Request Input on Playing
osceola
OK, This may be difficult for me to articulate, But I truly am interested in
the thoughts of teachers and serious players alike.
I started taking lessons at the age of 6 from a very stern preacher's wife.
She was very strict about adhering to fingering techniques, rythm,
continuity, etc. So, I go to my first competition and wind up in the
playoffs for national competition. Later on, other successes at
competitions/talent shows, etc. . Then, the stern piano teacher moves away,
and I got paired with a somewhat more lackadaisical approached instructor.
I never really progressed, never grew. I think I only played pieces, pop
ones at that, and never studied technique. Later on, I did at one point
attempt to take from a very highly respected teacher at a university, but,
unfornutately, this conicided with my teen years in which I became enamored
with golf, in which I foolishly failed to put into the adequate amount of
(piano) practice, which made those latter lessons a futile effort. My last
recital was very painful for me and those in the audience: I realize now
that I was ill-prepared, and stricken with stage fright.
I have truly loved music my entire life, something I believe was given to me
by my mother. I would still like to play, but play better than I do now.
I want to share this with my son, as I think being able to play anything
musically is a privilege and a blessing.
Question ONE: Where do you draw the line between natural ability and
education/ development? All indications early on in my training pointed
towards me being a better than average, perhaps even a good student/player.
But the outcome was drastically different., I think I classify myself as
someone who can hit the right keys at best, but struggles with tempo,
continuity, rythm, and is limited as to complexity of the piece. Could it be
that what I was told about my natural ability early on was only good for
that period of time, and that such early natural ability applies to those
early pieces? When I watch accomplished pianists at the college or
professional level, the divide just seemed to huge, and I have always
thought that "they were just born with better tools?", e.g., finger
dexterity, quickness, etc. Any thoughts?
Question TWO: What suggestions to become a better player at 37? I have
learned a life lesson about studying. While in undergraduate, my grades
were slightly above mediocre. However, when I desperately needed to succeed
to eat, I graduated magna cum laude in law school while working a full time
job. I know the difference when you dedicate your self to a project. So,
any thoughts on how to proceed?
-I think at most I would want to play for myself, family, friends,
perhaps church
I appreciate any thoughts. If there are others with similar stories, would
be interested to know, especially from adult students.
LstPuritan
towards me being a better than average, perhaps even a good student/player.
But the outcome was drastically different. >>
That sounds familiar. When I was 4 and over at a classmate's house, his
mother, a piano teacher, found out that I had perfect pitch, not that I
understood what that was, as I never played the piano and did not even have one
at home. She called my mother and ranted that I should start lessons
immediately, develop any innate talent while at such a young age, etc. By the
age of 5 I played publically all 12 Bach inventions from memory, some Scarlati
sonatas, and easier Mozart pieces. Two years later that teacher moved away and
I told my parents I didn't want to take lessons any more, as I thought I could
teach myself. At age 12, I realized those other 5 year old kids I was so much
better than years before were now playing Bach inventions too, and although my
ability had improved a bit and I'd learned new pieces, I was no longer a
prodigy, but just above-average. I soon got back into lessons seriously and
once again learned faster than most; There have been several times after this
that I stopped playing the piano for 6 months or a year (I'm 21) but when I
returned I always learned faster and I attribute this to the early training.
<< Later on, I did at one point
attempt to take from a very highly respected teacher at a university, but,
unfornutately, this conicided with my teen years in which I became enamored
with golf, >>
You rebel!!! I'm glad to hear you survived and outgrew without any permanent
damage the dangerous underground world of golf and got back to piano.
--kidding--
<< Could it be
that what I was told about my natural ability early on was only good for
that period of time, and that such early natural ability applies to those
early pieces? >>
I feel strongly that that is not the way it works. Consider a 2 year old child
who learns the alphabet and is able to read simple words, phrases, and books
years ahead of all other children. Obviously, this level of reading ability
shows remarkable talent and potential for being a writer or a linguist, but if
the child did not develop the ability and keep learning, eventually the rest of
kids his age would pass him up several years down the line. In the case of
reading, this cannot happen because we all go through school and are forced to
learn to read, and those with natural ability are forced to learn faster and
are presented with harder material. When was the last time you heard someone
say,
"You know, I was such an outstanding and talented reader when I was 4; I sure
wish I had stuck with it and not quit reading, because I certainly would be a
great reader by now."
The reason music is different is because people can, and do, quit at an early
age, and often regret it. It is scientific fact that, disregarding talent for
the moment, children learn languages faster and with less difficulty than
adults. But people _can_ learn to read and learn languages as adults, although
it is generally more difficult. The fact that you had such success at an early
age with music suggests that you have already developed neural pathways between
the superior temporal gyrus (which is the "passive sound processing center," a
description I just made up so don't take it exactly as fact) and the planum
temporale (the "active analytical processing center," another made up
description by me). This latter region is the same used in perceiving
languages, which is why I mentioned reading, and is larger on the left side in
musicians, and even larger in musicians with perfect pitch.
So it seems logical that if an adult can learn to read, even if it takes
considerably more effort than it would for a child, so can an adult develop an
ability for music in a similar way. It's taking a long time to answer your
question, but it's acutally a difficult one. Getting back to what you asked,
any ability you developed which you refer to as "early natural ability" _you
still have_, although you may have forgotten it. You just need to remember it.
The neural pathways are still there.
[if anyone mentions Plato regarding this point, my own brain is going to ooze
out my ears, as I'm having enough neural activity just trying to understand
myself enough to put it into words]
<< When I watch accomplished pianists at the college or
professional level, the divide just seemed to huge, and I have always
thought that "they were just born with better tools?", e.g., finger
dexterity, quickness, etc. Any thoughts? >>
I'll provide some information and try to make sense of it, but better would be
comments from a musician who knew more about neurology.
The most celebrated case of damage in a musician's brain is that of Maurice
Ravel, who began to make spelling mistakes in 1933 and soon after lost his
ability to read or even sign his name. Far worse, he could no lnoger compose,
even though, as he lamanted, the music for a now opera was "in his head" and he
had no trouble playing rapid scales or listening to musical performances. He
lived four more years, tormented by music he could hear but no longer express.
Precisely where in Ravel's brain, or even in which hemisphere, the damage
occured is not known. But his case suggests that even if music and language
occupy seperate cognitive systems, at some other level there must be neural
circuits that are shared between them or lie so close together in the cortex
that a stroke or traumatic inujury could spread its damage to both (Shreeve,
90).
The huge divide you perceive seems to be due to technical acheivements by
students who practice 4-8 hours a day. If one of these college-level pianists
you mentioned didn't touch a piano for a year, I have no doubt that they would
remember the notes to the pieces and feel the expression, phrasing, dynamics
needed to play the pieces they used to know, and yet they would not be able to
play them until they got their purely technical ability back up to par. In
other words, no one was born with tools that you can't build yourself.
Ravel lost the ability to read, write, or compose music, yet he could still
play the pieces he already knew well fluently. But he could not analyze,
understand, or speak about the music he played in musical terms; I don't think
any of us can imagine what this must be like. But I _suspect_ playing a piece
one knows well in front of a large group of people when one is _extremely_
nervous may simulate this experience somewhat. We lose the rational part of
our thinking due to adrenaline and the primal "fight or flight" response, yet
our fingers still move and play the pieces. Personally, I used to suffer from
severe performance anxiety to an unnatural degree (before I knew that it was
not stage fright and a function of several other medical conditions) and did
not remember my performances afterward. Completely blank. A more normal
response to playing with stage fright would probably be "It was all kind of a
blur but my hands just kept playing even though I wasn't really thinking about
what keys to play or what my hands were doing."
The point is, considering your early success, I would think that you still have
the brain of a musician. But you need to improve your technical ability, which
is one of the most controversial and heated isues around here. You might start
a thread asking how one improves technical ability, but be prepared for diverse
and uncompromising opinions.
<< Question TWO: What suggestions to become a better player at 37? I have
learned a life lesson about studying. While in undergraduate, my grades
were slightly above mediocre. However, when I desperately needed to succeed
to eat, I graduated magna cum laude in law school while working a full time
job. I know the difference when you dedicate your self to a project. So,
any thoughts on how to proceed? >>
What is your current ability? It wasn't clear from what you stated about being
able to hit the right keys but struggle with tempo and rhythm. I didn't
understand. What types of pieces can you play, and where is the line that
defines the uppermost limits of your current ability? If you can hit the right
keys to La Campanella "at best" and your only problem is not knowing at what
tempo to play, then I think we should switch places and you should be giving me
suggestions. On the other hand, mabye you meant you can hit the right keys for
heart and soul "at best." I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but
many people could give advice if they had a clear idea of where you are in your
ability and what exactly your goals are in terms of pieces you want to play for
your "family, friends, church."
Have fun,
Hope that helped at all,
--Justin
---------------------------------------
"Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds." George
Santayana
jeanniew
You can do it and you need to do it.
I left the piano at around 16 for numerous reasons (none of them good but I
was a teenage girl - need I say more?). Stupid but maybe not so stupid.
I went on with life, got a degree in environmental science, got married and
had three kids. My parent's gave me their piano about 6 years ago. I
played now and then. I was pretty disgusted that I couldn't play nearly as
well as I used to. I'd hear other people play and think to myself that I
should be able to play that well. I had supposedly been really talented as
a kid. I was getting bitter about it. I would tell my husband that if I
had stuck to it I might have been really good. He would roll his eyes and
tell me to get over it. Well, I couldn't.
I started back to lessons last May. I auditioned at a state university in
February and was accepted into the piano performance program for next fall
and I got a partial scholarship to boot! I can't believe it still. My
friends and family, extremely sceptical at first are now very supportive.
I'm very excited and scared at the same time. I'm 31 years old. Not your
average music major... I might fall on my keester but at least I will have
tried.
I'm doing it and I'm going to find out just how good I can get. Someday
when I'm a little old blue-haired lady (god willing!) I will not have to
taste the bitterness of not following my dream.
Whatever you feel you need to do to get back the musical part of you DO IT!
You will never regret it. It is more a part of you than you realize...
Cc88m
>professional level, the divide just seemed to huge, and I have always
>thought that "they were just born with better tools?", e.g., finger
>dexterity, quickness, etc. Any thoughts?
I believe that, even with limited time, you can learn to play quite difficult
pieces for yourself at practically any age, provided you know the proper
practice methods or have a good teacher (both of which are very difficult to
find). However, being able to 'perform' like a professional is strictly a
function of how much time you can spend on the piano -- that's all there is to
it. Same in any field; the professionals: tennis, golf, basketball, hockey,
lawyers, home builders, any profession or skill; if you are going to perform at
the professional level, you are going to have to live it and spend all your day
at it. Otherwise, like you say, there just isn't any comparison. Sure, talent
and effort are helpful, and simply add to how well you do; but if you can't
totally commit to it, you just won't be able to perform like professionals. I
used to wonder too, what made professional pianists play so much better -- was
there a special transformation in their hands, etc., until I realized that it
was no different in any other profession. Nothing mysterious. It's being able
to keep mental track of all the myriads of minute details.
C. C. Chang
Earnest Bovine
LstPuritan wrote:
>
>
> [if anyone mentions Plato regarding this point, my own brain is going to ooze
> out my ears,
Promise?
LstPuritan
ooze
> out my ears,
Promise? >>
Voyeur.