Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is there anything more skilful in the world?

Because there is no such thing.

What do you mean?

Interesting, between piano and organ, I would venture to guess it is more difficult to play the latter. IMHO, I probably would find playing the former preferable:)

Going back to the original question, in my experience playing the piano entails essentially two different skill sets. It requires the ability to recognize patterns of information and be able to reproduce them on command.

For the former, training in almost any technical field requires the same or higher ability to process information. IE, you probably will spend more time achieving the insight required for a ph.d. in theoretical physics than completely mastering the piano.

In terms of muscle memory, how about juggling?? I believe the world record is 12 balls in the air. I bet it is easier to play the rach 3 than to pull that off:)

Ive always thought piano demands lots of hours and concentration and is therefore very difficult, but, im sure the acrobats you talk of, and many extreme sports, should be classified as harder, as there is bravery to consider, but which is the most proud attribute? bravery or skill?? i doubt Lang Lang would ever fly down those ramps skateboarders do, but am sure he could balance himself to do it if there was a way in which no risks were involved, but the extreme sportsman would never be able to play these difficult pieces having not played a note before in his life.
snooker is very difficult, but not as hard as the piano i dont think, i play both to a standard as to recognise the difficulties, and so my opinion is justified.
what i feel strongly about though, are rock bands and such, they dont compare almost with virtuoso performers of piano and violin etc. but the general public think theres loads of talent involved, but in reality, writing a pop song would be a skill learned in a few weeks, with just a reasonably wise person.
you talk of snooker being difficult, i would imagine golf is more difficult.


but relaly such things shouldnt be judged for their difficulty and just respected.

Funny I've never liked organ

What I meant with snooker was that unless one works very much one cannot play as well as a professional.

Anyway I still think playing a bowed instrument is one of the hardest things you can do. Playing means playing on a virtuosic level.

sorry - the real answer is Quantum Physicist

Ice-cream taster.

Proctologist

I am compelled to look at the bigger picture. Specifically...the lasting quality of any particular skill and ALSO is there something inherent in this skill that brings great joy/happiness to others?

As far as sports is concerned, professional, of course, I think most would agree that it has become just a money-making endeavor. And while the skill of hitting a ball might seem difficult, that skill won't last very long. In time, the player is no longer at his/her peak and is retired from the game, albeit a millionaire probably. Yes, it does bring happiness to others, but it's such a fleeting thing. Fans being fickle as they are.

I know I am going to get rocks of words thrown at me, but I could never understand the purpose of the Olympic games. To get the body in great shape should be solely for health reasons. I find it all quite self-absorbed. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less how fast someone can swim [ well, maybe if they're rushing to save me from drowning] or how many back flips a person can do? In the end, what is accomplished here? Big deal? And to think of the years and years of work put into the number of -- of back flips!?...it's ridiculous. In five years or so, that person would be lucky to do one...the body will eventually give out and all that work for naught. So silly. And I think the joy or happiness involved is purely of an ego-boosting variety. Afterall, isn't it all about winning the gold?

So...obviously no big surprise here, I believe that playing the piano as a concert pianist is, for the most part, a skill that not only takes countless years and years (a lifetime, really) of work and pressure, but the beauty of the music that comes from all those years is a joy for EVERYONE, forever. True, there is some ego involved, competition being what it is. And that competition is there because of the nose-dive classical music has been taking for the past 50+ years. I seriously doubt if classical performers do it for the money, for surely there is an easier way to make a living.

And the performer can and often does only get better (not worse) as the years go by. Many times reaching their peak in the 50's-60's.

And what pleasure that lifetime of devoted hours brings to others. It can't be measured; priceless.

Maybe I'm off the wall a bit, but music is considered by many to be the highest art form. Communication without words, universal and ever-lasting. And I applaud all those who have decided to make it their goal.

Just my two cents,
Kathleen

Kathleen's analogy between the professional sports player and the professional musician brings out the fact that it's much a question of what the market will bear.

One could similarly argue that the worth of a surgeon is surely greater than that of a ball player, yet how many surgeons do we know who get "contracts" for 5 years at over $100,000,000.00 gross - or whatever the going rate is for ball players these days? It little matters, I think, that the ball player may have only ten years of professional "life" in him; it's still the lopsided fact that society is willing - and able - to foot that kind of bill for sports players because the market will bear it.

As for Kathleen's "two cents", I would say a very worthy two cents - probably worth more!

Regards,

No !

(and by all means I'm not a pianist)

(Long post warning: feel free to skip!)

Whether we admit it or not, humans in general have a tendency to be biased in their perceptions. In some sense, it is inevitable as people usually make judgments and decisions based on their own experiences, which is almost always incomplete. It is, therefore, no surprise that many pianinst think that piano playing is not only the most skilled activity, but also the most worthwhile or morally redeeming. I doubt whether most non-pianists would hold it in such high esteem.

I have played an instrument most of my life. I absolutely love playing the piano and listening to it, and spend more time with the piano than is good for me. However, I have no illusions that this activity requires more skill or is inherently morally superior to any other worthwhile endeavor. Any skilled pursuit (yes, even a sport!) require years of dogged pursuit and determination, espcially to reach the highest levels.

Let's take long-distance runners for instance. These people run for hours each week, some putting in as many hours as a half-time job, to get better and better. After they reach a certain level, it becomes increasingly difficult to take even seconds of one's time, but many persist. Go watch any major marathon. There are tens of thousands of people, most of whom have trained hard for months, and many run/train their entire lives. All but a few (and I mean that among, say 30,000 runners, less than 10) do it only for personal satisfaction, and pay good money to do so. Many drag themselves across the finish line hurt and bleeding.

The above is just one example. Golf is another. So are baseball, tennis, etc. We all know the difficulties of playing the piano well, but not those of these other activities that we easily dismiss.

To say that piano playing superior to another activity is, well, narrow minded. Piano, and music in general, should be viewed as an important and valuable human activity. However, once we start ranking, we open a dangerous ground. The people who have cut funding for music programs in schools but retained sports have done exactly that-judged sports to be more important and superior to music. If we are to condemn that, we should be careful about not doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

a blindfolded pianist lol! thanks youtube!

ummmm loveschopintoomuch, there certainly is an aspect of sports that brings happiness to others. I'm from West Virginia, and we LOVE our football here. It brings a great deal of joy to my life and to others in West Virginia who have little else to look forward to. In the same way, music fills a special place in some people's hearts.

That being said, if WVU were to win a football national title, I would weep like a sissy girl. If I won the Cliburn Competition, I would weep like a sissy girl.

Hi Last Mile:

I read your post, and it wasn't long at all. And, of course, you brought up some good points.

But, if I remember the original topic, it was stated as a question that asked for a personal belief. I gave mine. Obviously you took offense to it because you used the term "narrow-minded."

Perhaps the real danger here is not whether we are making moral judgements over which activity is more valuable, but instead making moral judgements about a person's right of opinion, which, of course, is the most dangerous of grounds.

Thank you, phonehome. We certainly needed a little levity here. And I sincerely wish you win both!!

Kathleen

To follow on Kathleen's fine post, I have never understood how art (be it music, literature, painting, sculpture, theatre, dance, etc) is in the least comparable to sport (being able to run faster, throw something harder, knock a small ball into a hole, etc, more accurately than the next person.) The common factor of both requiring years of dedication and determination is merely coincidental.

One can hardly compare the contribution made for posterity by a great marathon runner, and the life's work of a great artist. One was able to run 26.22 miles faster than pretty much any else over the period of their sports career (hurrah!), whereas the other usually leaves behind something that will continue to speak to the world about the human condition in some special way for many centuries to come.

-Michael B.

PoStTeNeBrAsLuX :

Exactly!!

Kathleen

There is so much bias here.


Michael Jordan will speak to the world about the human condition for generations to come. As will Jackie Robinson, Jake la Motta, Muhammed Ali, and countless others. Music, art, and literature don't hold the sole rights to the "human condition" argument.

As musicians, we have to face the fact that a very small percentage of the population will be exposed to the true beauty and purpose of classical music. For everyone else, the human condition is defined elsewhere in people such as writers, journalists, athletes, politicians, scientists, etc. All of these people remind us of what human beings are truly capable.

Not all value judgements are "bias", as some would have everyone believe (speaking of "bias").

I won't condemn anyone for supporting sports more than arts. Only a liberal would do that, though often only in the abstract. I do, however, lament the ignorance of anyone who supports sports more than arts.