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

Ability like talent is a continuum. Everyone has some degree even if they're at the extreme low end of the bell curve.

What I'm really trying to say, politely, is that people who are blind are not able to be airline pilots; they lack the ability to fly using current technology. Period. Rocks lack the ability to swim and therefore are not able to compete in swimming competitions. Period. Are these examples, therefore, of just the extreme end of the bell curve? You may think I'm being flippant but, while it may be possible to maximize one's ability, if it is at the extreme low end of the bell curve, one is not going to become a "virtuoso".

The examples you gave are not really on the curve at all. They have physical disabilities that prevent them from doing the tasks at all.

The quote I objected didn't talk about the unreasonableness of someone at the low end of the scale becoming a great pianist. That's perfectly reasonable to me. You said one should not talk of maximizing ability because someone might not have any. I don't think many would consider people who are not capable of pressing down a note in that discussion.

If he's been taking lessons for five months, he must have some rudimentary abilities, at the very least. Either that, or else he and the teacher are involved in some kind of folie à deux.

Precisely. There are people who have no musical ability. They are not on the curve at all.

I don't think I've ever met someone who had "zero" musical ability. Some people are less fortunate, and aren't exposed to it as much as others, but just about everyone can whistle, hum, or clap.

I was not agreeing with you. Anyone who can press a note down has some ability to play the piano. In a discussion of "ability", including those who are physically incapable of pressing a note down in the discussion is not something many would consider as reasonable.

I must apologize, as I have not made myself clear. I am not talking about being able to whistle or clap. I am talking about being able to make music. There IS a difference. Many people can play the piano. Not that many make music when doing it. The difference is clearly heard by the listener.

I'm not sure that's indicative of musical ability. Technique, almost assuredly, but not necessarily musical ability.

Of course, there is the off-chance that it is the listener who has the issue, and not the performer (or any other listener who heard the same thing).

If the only people capable of "making music" sit in the first chair at the New York Philharmonic, then the world is in a sad state, indeed. So, I think my definition is usually pretty broad.

Naive you say? Well I apologize. We can't all be young pianists winning amateur chopin competitions like you my good man.

Hakki what is your definition virtuoso anyway? I know it may be hard to come down to us mortals but please enlighten us with your utter brilliance.

I'll just assume I have no musical ability and/or talent and practice relentlessly and hopefully my teacher guides me well. Maybe then I could scratch the surface of decent musicality when it comes to playing "Mary had a little lamb". See you all in 10 years.

Oh Horowitzian...

You rang?









WHAT AN AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!!

Before we put this thread out to pasture.....

I remember my first concept of "virtuoso." I was somewhat raised on the John Schaum piano books -- y'know, Book "A," Book "B," etc. It went up to "H."

G was titled "Pre-Virtuoso."
H was "Virtuoso."

So, for years I went around thinking, all I had to do was get up to Book H and I'd be a virtuoso, whatever that meant. To me, it meant basically getting up to Book H, but I figured it was something real good besides that. Just do book H, and you're a virtuoso.

Imagine my disappointment.

BTW, maybe the problem was that I never did Book "A." I had had a teacher before that who used John Thompson. So, I had done "Teaching Little Fingers to Play" and whatever was the next John Thompson book after that. Then with this next teacher, I got "jumped" right to Book "B." Maybe "A" had some missing secrets.

You should never post again, Joel. That was your 1337th post.

l33t.

You mean, by book 8 you weren't? Maybe it was a "talent" issue.. (couldn't help it)

On a more serious note, and out of curiosity, how long after that did it take? And what was in volume "H"? (I've never seen the inside of those books.)

Also, I think you inadvertently bring up a good point about "labels". You see this all over the place in the martial arts nowadays. People "promote" themselves to foreign-language equivalents of the word "teacher". They call themselves "master" because it attracts more students--ah, marketing! But all those labels are irrelevant and pointless.

I think, in this respect, the prophet Jack Sparrow said it best, "All that matters is what a man can do, and what a man can't do."

Perhaps in that respect, and tying it full circle to the original question, it would be best to disregard the label "virtuoso" and simply dissect technique that breeds success?


EDIT: I suppose the second question leaned more in that direction..

Unfortunately, the only answer I can give over a forum is that it depends on what you're doing now, and what you'd like to be doing. But the best and most effective snippet of advice I could give would be to say this:

Don't, under any circumstances, continue to practice something incorrectly. Always practice the correct movement. Otherwise, you will develop bad habits very quickly, and they will haunt you from note to note and piece to piece.

If you are playing with significant bad habits, it would be best to go back to scratch, rebuild your technique, and then continue. There is a lot of time invested in this approach. Look at Tiger Woods. He is now on his 4th swing, and it took him five years to get back to #1 in the world coming into the Masters. Could take 2-3 years to rebuild your piano technique (or longer). But if you want it that badly, then do it.

ftw

I think "making music" like "ability" and like "talent" is a continuum and not a yes or no situation. That would mean that close to 100% of pianists can make music to some degree albeit sometimes at a low level. And some would require a lot of instruction to play with even a minimum of musicality.

You mentioned your accomplishments at 8 s if to show Kissin's skill at 6 was not so amazing. One has to compare apples to apples. You hadn't played the piano at all at age 6 and he did at 6 what I previously described including playing a Chopin Ballade. At 8 you taught yourself to "play some Mozart pieces". I don't know what Kissin did at 8 but judging by where he was at 6 and the fact that he had been at Gnessin for 2 years he was undoubtedly light years beyond what you did at 8. Although both Kissin and you were talented, there is no comparison to where you were on the talent scale.

I gave numerous examples of what the huge majority of people and virtually everyone on this thread would call talent. Since you don't even consider talent something that exists or can be measured no one can ever give you evidence of talent. Most would consider my examples of Kissin's talent self evident.

From what I read in this thread, I'd say that baby Evgeny had an indiscutable talent at birth, that of having a mother who taught his sister Bach fugues.