the original question. If we don't have a common frame of reference for that word, then the discussion of talent or innate musical ability or innate musicality cannot be included in a discussion of "virtuoso" technique". I have made my views clear on musicality. I have spent many decades playing with and listening to people perform who haven't an ounce of musicality, even though they play technically well. Either you have it, or you don't. You cannot fool the listener.

I can post youtube links right now to several six year olds playing the same stuff. I think there may be a little bias in the idea of what the 6-year-old Kissin could produce based on what we know the 41-year-old Kissin can now produce. I taught myself Mozart pieces at 8, having never touched a piano before in my life. "Oh, my God! A prodigy!!!! So much talent!!!!!" Not even close. I already played the trumpet, knew how to read music, and used basic math for the rest. (If you can count to "one", you can find the keys on a piano.)

I have an 18 month-old niece who, at 11 months old, could use a cell phone and a tablet, call the people she wanted to call, find and play the youtube songs she wanted to watch, and, now that she's running around, can dance to them, too. She can even play a few notes on the piano, though alternating fingers in a scale is still a little out of her grasp (same finger for each note). Talent? Not at all. She's just constantly exposed to it, so she learns it.


Volodos? Richter? Horowitz?
Nicklaus? Jones? Vardon?


I think the biggest problem for most people is that they don't try. And that isn't necessarily a problem. Some people find enjoyment out of doing something well. Others have to be the best. Tiger Woods would not be happy going down in history as the 2nd greatest golfer who ever lived. He wants the title. So he works harder and longer than anyone else to go out and try to get it. But if you don't enjoy golf enough to go out and hit 1500 balls with one club, putt for three hours, chip for two hours, every day for 20 years, then you will not be Tiger Woods.

There was a very famous wrestler named Dan Gable, who used to wake up in the middle of the night and work out for two hours. Why? It was daytime in Russia, and his competitor was training. That's not talent. That's unbelievable dedication and hard work. His collegiate record of only one loss was finally beaten in 2004 by Cael Sanderson, who was the first person ever to go undefeated in college wrestling history.

Just to clarify, he did revise his question to be this, instead: "What is the best way to maximize one's piano abilities?!?" The virtuoso technique bit was entirely dropped, so if you are interested in addressing the poster's question, that's the one to address, not the original post.

Of course, if you are interested in discussing "virtuosity" as a concept, fine. I just wanted to point out that it's no longer part of what the OP is asking.

I won't comment much on your latest reply to my post except to again say I see almost nothing that I agree with or find convincing. For example, playing "some Mozart pieces" at 8 hardly compares to playing the Chopin Ballade at 6 like Kissin. Talent is a continuum. It's not either yes or no. What you did shows talent but it was light years away from Kissin.

In regard, to your comment in Kreisler's post you misunderstood his use of "anyone". He clearly didn't mean to say that no one could through hard work play like Kissin. He didn't say that and interpreting his statement that way IMO shows your extreme bias and misunderstandings. Your idea, that not a single poster seems to agree with, is that anyone can play piano like Kissin with the right amount of effort.

I am absolutely certain that you were there in the room with Kissin when he was six. Or maybe have caught a video of him playing somewhere. (Did they have camcorders in 1977? I honestly don't know..) But if you were there, in my living room, when I was six.. you have officially just creeped me out for life.

And several posters have chimed in agreeing with things I've said. But I don't base what I believe on the popular opinions of others. I base it on the evidence presented to me. Speaking of convincing.. to my first question, asking for evidence of "talent", you have yet to respond with any. Inference, certainly, but evidence? Not a shred.

If Kreisler feels I misinterpreted what he wrote, I'm sure he'll clarify. I actually think that, with the exception of the existence of "talent", I agree with most of what Kreisler wrote.

My thought is that the underlying theme hasn't changed, regardless of the OP's edit. Usually the first thing out of one's mouth (or one's fingers in this case) is closer to the desired thought than any subsequent backtracking. (Just a little armchair psychology.) We have to be careful when using the word ability. Maximizing one piano abilities assumes you have some to begin with.