Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
From the frontiers article: In a meta-analysis on the relationship between practice and performance, Macnamara et al. (2014) found that the variance in music performance explained by deliberate practice is 21%, which leaves the majority of variance unexplained.
By the way, if anyone is interested, Musical Prodigies by McPherson, as well as Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, go into the topic in a lot of detail. Both of these are cited in the linked article as well btw. Many of the points they have in the article are quotes from these books. Together, they give a really good picture of what high-level creativity looks like.
That Anders Ericsson guy is biased as heck, and out to prove something he believes in. I've read his book, and yes, deliberate practice obviously effects performance, but it's not nearly as effective as he thinks. He just keeps getting publicity because he says what people want to hear. Anyway, the point about deliberate practice overcoming talent has been addressed in the Frontiers paper.
Originally Posted by ranjit
From the frontiers article: In a meta-analysis on the relationship between practice and performance, Macnamara et al. (2014) found that the variance in music performance explained by deliberate practice is 21%, which leaves the majority of variance unexplained.
Nurture is an important factor, in addition to nature. Often times they go together. For example, the chances of someone becoming a musical prodigy is very high when his/her father or mother or both are musicians. This implies that it's very likely the child was born with natural musical gifts since the environment affects genetics. In additions, the nurture or the musical environment she'll be raised up in increases the chance even more.
Now if only I could learn how to have deliberate practice.. that can be my new excuse. JK I don't make excuses I'm typically happy with where I'm at and heading with piano, yes some days suck but we all have that. And deliberate practice or any real focus practice is no easy task.
That Anders Ericsson guy is biased as heck, and out to prove something he believes in. I've read his book, and yes, deliberate practice obviously effects performance, but it's not nearly as effective as he thinks. He just keeps getting publicity because he says what people want to hear. Anyway, the point about deliberate practice overcoming talent has been addressed in the Frontiers paper.
Originally Posted by ranjit
From the frontiers article: In a meta-analysis on the relationship between practice and performance, Macnamara et al. (2014) found that the variance in music performance explained by deliberate practice is 21%, which leaves the majority of variance unexplained.
I don't consider it biased it's just the school of thought he believes. If he is biased then couldn't we say you're just as biased with the side you agree with? You can do a quick google and find plenty of scientists, psychologists, etc. where out of 10 articles 5 will support "talent" and 5 will support "talent as a myth"
Originally Posted by meghdad
Nurture is an important factor, in addition to nature. Often times they go together. For example, the chances of someone becoming a musical prodigy is very high when his/her father or mother or both are musicians. This implies that it's very likely the child was born with natural musical gifts since the environment affects genetics. In additions, the nurture or the musical environment she'll be raised up in increases the chance even more.
I don't know anything about environment impacting genes but doesn't that take thousands of years? Just cause the parents have some involvement in music I'm not sure how that could alter the child's genetics? Again, I don't know that area at all just a thought on it.
A few decades ago scientists did research on the "Mozart Effect" suggesting that listening to the music of Mozart would boost IQ scores. Some would go further playing music (instrument or recordings) while the baby is in the womb to boost intelligence later in life. Does listening to Mozart really boost your brainpower. The findings was inconclusive.
In my younger days both nature & nurture worked against the development of my music talent. Despite playing recordings of Beethoven Symphonies in the house, nobody in the family played an instrument so we had to rely on music teachers for everything. Person A learning 1 instrument wasn't at the level he would be comfortable playing duets with person B or help each other along the way to go further.
Mom was a teacher but she isn't into music. She set very strict house rules for the family and had an obsession doing everything the right way. The family had a piano briefly when I was 5. Nobody would touch the keys until after the first lesson. Dad had an accordion he hasn't touched for years. After retirement he tried to pick up playing again and picked up a beginners book. Without a teacher he wasn't comfortable learning on his own and got no further than the first 5 songs.
Today I treat my keyboard like a toy. I'd download songs regularly and do as much learning on my own as with a teacher. People in the family would say you need to start at a young age. My parents think that I should get proper instructions and have a teacher from day 1. In the old days I considered myself a slow learner. I needed a head start learning anything (try a few songs on my own before the first piano lesson) to catch up. Without trying songs on my own I wouldn't be able to pick up anything from a teacher. Of all my teacher's intermediate students, I considered myself ahead of the group because I took the extra effort to keep up. I'm so used to learning songs on my own that I'd be working on new pieces even when my teacher is on Christmas break while other people in the family would just be working on their assigned repertoire.
Having the 'talent" in music means someone is highly accomplished and can play at an advanced level. A lot of it come from hard work. A prodigy is someone who can pick up a new skill like learn words in a new language easily without hours of instruction. By definition, someone who is talented in music does not automatically mean he is a "prodigy". Talent can be nurtured but someone who has 10 years of music training playing a Mozart sonata wouldn't be considered a prodigy as compared to a person who learned the piece in the first year of starting piano.
I don't consider it biased it's just the school of thought he believes. If he is biased then couldn't we say you're just as biased with the side you agree with? You can do a quick google and find plenty of scientists, psychologists, etc. where out of 10 articles 5 will support "talent" and 5 will support "talent as a myth"
There's not much in the way of "belief" when it comes to actual psychology research. Study after study has shown remarkable differences in natural ability, and there's not a single meta-analysis which goes against that. And no -- it's more like 99 will support talent, and 1 might support it as a myth. And that one is very likely to have an agenda, because I haven't seen a single reliable study which agrees with that position (not even Ericsson's original study: https://www.goodlifeproject.com/podcast/anders-ericsson/)
You guys keep ignoring the fact that in this very paper, the authors found that deliberate practice only accounted for 21% of the variance, which isn't that much.
Having the 'talent" in music means someone is highly accomplished and can play at an advanced level. A lot of it come from hard work. A prodigy is someone who can pick up a new skill like learn words in a new language easily without hours of instruction. By definition, someone who is talented in music does not automatically mean he is a "prodigy". Talent can be nurtured but someone who has 10 years of music training playing a Mozart sonata wouldn't be considered a prodigy as compared to a person who learned the piece in the first year of starting piano.
Well said my man...
But what makes a prodigy? It is early development and rapid learning. Early development in music should be at the same time a baby kicks when he hears a fathers voice. That's right, in the womb. At this time their brain's are elastic and starts to figure out phonetics of a language spoken around them. Formulating ways to decode the meaning to each sound. So you can imagine some baby take time to speak when they have a lot of languages spoken to them. Now if you expose these same babies early to music they could understand it easier, faster than any of the kids their age exposed to baby talk (goo goo gah gah da-da). Can you recall a song you sung instantly not knowing when you learnt it, then your mom says 'I taught you that song when you were little'? This doesn't make you a prodigy but only cites learning music at a young age. Rapid learning comes with your brain figuring out the formula already. It's like you knowing the past, present, and future tense of a word and know when to use it. All that's left is translating that from the brain to your hands. Gene cannot be discounted on this one, for it is what they call talent.
So, genes early development, and nurturing...
But the most important aspect of this is having fun... say "Hi Charlotte"
Having the 'talent" in music means someone is highly accomplished and can play at an advanced level. A lot of it come from hard work. A prodigy is someone who can pick up a new skill like learn words in a new language easily without hours of instruction. By definition, someone who is talented in music does not automatically mean he is a "prodigy". Talent can be nurtured but someone who has 10 years of music training playing a Mozart sonata wouldn't be considered a prodigy as compared to a person who learned the piece in the first year of starting piano.
Well said my man...
But what makes a prodigy? It is early development and rapid learning. Early development in music should be at the same time a baby kicks when he hears a fathers voice. That's right, in the womb. At this time their brain's are elastic and starts to figure out phonetics of a language spoken around them. Formulating ways to decode the meaning to each sound. So you can imagine some baby take time to speak when they have a lot of languages spoken to them. Now if you expose these same babies early to music they could understand it easier, faster than any of the kids their age exposed to baby talk (goo goo gah gah da-da). Can you recall a song you sung instantly not knowing when you learnt it, then your mom says 'I taught you that song when you were little'? This doesn't make you a prodigy but only cites learning music at a young age. Rapid learning comes with your brain figuring out the formula already. It's like you knowing the past, present, and future tense of a word and know when to use it. All that's left is translating that from the brain to your hands. Gene cannot be discounted on this one, for it is what they call talent.
So, genes early development, and nurturing...
But the most important aspect of this is having fun... say "Hi Charlotte"
Its kind of funny when you hear her sing "da da-da da-da da-da...." But really I'm glad she grasp the idea at this early age, of how important is to be able to voice the piece in your head, albeit naturally.
It is easy to get hung up on the word talent, like you either have it or you don't. And many perhaps wanting to seem modest may simply say I have no talent and my playing is only a result of all my hard work. But, we all have something we bring to the table ...
If you can sing a melody in tune, you have more natural ability for music than the person that stands beside you in choir that cannot. Of course, everyone can improve and maybe we will all be strong contributing choir members, but it will be more work for some than it will be for others. It is without question, that we are not all made up with the exact same mix of star dust. But, it is like a sliding scale, where most of us are around 4,5,6, prodigies are at 9,10, and the tone deaf are at 1,2. A lot can be fixed with hard work, but a good starting position can definitely work in your favour when it comes to music.
This was mentioned in the summary of the initial posted article ...
The other aspects that differentiated musical prodigies from their peers were the intensity of their practice before adolescence, and the source of their motivation when they began to play.
I found this statement interesting. Whether someone has Talent to a high, middle or low degree motivational source is what keeps us with it and so that would actually seem to be more important than anything inherent. Just a thought.
I think people should not be so easily fooled by foetal age children playing the piano. The fact they start earlier than many certainly doesn't mean they will be great players. You can however see years later if they are getting there. A young pianist who can play high level masterpieces is rare but possible. But what makes a pianist - a good teacher , persistance and many, many, MANY!, hours of practice !
If anyone has any videos of well know pianist as children please share. Very interested.
I also think that it is possible to play masterpieces as an intermediate-advanced amateur. I think some people think people are talented because they dont think they can play difficult pieces but I dont think it is unreachable anymore and you can learn to break many barriers you think. You just have to learn to be very patient and persistent with a good instructor. My main barrier is probably motivation but playing with a piano group I found very helpful. Also seeing how people improve over a couple of years has been very great to see.
I also think that it is possible to play masterpieces as an intermediate-advanced amateur. I think some people think people are talented because they dont think they can play difficult pieces but I dont think it is unreachable anymore and you can learn to break many barriers you think. You just have to learn to be very patient and persistent with a good instructor. My main barrier is probably motivation but playing with a piano group I found very helpful. Also seeing how people improve over a couple of years has been very great to see.
Yes, like this guy...he reached it, with patience and persistence... successfully played a difficult piece, after 12 long yrs!! (watch find out the piece)
If you haven't try a piece, you don't know how playable it is. A piece can be difficult because it has a fast tempo, a lot of chords, big jumps. The first time you play a piece with big jumps is going to give you trouble. After that similar pieces become easier to learn.
Once I worked on the first movement of the Bach Italian Concerto in F for nearly a month and played it at a gathering. At my age people wouldn't use the label "prodigy". The word "talent" usually apply to people much younger. They generally think of my playing as someone who has a few years of instructions / experience. If you see a senior playing piano, you think of him as having "experience" than "talent".
I think people should not be so easily fooled by foetal age children playing the piano. The fact they start earlier than many certainly doesn't mean they will be great players. You can however see years later if they are getting there. A young pianist who can play high level masterpieces is rare but possible. But what makes a pianist - a good teacher , persistance and many, many, MANY!, hours of practice !
If anyone has any videos of well know pianist as children please share. Very interested.
Sorry, can't indulge you the links, because you and I have access to the same internet, no?
Youtube search1: Emily Bear as a baby - courtesy of WGN Sample Pieces as a child - Out of Control - original composition as a teen - Hot Peppers - original composition, Girl from Ipanema - classical pieces like Schumann Piano Concerto in A minor, Op.54
I also think that it is possible to play masterpieces as an intermediate-advanced amateur. I think some people think people are talented because they dont think they can play difficult pieces but I dont think it is unreachable anymore and you can learn to break many barriers you think. You just have to learn to be very patient and persistent with a good instructor. My main barrier is probably motivation but playing with a piano group I found very helpful. Also seeing how people improve over a couple of years has been very great to see.
There are lots of masterpieces that are not technically difficult and don't require an advanced skill level to play reasonably well. About half the Chopin Preludes and most of his Mazurkas for example.
I was listen to his preludes a couple of days ago as I have the book have only learnt one of them. I am very keen to learn this one below. I hope not too popular a piece as I dont like to play pieces at meetup group that are very well know which I think makes it more interesting. There are of course plenty of pieces that are masterpieces at all levels, i meant hard masterpieces, but yes this was not clear online.
Chopin nocuture in E flat was the first piece I played for my teacher when I returned to lessons and certainly a piece everyone can end up playing. I perhaps think more important now to play pieces well rather than worrying about level of pieces.