I've finally decided to take the plunge and learn piano.

It's something I've wanted to do for a while but, because of money/space constraints, I've never been able to.

I don't have a piano myself, nor the funds to buy one at the moment, but I've ordered a keyboard for me to practise on (only 61 keys though). Not ideal I know, but I hope that will be enough to start with. I'll be saving up to buy something better later.

I've booked my first lesson for monday. woohoo! So at least I wont be a complete stranger to a real piano. lol

Now I'm just twiddling my thumbs waiting for my keyboard to arrive (should be delivered sometime today).

Any advice/words of wisdom for a clueless piano newbie?

Welcome to the forums! You have picked the best instrument - congratulations! Hope you enjoy your piano journey. You'll find plenty of like-minded folk here to share the highs and lows...

Second only to the organ, eh, Sue?

Don't listen to the organists
Piano is the best!

My keyboard has arrived!

Now...if only monday were as quick to get here. lol

Plug it in quick, and get tootling!

Yay! Have fun!

Oooo exciting! Hope you enjoy your first lesson, Clueless One, and welcome to the forums! I'm sure you'll get lots of help if you have any questions once you start, either from the Piano Viva or the Adult Learners forum

Only one day to go.

Starting to get a little nervous now...not sure what to expect.

Oh well, roll on tomorrow

S'ok - we piano teachers don't bite... (well, not very often )

And not very hard....

You'll have a great time - do let us know how it goes!

My piano teacher is brilliant and I really enjoyed my first lesson - and all the lessons since! Really hope you enjoy your first lesson too, look forward to hearing about it

I've had my first lesson.

The good things; I enjoyed it and it was nice to realise that I haven't completely forgotten how to read music (school music lessons ftw )

The bad things; I was so nervous that I'm sure I made myself look like a complete idiot, and now I'm feeling like this ->

I know it probably wasn't anywhere near as bad as I feel it was...but, knowing me, I'm going to spend the next few days kicking myself for every little mistake I made (and I'm sure that, at the very least, I could NOT have looked comfortable)

Oh well, plenty of time to practise before next week I guess.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Look at it this way - if you played perfectly and didn't make mistakes, you wouldn't need your teacher! You're really doing your teacher a favour by making mistakes

Good luck with the practice

This is all completely normal adult student behaviour - I'm sure your teacher has seen it all before - don't worry!

I'm so glad you took the plunge to learn such a beautiful instrument and that you enjoyed your first class.
A lot of competence in an instrument is based on 99.9% hard work and sweat and about 1% talent, so see to it that you cultivate the former with great care. Do come back to us when you need advice or support. I'm a 52-year-old learner and have taken lessons for 2 and a half years now and I'm enjoying the experience thoroughly, despite the occasional moments of discouragement, which maybe are inevitable, especially at my age, but not only, I guess.
Bye for now.

No-one that has the bravery to take on such a difficult task as learning the piano looks like any kind of idiot. Any good teacher, like any sensible person, will admire your courage. It is completely normal to be nervous in front of your teacher. After all, it is a performance of sorts, even if it is a low key one. It passes, though it might take 2 lessons or 20 before you can relax and give of your best in their presence.

Such wise advice. The myth of "talent" was debunked years ago in well controlled studies. It has been repeatedly shown that the only measurable correlate of musical skill (amongst other skills) is the cumulative number of hours of deliberate practice. Somehow the myth persists.

As Louis Kentner put it in book on the Piano, there are three kinds of piano player: "Those who practice a lot and deny it, those who practice a lot and admit and, and those that do not practice a lot, and are therefore no piano players"

He is so right. There are many friendly, caring, supportive contributors on this forum

Age has nothing to do with it. The main drawback of starting when you are older is that you have fewer years ahead in which to develop your skills. The ultimate height so f pianism are probably unattainable to those that start to play after childhood, but few reach those heights. So long as your brain and body are heallthy it is still possible to become an exceptionally good pianist at any age.

"Talent" has no "measure" and therefore cannot be proved or disproved in controlled studies. What about the student who, when he/she finally gets the notes of a piece right (it takes a long time, because he/she doesn't practise much), plays the piece with such natural phrasing and style? What does he/she have if not some kind of innate musicality? I have had a fair few such students and the difference is obvious from my other students who need to be taught phrasing and style.

I agree. I hear the same nonsense about running - that you don't need "talent" (for which read "natural ability"), just the ability/desire/motivation to train hard. Sheer poppycock. Obviously, hard work pays more dividends than sitting around doing nothing, but everyone has limits beyond which no amount of practice can take them.

Edward

It's not necessarily lack of practice.

I know - I was just pointing out that I have students that I know don't practise much, but when they finally get around to learning something, they play it with an innate musicality that is just natural to them. What is that if not natural talent?

I really have to add to the talent and hard work list the Confidence Factor. It means being able to wing it at times when you're lacking in either - or both - of the other two!

Adults generally lack confidence - just be positive and determined, and go for it! Best of luck.

There is, of course, musicality, a necessary factor in playing music, in playing music "musically", I mean, but we - or at least I - meant to say that one shouldn't run away with the idea that talent will save you hours of practice as I think it rarely does. It may help you feel a piece more deeply and thus play it more musically, but I don't think talent, whatever that means, by the way, can ever make up for little practice.

Your definition of "musicality" is probably fairly close to my definition of "natural talent". I agree that it is no substitute for practice, but certain things do come easier to some people than other people - whether that's genetic luck or musicality or talent...

This is boiling up nicely. Does the ability to "feel" music, to express the dots with true sensibility, have any relation to the bio-mechanical ability to strike the notes? Go onto YouTube and watch this version of the Paganini-Liszt "La Campanella" and irrespective of whether you like the version, ask yourself whether you could physically reproduce it? Although I've passed Grade 8 I can tell you that even if I practised five hours a day from now until the heat death of the universe I could never play those notes, in that order, with that precision, at that speed.

My belief is that on the one hand you have the innate physical gifts (musculature, nervous system, tendons) etc. WITHOUT WHICH a monstrous technique such as Lisitsa's (or Cziffra's, or Marc-Andre Hamelin's) is just IMPOSSIBLE. On the other hand you have the emotional tools - the musicality, the deep sensibility - without which you are simply playing the notes, not making music. There are plenty of concert pianists with the latter who lack (in some measure) the former - Brendel, for example, had no fireworks at his disposal, nor for that matter Uchida. Doesn't make them any less musicians of the highest order. I can't (offhand) think of many top flight performers who are simply bravura technicians - even Bang Bang and Kissin play with feeling sometimes.

Of course none of this takes account of people who have no ability to play but are deeply musical. Stephen Fry, for example, has written often about his profound love of music, but he cannot play a note. I very much doubt whether someone as self-aware and intelligent as he is would be moved by Mad Tom's argument which, if I'm representing him correctly, can be condensed as "if you want to be a musician, all you have to do is practise".

Apologies for length and poor prose - I'm supposed to be working!

Edward

Not a pianist (but there are other perfectly good instruments ) but I'd say that there are very few people that are completely incapable of learning music.

Some people might be innately more talented than others - certainly there are physical characteristics that help, but I'd agree with Mad Tom that most people don't practice enough to reach the maximum limits of their talents - especially if you extend the concept of practice to include improving your general musical education. It's much easier to play Bach idiomatically if you have listened extensively to Baroque music and understand standard polyphonic structures. Many people find it difficult to convey 20th and 21st century pieces because they don't like them, rarely listen to that sort of music and don't really understand what the composer is getting at.

At the end of the day, there are no short cuts. If it takes on average 10,000 hours to begin to master the piano, talent might get you off 100 or so. But most people don't have the inclination to spend that much time on a single instrument. Which is fine, I've got other hobbies and things to do with my time too but I don't pin it on lack of talent (and so beyond my control), merely lack of desire (and I could, after all force myself to do it).

Maybe - maybe not. Have you tried it? 5 hours a day working on La Campanella? You might surprise yourself with what you achieve. Especially if you get rid of the self-limiting belief that you would never master it even if you "practiced five hours a day from now until the heat death of the universe". Perhaps you never will play it as well (fast?) as Lisitsa, but you'd still play it very well.

Incidentally, the third of my four piano teachers could play La Campanella every bit as well and as fast as Lisitsa, but he never became world famous - possible because he would not look so good in a pink dress (and that statement is only partly in jest - success often goes to those with both the ability AND a saleable image - in the classical world as well as the Pop world).

It is no doubt true that if you lack the genetic gifts you will never reach the pinnacle of world class performance in any field. 5'2" men do not make basketball teams or 100m freestyle finals, nor would you get far in "World's Strongest Man"if you weighed in at 8 stone. An inadequate ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch fibers will prevent you becoming an Olympic sprinter. Genetics endowment makes a difference. I have never maintained otherwise.

It is also possible that an early start is essential in order to mould the body for the chosen activity before pre-programmed developmental changes rule out the possibility of the ultimate possible skill.

My true beliefs are that almost everyone can attain extremely high standards through sustained and correct study and practice. Also that every one of us is stuck with the genetic endowment they were borne with, and the consequences of whatever life they have lived till now. The only thing we have any control of is what we do in the future.

It is demonstrably true that in general (not in every case) the best executive musicians are those that practice the most. So unless we intend to implement some kind of East European Communist program of identifying young talent and nurturing it, whilst ignoring everyone else, the only sensible thing any of us can do is work at developing whatever strengths we have, and eliminating our deficiencies.


I admire Brendel's playing tremendously, but do not enjoy listening to Uchida's Mozart at all. The slow movements in particular sound robotic. Of course she plays Mozart very much better than I do, but it is not right. I MUCH prefer Klara Wurtz's recordings of the complete set. For individual sonatas though HOrowitz and Lang Lang have produced some magical music

Has he TRIED? Does he WANT TO? Has he persisted for years, despite initially slow progress in an effort to develop competence on an instrument? If not then the fact that he cannot play means nothing? Who has read his autobiography? Does he reveal anything there? He writes, he acts, he presents, he is vastly knowledgable. When would he have time to learn an instrument as well? I love to watch dance, but as I am virtually untrained, as a perfomer anything more complex than a Gay Gordon leaves me flummoxed. My daughter on the other hand trained several times a week from age 4 to 18 and dances marvellously. And some her genes are mine.

That is the essence, but it rather over-simplifies the process.

Practice is more than repeating stuff over and over.

Mindless repetition is of little use. You can waste hours a day for years and get nowhere that way.

You have to learn to control your attention. You have to apply intelligent analysis to what you are doing, so as to make the right changes and learn the right actions, before you repeat them to groove them in. You have to train your ears, and study harmony and structure. You have to develop a sense of rhythm and timing. You have to practice the right things, and at the time that is right for you. And you have to sustain all this for substantial lengths of time, almost every day, with few days off, for years.

Only if one is as driven as you - some of us play the piano for fun

(I do earn my living doing it too)

I don't know how much Stephen Fry TRIED to play the piano - we lived in different counties when growing up and went to different schools. In other words, I wasn't present during any of his childhood, which is where (if memory serves me correctly) he tried to learn an instrument. I can't recall which one - I can recall that he repeatedly bemoans that he cannot play. He would have had time at school to learn an instrument - he was at various boarding schools where time hangs heavy, so I think it's a fair bet that he gave it a reasonable shot.

Your underlying assertion - that few people reach the limit of their talent owning to either a lack of work, or incorrectly directed work - is unassailable. Where we part company is that you appear to believe that a limited ability (mine, for instance) can be parlayed into a stellar technique by correct practice technique. I'm old enough and self-aware enough to be able to assert, without much fear of being proved wrong, that I have attained the dizzy heights that my meagre talents allow. I'm not "self-limiting" except in the sense that I know my limits and prefer that to disappointment. I guess at the base of all this is the law of diminishing returns. One of my closest friends was an Olympic 800m runner - he once lamented that he'd spent 14 years training twice a day to knock 1.4 seconds off his personal best.

But I do agree about Uchida. I can't abide her playing - horrible and twee. I don't care for Brendel either much.

and anyway, who wants to be technical genius with no soul? If I wanted to play like that I would have taken up the organ


I'd have to disagree here...

Ok, whose been insulting the organ? *loads shot gun*

Jacob.

Me wanna make something of it?

I do like it when we can have an intelligent, well reasoned discussion, understand each other, still differ, and stay friendly right through. There are so many people who seem unable to accept that others do not agree with them in every tiny detail and are determined to beat them into submission.

I still think you should have a shot at La Campanella - 5 hours a day - and see where it gets you.


Who ever said it wasn't fun. I would not do it if I did not enjoy it.

So you have put the hours in too - one way or another



Gosh, we DO agree on something

I don't have too many restrictions on when I can play - detatched house, piano with a practice pedal, tolerant husband - but there comes a point of an evening where I'm not alert enough for any practice to be beneficial.

Your definition of "fun" is obviously somewhat different to mine...

Only whilst being paid for doing so - I'm a sightreader.

That's gotta be a first!

Forteen years to knock 1.4 s of his personal best - I very much doubt it!! Over what age span? If it was 14 -28 would imply that a 14 year old with no real history of proper training was turning in times that would be not too far away from Olympic standard, just doesn't happen like that (or if it does it happens very seldom, Edit - I think Seb Coe did this between his UK record in 1979 and 1983, but then there was little room for improvment there"!).

I used to adhere to the "practise make perfect" theory (even posted a paper on it on here once) but I've found that as I've got better then I'm start to appreciate real talent more and more whereas before I just wouldn't have recognised it.

I think Carol piano V2.0 is right - a lot of the authors of these studies simple aren't qualified to judge, and so they base their conclusions on measurable outcomes (the one I posted was about hours of practise to achieve a pass at a certian grade. This may be true, but even a grade 8 distinction is not really a very good standard in the great scheme of things.

I'm very certain it would be a very different story if you had music teachers who teach to a very high level made qualitative judgments about the standard achieved. In fact it often amazes me just how little taklent some people have. Playing comes out as a string of notes, all the right length, all in the right order and all played at the appropriate level but there's nothing else to say about the playing.

Most mortals could not practise for more than ~2000 h a year (5.5 h a day every day) and very few children could. If you took a cohort of 1000 6 year olds, and made them practise like that for 5 years with a teacher standing over them then to make sure it was all done properly then, even if it was possible to impose this prcatise regime (which it clearly wouldn't be) I very much doubt very much that you'd end up with even one Benjamin Grovsnor let alone 1000.

Between the ages of 18 and 32.

Someone somewhere today mentioned to me Malcolm Gladwell's book The Outliers - apparently to become a true expert in any field requires around 10,000 hours of work, and that figure appears to hold good for a surprising number of disparate disciplines. Sorry if this has already been cited elsethread.

Edward

3 good paragraphs there - I particularly like the middle one


MT - your inbox is full...

I am so popular!

Chac'un son gout, I suppose, but I am grateful that so many great composers have agreed with plonkee.

or alternatively, many people are arguing with you

my comment was not entirely serious


EDIT: MT could you possibly empty more than one space at a time?

Tom's so popular... wow...

What an amazing instrument the piano is, as I read this discussion. Mysteriously, sophisticated... Now I feel like running home to the feet of my piano and worshipping it. Nah, kidding...

To some extent a triumph of workmanship over design, but even more so a triumph of decades of careful development over a basically flawed concept.

So you could say "the Porsche 911 of music".

I wish my piano went that fast when I play!

Not a metaphor that immediately comes to my mind. What parallels do you see between piano and Porsch? and to what would you compare other instruments?

The piano is a fundamentally flawed design (especially the keyboard) but through constant development and refinement it works brilliantly.

The Porsche 911 is a fundamentally flawed design (you should not have a huge weight - the engine - behind the rear axle) but through constant development and refinement it works brilliantly.

I have nothing to say on other instruments.

Yes, I agree that the keyboard is not optimum. For me, the most important limitation is only having 12 notes of fixed pitch in each octave to represent the 35 that can be represented in the notational system, and the development that makes this acceptable is the mellowing of tone that took place through the first half of the 19th C.: careful location of the hammers on the string and softening of the materials have reduced the amplitude of the fifth partial to the point where the sharp major thirds and flat minor thirds of equal temperament become acceptable.

There are several advantages of rear location of the engine, notably the lower floor that becomes possible by eliminating the fore-and-aft drive shaft. The greater load on the rear wheels requires careful attention to tyre pressures and relative roll stiffness of front and rear suspensions. Note that this configuration is now universal on track-racing cars, where there is no practical objection to using different sizes of tyres on front and rear.

Well, I suppose they come in handy for standing glasses on.

(Now, where shall I run to).

SB