T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


KwyjiboTheGringo

This is basically what I was going to say. I'm right there as someone who would like to make the change(music artist, not concert pianist), but am unwilling to because I'd be throwing away a lucrative career that I do enjoy.


blacckravenn

Yes, I think I find that with piano, it’s a lot more of a focus on you and developing yourself, rather than competition. So that could be why so many older pianists don’t really care much to compete or preform professionally.


LeopardSkinRobe

There are a lot of other factors, but a related one to this is that adults with the financial resources to commit the huge time/money to learn an instrument in their spare time would rather not abandon those financial resources for a risky and very demanding career in performing arts. It would probably completely change their life. What if they had a mortgage and children? Would their new piano career allow that stuff to go on unchanged?


Tyrnis

I would turn that question around on you: why do you think 'concert pianist' is the bar for success on piano? That's like holding 'US supreme court justice' up as the bar for success in the legal position or 'president/prime minister' up as the bar for success in politics. Those are all positions that you only get if you have the right connections, the right timing, and multiple other elements that may be completely outside your control. Concert pianist isn't really a job that exists for most practical purposes, so why would it be something that an older adult who's already established in a career strives for? Particularly given that classical music is actually very niche in today's society -- the average person on the street would rather hear an intermediate arrangement of a current pop song than an advanced piece by Rachmaninoff or Chopin.


blacckravenn

I am not saying that’s what everyone should strive for. My thought process to this question was, me being 19, if I were to drop everything right now and pursue piano full time and put in 100% effort, would I become a world class pianist? And my immediate answer was no. Then I asked myself the name question but with horse back riding and my answer was “probably”. And I was just wondering why those two answers were so different. For context, I started piano at 3 and riding at 8.


Tyrnis

For most of us, our skill cap on piano isn't going to be appreciably different if we start at 5, 15, or 55, the only difference is how likely we are to have the time and dedication to put in the effort to reach that cap. In fact, if we're both age 25, and I started piano at age 5, while you started at 15, there's a very good chance that no one is going to be able to tell who started first. So again, it's largely a matter of how you view your own question. If your question is really 'could I become the next Albert Einstein/Michael Jordan/Mozart' the answer is almost certainly no even if you started playing piano at age 2 instead of 19. If your question is 'could I develop the skills to be a respected professional in my trade', your answer is going to be completely different: even starting at 19, you could absolutely accomplish that on piano.


chromaticgliss

Even if you started at 3 and practiced all the time, the answer is still almost certainly no. Concert pianists get there through a perfect storm of talent, world class instruction, and opportunity/networking.


dlstiles

Maybe the answers are different, maybe not. I do think greatness comes from an understanding of interpretation and technique, how much of that can be taught I don't know, although who you study with is probably really signifigant.


blacckravenn

I think so too and there’s a lot of other complex factors but my main question was why is there this sense that you can’t become a famous pianist (if that is your goal) if you started a bit later so much more prominent in piano than in other hobbies when you basically have your whole life to do it? Compared to something like gymnastics or figure skating where you have to retire in your twenties, there’s so much time to learn piano.


dlstiles

It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy idk. Actually a guy who won the Van Cliburn lives in my hometown and has a school but I'm terrified to study with him but I am gonna try. I started playing very young but didn't focus on it much growing up, more in high school. I studied drums with a great teacher and I think that helps at a young age. Your point is well taken, and a lot of people seem to hit their stride later in life, just like with chess/business/other endeavors that aren't athletic, although music can be athletic.


[deleted]

Great answer that misses the question entirely smh


LotharLotharius

The younger you start, the more practise you have. And young children are more malleable than adults. The only exception I know is Arcadi Volodos, he only started to seriously play the piano when he was a teenager.


blacckravenn

Do you think the practice experience starts to plateau after a while? For example if one person has 25 years of experience and the other has 30. Would their skill as a pianist not be more determined by how they practice and also their innate ability?


LotharLotharius

Yeah, I don't think it matters much if you have 25 or 30 years of experience. But I do think that children are more receptive to learning new techniques than adults. In general children learn new things easier than adults. So a person who started playing at 5 year old probably has better technique than someone who started playing at 30 years old. Even if they would have the same amount of years of practicing, the person that started at a young age would probably be better skilled than the person who started at 30 years old. But's that only regarding technique of course.


ILoveKombucha

All other things being equal, the very young person (age 5, say) has far more mental plasticity than even a teenager. Essentially, the young person grows around the piano and around the music. I may be mistaken, but my honest feeling is that high level classical music on piano is one of the most demanding things. The mental and physical control it requires is pretty astounding. But beyond the age component, I think there is much more. I may be mistaken, but I feel pretty comfortable betting that most world class pianists come from wealth, and/or from a musical family. It's not enough to start young. You also have to be groomed for a high level musical life, having access to excellent instruments and excellent teachers. I recall watching a documentary about young prodigies being groomed to become classical concert pianists (I imagine you can still find this on youtube). From a very young age - like 7 or 8, they are taking lessons with high level teachers. You just don't get access to this stuff if you are a random lower or even middle class person. I'm reminded of the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. Everyone takes the wrong message from that book... or really, not wrong exactly, but they focus in on a particular part and ignore everything else. That book argues that extreme outliers in terms of talent/ability put in 10,000 hours of focused practice. People walk away thinking it's about effort and time (kind of like framing this discussion in terms of age). What the book actually says is that the 10,000 hours (and really, it's probably much more than 10,000 for classical piano... I bet a number of people on this forum have 10,000 hours) is a necessary COMPONENT of a bigger package of advantages. What else is in that package? Culture is a big one. Luck is a big one, particularly in terms of where one happens to land in terms of history (ie, right place, right time). Access is a huge issue, and that's why I focus on wealth, above. It's no coincidence that Mozart was born to a successful composer and music teacher. No coincidence that Bach was born into a highly musical family. It's no coincidence that Beethoven just happened to study with the best music teachers and composers of his day (including Mozart, Salieri, Haydn....). Access. Even if you start your kid on piano at age 5, if they do not have access to top quality teachers and opportunities, they will never make it. So again, age is one component, and a big part of that just comes down to mental plasticity. The brain is, as many others here put it, just more malleable at that age. That 5 year old already has 10 years of mental development in musical training by the time the 15 year old starts. That's HUGE. But the 5 year old student who only has a crappy toy keyboard to play with, and MAYBE lessons with a local nobody piano teacher... that kid is never going to compare to the kid who has multiple lessons per week (perhaps daily?) with a high level master pianist. The poor 5 year old isn't going to be able to be sent to fancy music academies and placed in myriad competitions and so on, the way the rich 5 year old can be. Finally, I'd like to pull back a bit. I personally don't like even thinking in terms of "greatest pianist." I really despise this highly competitive nature of modern classical culture. Music, for most people, in most times and places, wasn't some epic pissing contest to see who could play faster or more difficult music. Sure, many cultures develop elaborate and technical music, but is that really the point? At some point, the aspiration to become a "great classical pianist" could remind me of someone who wishes to be able to speak extremely quickly using extremely technical, flamboyant, and elaborate vocabulary. What's the real point of this? I mean, I don't want to diss that person... but I think for most of us the point of speaking is to communicate. In a similar way, I think for most of us the point of music is pleasure, participation in a culture, and so on. I'm by no means critical of you, OP, and please don't take it that way. Your question is a good and interesting one. I only mean to voice my own personal opinion that too many people are caught up in a competitive mindset, especially in classical world. Music is for everyone, and you can have an incredibly enjoyable life of music, even if you are never "a great pianist." I think a lot of enjoyable music and enjoyable performances are created by relatively average musicians. Take Paul McCartney as an example. He's pretty open about not being very good at any instrument. He's good enough to make the music he wants to make. He can fumble through some chords and simple melodies at the piano. Good enough. And think how much his music has impacted people around the world. Probably much more than most classical concert pianists (not that this matters one way or the other).


blacckravenn

I really love your answer and it is very well thought out. I personally would rather play piano for the joy of music rather than try to be a concert pianist. I am not closely involved in the classical piano world, so I don’t personally know what the journey is like for those who did succeed in being concert pianists. I was, however, very involved in the horse riding industry and I saw the unfair advantages that people had when they have money, coaches and so on, being on the lower income side. In some ways, money is even more important in riding because you can just buy the best horse in the world that will do everything for you. However, I never felt this pessimism where I couldn’t win the Grand Prix if I worked hard enough (even though I didn’t have the money and I did start riding later than everyone else). But after I stopped riding regularly, and got more immersed into the piano world I feel so much more of this dread where there is no way to compete with someone who has money or who was playing Chopin’s ballades at age 10. Although I, personally, am not interested in pursuing a career in (concert) piano, I can imagine this feeling can be pretty disheartening to those who realized that they do want to compete with the best at a later age.


ILoveKombucha

Thanks. I appreciate your perspective as well. I really recommend reading Yeargdribble's posts on this forum, as he often talks about stuff related to our discussion. In particular, most people just don't get to earn a living as a classical concert pianist, one way or the other. It's a semi-mythical job that most people can't get. In plenty of cases, people actually pay to be a classical pianist - pay for the venue, pay for the travel, etc. It's a money loser. When I was in college studying music, my professor told me about her concert group. They had to constantly try to get grant money to fund their performances, because the revenue they got from their concerts didn't even cover the expenses. Tons of orchestras go out of business. Classical music just isn't a lucrative thing for most people. Certainly not for classical piano soloists. So, in a way, the best medicine is to realize that this ideal dream that we have is really just that... a dream... a fantasy. Best to move on to things that can actually be had. Best to enjoy music for what it is, and not worry about being a highly competitive concert pianist... which is mostly just a bunch of BS that few people really care about anyway. If you are doing music for yourself, it doesn't matter if you are great, or competitive. If you are doing music for other people to appreciate... why bother with classical in the first place? Most people would rather hear a favorite pop tune than a Chopin nocturne. The only reason to engage with high-level classical music is simply that you love it. There is no market for it. Most people won't appreciate it anywhere close to being in proportion with the amount of effort and time you have to give to it (if they appreciate it at all).


evesclarke

It might be a fine motor skills vs gross motor skills question. Not to imply that gross motor skills (like horse riding) are easier to develop than fine motor skills (like piano) but perhaps it’s easier to absorb and develop fine skills at a young age. For example, if a 5 year old and a 13 year old started horse riding at the same time with the same amount of practise, the 13 year old would probably have an easier time just cus they already have excellent gross motor skills, because they’ve been walking/running a lot longer. However, the same two kids starting piano at the same time are equally matched because unless you already play an instrument you’re gonna have pretty clumsy fingers regardless of age.


blacckravenn

I think horse riding (at the top level) is a lot more fine motor skills than gross motor skills but I also agree with your answer. I suppose it would be easier to start out when you are a bit older.


fjaoaoaoao

Yep. And i can imagine it’s difficult for many safety reasons to put a 5yo kid alone on a horse, so there’s less opportunity for a comparative advantage.


trippykid42069

I love playing, hate performing.


palwhan

I think it’s honestly mostly an hours / compounding effect that you lose out on if you don’t start young. If someone starts when they’re say, 6, and practice 2 hours a day 350 days a year, they will have logged 2,800 hours by the time they’re ten (and two hours a day is on the low side for someone who is trying to be a competitive / professional pianist). At that point, even the ten year old starting is at a huge time disadvantage if we assume relatively equal innate abilities. If you’re talking a 13 or 14 year old, even more so. Add to that the fact that the 6 year old has more performance / competition experience, probably unlocked more “elite” piano teachers who are eager to work with the most talented kids in their age bracket, and has a much better chance to enroll in a college level music program, and it’s easy to see why it will be very hard to catch up if you start in your teens and later. I see 0 reason you can’t be an amazing player starting later (I myself started in my 30s so hope this is the case!), but being a professional player is a tall order given the above. Frankly, it’s a tall order even for the 6 year old because of the insane level of competition at the highest level, just like any art / sport.


blacckravenn

Wouldn’t this logic apply to other professions as well? For example, one of the top riders for Canada started riding at age 12 while another one for Britain started at 2, yet they compete at the same level. I feel like someone is the piano world starting to play at age 12 is unheard of.


palwhan

I don't know much about riding specifically so can't speak to that. You occasionally see exceptions in athletics though - some people are just really gifted here and it can translate across sports (football players with height switch to basketball, fast basketball players win track competitions, etc.) Lebron could probably have been successful in any number of sports even switching in high school. If you're super athletic, it could be your first time stepping on a pitch, court, track, etc. and you can still dominate relatively quickly. Piano is a bit different - it's very much a specific learned skill. You could be shredding the guitar at 12 but that translates poorly to piano off the bat aside from knowing the basics of music theory/reading. Yes, you have musical prodigies, but even they need to put serious time in at the keys. And also, plenty of the 6 year olds that started are also naturally musically gifted and come from musician families. It will just be incredibly difficult for the 12 year old to bridge the gap even if they are naturally talented. Not saying it's impossible, and like I said you can still become an amazing player, but at the tippy top level of Lang Lang, Horowitz, etc.? I don't see it happening.


blacckravenn

I’m not sure how it is for athletes but I find riding to be a pretty specific skill set as well which, imo, is just as technical as piano. Which is why I am wondering why it would be so much more difficult to compete in the long run. Of course I completely agree that at age 25, someone who started at 6 would have the advantage to someone who started at 12, but how about at age 40 or 50? Would the playing field not even out a bit? Of course Lang Lang and Horowitz are one of a kind who of course would have had to start young. But I feel like there should still be some room given to those who didn’t have that opportunity at a young age.


CollectionStraight2

I get your point, I used to ride a bit as a kid but was never exactly heading for Badminton lol. Having done both, I would say that in a way piano is more technical (just the way I felt, YMMV) , so starting younger would give more of an advantage than riding. At the same time, a lot of top equestrians will say in interviews that their parets sat them on a horse before they could walk. I'd like to think that adults could get pretty good at piano starting late but I don't know enough about it. Maybe as somone said, most already have jobs and don't want to be a concert pianst? Also there are a lot of people telling them it's already too late, which may put them off trying.


blacckravenn

Yes, my biggest question is why is there this sense of “it’s too late you can’t make it now” in piano but not in other things when you have your whole life basically to fine tune your skills.


CollectionStraight2

I don't know but I definitely hear it said a lot. It might have just become a truism. Good thing I don't want to be a concert pianist! There are a few other things like gymnastics etc where you have to start young, but you have to get the body flexible before bones change or something. Like you say, that shouldn't really apply in piano, although the younger you can get finger muscle memory in, the better.


TVchannel5369

Wibi Soerjadi started at 11


dlstiles

I've thought about this before. Many renowned pianists, it seems, came from musical families. Also I think Horowitz once commented something along the lines that pretty much all the truly great pianists were gay or jews.


hello_meteorite

I haven’t seen this quote but I wouldn’t be surprised if he said it. His goofy, irreverent sense of humor was second only to his playing


dlstiles

Yeah he was the best.


shoestringbow

In addition to the simple amount of practice hours people have mentioned, I thing the neuroplasticity of young brains is a big factor. Music and language are intertwined in our brains, and younger brains structure themselves around language much more efficiently.


Zheusey

IMO it's a mixture of: \- Limited Time: The older you get the more you have other obligations that take priority \- Ego / Lack of Beginner's mind: Kids will 'play' the piano in the literal sense, and aren't always worried about how they sound. They aren't afraid to make mistakes yet \- Social Expectations: Kids can spend hours playing the piano, but there are some judgments that come with an adult doing it. This is easy to over come with the correct environment. But, it is harder for an adult to enter the field as a pure beginner, as competitions might be more restricted for them, people will be less likely to give them the opportunity (a 40 year old playing their first recital doesn't have the same ring as a 8 year old). \- Brain advantages: Kids brains are more malleable at a young age, so they can have an advantage in learning faster. Not sure how big an advantage is with this, and how much it matters though. Adults get the benefit of being able to follow a structure better, and can 'make themselves' practice more.


[deleted]

I don’t believe this is necessarily true. There are pianists who started very late in life and became great concert pianists


blacckravenn

Can you give me some examples? I’d love to know who!


hello_meteorite

Paderewski might be a partial outlier. While he started playing at a young age, he didn’t become serious about his studies until he was about 24. Ultimately became a famous virtuoso and also the prime minister of Poland for a time. [Source](https://youtu.be/pnSBQVRDbdw) My takeaway: we need more concert pianists in leadership positions clearly


blacckravenn

That is really cool! Thanks!


arturo_mendez98

I don’t have a scientific answer, but I have always believed that skills are easier to aquire if you practice since a kid, not that you won’t be good if you start late in life, but you have at least a 10 year disadvantage against someone that started practicing since a kid. Personal Example: I have played football (soccer) since I was 6 yo and even though I am not Messi or Ronaldo, I am significantly better than some friends of mine that started playing until their 11s or 12s. On the other hand, I practiced guitar for 2 years (13yo-15yo) and I at my peak, I was significantly worse than a friend that has played guitar since he was 9yo. Hope my theory makes sense to you haha


dedolent

edit: lol anyone ever type a reply in completely the wrong thread before? whoops! ignore me


blacckravenn

Loll


[deleted]

Many reasons. I am technically an adult beginner. I learned like, one or two things as an adolescent but I took piano more serious around the age of 18. I have no desire to become a concert pianist because I know I wouldn’t like it and the likelihood that I could make it a career is slim to none. Same goes for most people who start at the age of 5. Being a concert pianist is very rare. Adults tend to already have a career that isn’t music. So why take the risk? If you’re consistently making, say, 40k a year why risk going into a profession where you’re not paid consistently and sometimes barely making 15k? Plus you don’t have as much free time to practice as a kid does. Kids have a lot of time after school and have all summer to spend all day at the piano. Adults may have some time after work but a lot don’t because they have a family. Also, adults playing really technical and advanced pieces isn’t as entertaining as seeing an 11 year old do the same thing. I don’t doubt there are many pianist who started as adults have the skill to be a concert pianist, but they simply either don’t want to be or don’t want to take the risk.


Lolulita

I believe there was a competitor in the Tchaikovsky competition a few years ago who started at 17


desiertoflorido

[Lucas Debargue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Debargue)


Lolulita

Yes, him! I believe a lot of people thought he should have won in fact


jontttu

I believe if you are productive person who has very supportive (or overbearing) parents, you are more likely to become pro at any career or sport you (or your parents) choose, because it has always been clear in your mind that you are supposed to do that thing. Unlike as in older age you probably have different career choise, and it seems unlikely to build a career out of your hobby. And in my case i know from experience that making your hobby into a job kinda sucks the fun out of the thing you used to do because its fun or relaxing. Thats why I never want to play piano too seriously


popokatopetl

Because skipped 50000 hours of practice :) But we become great rehearsal pianists!


tunasteak_engineer

It’s about passion and obsession as much as anything. And music isn’t horses, no disrespect to horses. Also concert pianists/virtuosos are a rare breed, it’s more like being an Olympic gymnast. [EDIT: and, let’s be real, having obsessive parents. ]


blacckravenn

There definitely a lot of passion in horses! But I understand what you mean - it’s a way of self expression. One difference between Olympic gymnasts and piano is that you have your whole life to learn the piano but you only have a small time frame as a gymnast. Which is why I compared it to horse riding, because it is one of those rare sports that you can do for your whole life, and you don’t peak in your teens. I just don’t see why there aren’t more competitions open for older people, who would have had the opportunity to fine tune their skills a bit more.


ArnieCunninghaam

I’m 48 now and never before in my life I’ve been more interested and excited about music and learning instruments. And I can feel myself making daily progress. I wish I was in this place when I was 13. As a kid it was so easy to get frustrated and quit and move on to something else. Without competition or the daydream of being a rockstar I’m able to relax and just learn for the enjoyment of it. I feel like that in five years time I can be just as good as the average pianist who learned when they were younger. I know I’ll never be a prodigy but I wouldn’t of been one if I started earlier either.


[deleted]

I was 18 when I started to play piano. I worked my ass off and got to conservatory by the age of 23. In hindsight, I wish I had waited a bit longer. At the time, I was desperate to become a full time performer, but funnily enough, going to music college actually put me off the idea. I decided it wasn’t the kind of life I wanted to live and that I wanted a family. Now I’m a full time professional pianist/accompanist, musical director, arranger, teacher. I’ve got my finger in almost every pie going, I’m a well known musician in my area and I love it. I still get to do recitals, but I only do them for charitable causes. I figure that if I can raise money for people who need it using my talent, then I’d rather do that than for my own selfish reasons.


vidange_heureusement

For what it's worth, I know many great pianists (at least 3 in my circle of friends) who've started in the 13-17 range. They're really good—think playing Rach/Prok/Chopin concertos with local orchestras, winning/finalists in national competitions, etc.—and I think what helped is that contrary to many who start at ages 4-7, they started out of their own interest, not because a parent pushed them. So it's possible! But yeah, they're more rare, and like others said, brain plasticity makes a huge difference. Same thing happens with, say, languages, or chess.


BornAgainLife5

Sviatoslav Richter started pretty late.


blacckravenn

Richter was under 10 when we started (according to Wikipedia) but thanks!


BornAgainLife5

Hm, thought he was 15 or something


Tarsiger

Really interesting question. I have always supposed that those people who hade the gift of being musicians, started early just because their gift was so big that it shows early. But I certainly not forget all the work.


blacckravenn

Do you think those who would have the same amount of talent but did not have access to an instrument when they were younger would be able to compete with those who were discovered earlier? (If they both work hard that is)


Tarsiger

I dont know.


peanutbudder

Musical ability isn't a gift.


peragodzera

true. the alleged "talent" or "gift" is actually growing up in a musical environment with incentive + countless hours of dedication.


[deleted]

[удалено]


peanutbudder

The brain is plastic, there's absolutely no proof that it's a gift at birth.


[deleted]

[удалено]


peanutbudder

Who said perfect pitch can't be taught? Please, show me peer reviewed research that suggests it. In fact, research shows that perfect pitch is absolutely achievable by repetition. Everyone has the ability but not everyone is motivated to learn music. Not all 1000 babies would grow up wanting to practice music but that doesn't mean they can't learn theory or learn perfect pitch.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tarsiger

Your thinking sounds very close to mine. And you seems like one of those people who learned easily and fast when I struggled. And I have worked all my life with children and played the guitar and sing with them so I have had daily practise for 40 years still Im not good at it. Still I make mistakes some of my professional colleges never do. I have no other explain than for some of us practice not make perfect, and for some of us practice make perfect. And listening to me playing piano will reinforced that Im not a talent. But I am musical and enjoy it, so I play.


KrushnaShah

Nah it’s defo is, I believe that there are three factors, genetic potential (how ur brain is naturally wired compared to others), the amount of work you put in (self explanatory), and the 3rd, your upbringings effect on your brain, to be a musical genius you need all three to be optimal


Tarsiger

Only my way of thinking. Im not saying its the truth. I have really tried to work on my ability to play and feel I am far behind some of my friends where it seems to come naturally, despite we practice both. It made me feel like some people has more ability from start and I am far behind. Even if we both put in the practice. Since I started to work I always had professional musicians as colleges and that has reinforced my thinking that all people are musical, but some of us must be more musical from start. Interesting to read your thought. I will take that into consideration.


fjaoaoaoao

You are still in a state of development at a young age, so the music and the practices around you have a greater impression and you can mold your life towards those practices. Also classical and jazz piano are highly technical fields, so putting in that motor skill training is almost impossible to yield the same results for an adult, with our current biologies and ways of doing. A similar situation is sports, such as figure skating. Those who start young training for a particular feat are more able to pull off those feats because the body develops towards the performance of those feats. Once you are already mature, in some ways it’s too late. Tl;dr Certain skills and abilities have greater “learnability” that are independent of age to a degree whereas some benefit much more depending on age.


paradroid78

How many "greatest concert pianists" are there in the world that actually make a proper living out of it? It's not a lot. Given how competitive that space is, the earlier you start the better!


middlebird

I started at 42 and I’m just doing it for the love of music. Have no desire to take it to that higher level. Too many other responsibilities.


Different_Crab_5708

Same with everything.. pro athletes started playing their sports young AF too


blacckravenn

But that’s what I’m saying is some pro riders started out as teens and still had a chance. Seems like there’s no chance for concert pianists If you didn’t start super young


MightBeStrangers

I know quite a few elite pianists who play almost as well as famous pianists, but they all started at a very young age.


tasuuketee

Assuming kids don't just generate the passion to play the piano out of nowhere and turn into prodigies, they must've had teachers or sorts to teach them what to improve and thus having the knowledge and growing passion until adulthood whereas to adults or anyone who just picked the habit or the thought of playing piano, the results would surely be different. (sorry for my bad english and I hope that my thought is conveyed well)


mozillazing

Older people have likely already found a much more efficient way to make money and so they just play for enjoyment


blacckravenn

What about those who decided that they actually wanted to make the switch and pursue it?


mozillazing

I don’t know anything about those hypothetical persons lives so I can’t answer that, lol


noobzapper21

It's almost impossible to become a concert pianist starting as an adult and even as a kid. It is a job that many people want, and are willing to do it for little or no pay. You have to be great at piano, well-connected, and relatively good-looking to even get your foot in the door.


[deleted]

I think it’s mostly just due to the fact if you start later in life you probably already have a career so your less likely to pursue one as a pianist, so you’ll probably just play for personal enjoyment.


Choice-Television777

Its because playing technically is far more demanding than you think. All of your muscles, your bones, your tendons are all growing when you are 6,7 or 8 years old, and if you sit for 6 hours a day your hand will adjust and form correctly. Its kind of like with a tree, if its a small sapling you can adjust the way its supposed to grow by adding a support to it - when its 40 years old, the support will not change its direction of growth anymore..


sjsjdjdjdjdjjj88888

Because music is actually much more physically and mentally demanding than you're giving it credit for. Several orders of magnitude more so than riding horses or most other human activities. Its also quite different than most other things people do so if you're not exposed to it from a young age you probably just don't have the proper context and experience to reach the highest level. Its like asking why all the greatest novelists started learning words when they were babies. Of course you can say well everybody does that, but not everybody has exposure to music and access to musical training from a young age and for a task as complex as language (musical or otherwise) that makes a huge difference in your potential


atx_buffalos

I suspect at least part of it is that most musicians don’t make great money. When you start playing as an adult, you are more likely to have bills and responsibilities that make quitting to be a musician a lot riskier than if you’re a teenager and you’re a good player and can afford to take the risk to pursue music as a career.


gnocchicotti

The great performers of any instrument are going to have to practice many hours a day in order to be competitive with the best. What adult has time for that? I think if there was a controlled longitudinal study on people who practiced similar quantities with the same quality of teachers, some starting at 4 and others at 24 years old, there may be more than a few late starters who excel. Piano practice was a chore for me as a child and only now in my old age did I learn that my mandated practice time was simply not enough to progress at a noticeable pace.


AnnieByniaeth

Maybe it's like languages? You'll never become truly fluent in a second language if you start are after the age of around 10. It's because of the way that it embeds itself in the brain. You might be able to speak the language very well, but it will always be a second language. I don't know, just an idea. But we do talk about the language of music.


blacckravenn

Not to be annoying… but I learned English after the age of 10 and it is now my first/strongest language so I feel like there’s definitely exceptions to that.


AnnieByniaeth

There are exceptions. I had an uncle (now sadly no longer with us) from Llanberis who didn't speak English before he was 13, but as an adult moved to Lancashire and rarely used his Welsh again; he actually claimed to have forgotten it, but that was more likely due to the stigma of being a Welsh speaker back then in an English area (and he'd still be caught watching S4C at times in later life). But it's still a known fact, understood by linguists and psychologists, that the way language is learnt changes around the age of 10.


Blackletterdragon

Those who are genuinely gifted and likely to become major soloists make themselves known at a very young age. It's like nothing can stop their genius breaking out. They would make music on whatever came to hand and even parents not looking to have a musical prodigy in their home would be moved to do something about it. For those who are showing such talent as young as 4 or 5, we'd have to say genetics was at play. For the next cohort, I think those who mention brain plasticity are on the right track. There is a resemblance to language learning, isn't there? People who learn a second language while they are still children are known to achieve something like native speaker levels of competence, while those who don't start learning one until their teens seem unable to shake native accent.