# Am I going too far about being a musician? (Warning long read)



## Strordio

Hi, I'm only 14 years old and I'm wondering. Am I going too far about being a musician? I started to really like orchestra music and the Violin Family when I turned 13. But what happens if this is the wrong thing to do? I can't find anything else greater than music. So it may be my passion. But people have started at the age of 3 and 4 and 5. So I may not be born to play, I may be. And my other relatives listen to far more music than I do. I was thinking about joining an orchestra when I grow up but like I said I may be going too far. Cause I don't want to be like just because I love this instrument doesn't mean I have to play it. I just had to get this in before I go higher in my age so I could start as soon as possible. But I may be going too far on this I may not. It kind of hurts me that I don't listen to much music as much as my relatives do. Help me.


----------



## Moira

I know at least two professional musicians who did not start learning music until they were in their teens. 

Learning music is never a waste of time, even if one does not go on to be a professional musician one can still play in an amateur orchestra (and some are very good) or an ensemble, or teach music, or simply enjoy music more because one has learned 'how it works'.


----------



## Polednice

You're only a teenager, so you should indulge in whatever passions you have and push them as far as you can. If it so happens that in a few years time you come to realise that music is not for you, it's still very early and you have plenty of time to find a new vocation. If, however, you keep loving music and find that it definitely is what you want to do, you'll already have put lots of work in at the right time of life.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Moira and Polednice hit it on the nail. I'd just add that, even if later on you decide that something else - whether it is accountancy or zoology - you can still do the music _as well_. And even if that is only appreciation, you'll find that any and all of the work you put in now will repay you for the rest of your life.

But, if you are keen to develop your musical interests productively, it's worth remembering that talent basically comes with practice. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book _Outliers_, argues that you need to put in 10,000 hours (say, twenty hours a week for ten years) of performance and practice (not just listening!). Of course, if you start at age 50, it will take you longer than if you start at age 15 - because we lost the capacity to learn as we age and because, as people like Stephen Pinker argue, we have innate predispositions to learn at young ages which we lose as we get older.


----------



## Jaws

Playing an instrument is great whether you earn money doing it or do it for fun. Age of starting doesn't have any effect on how good someone gets. Lots of people who start the violin at age 3, 4, and 5 turn out to be not very good at it. If anyone tells you that you are too old to start the violin, that is because they don't know very much about it, or if it is a violin teacher that is because they have only taught 3, 4 and 5 year olds and don't know how brilliantly good some older people can get at it.


----------



## grixxviolist

maybe it was really meant for you but you're afraid to take the risk of taking up the instrument you want. remember that self-criticism is worse than any other criticism you can take from other people. age doesn't matter to anyone who wants to learn and listen to good music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Steve Reich first wanted to be a composer when he was 17. Guess who was 40 when he started? 

I think starting as a teenager is the best way to go. You are intelligent enough to pick up technique more quickly and it'll be easier for your teacher to teach a 14 year old rather than a 3 year old. Your still young enough to learn at a faster rate than adults which is an advantage if you'd like to become good in a short amount of time.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Steve Reich first wanted to be a composer when he was 17. Guess who was 40 when he started?


Dunno. Who?


----------



## GoneBaroque

Even if you end up only playing for your own enjoyment, it is still going for.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Dunno. Who?


I forget. There was someone though. Remind me if If you know.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

You are *definitely definitely definitely* not too young, and if you have a passion about anything, then you should probably follow it (unless it's dangerous, but as far I know playing an instrument isn't dangerous ). Look, take it from me, I'm 14 too!

And also if you're wondering if you are _too old_ to start now, you're not. You might have to practice a bit more, and stuff like that, but if you're going to be serious about it, you're going to end up practicing tonnes anyway. Ignore all those little smart a**ses who started at 4 and 5. Meself, I didn't start until 9 (besides fooling around at 5 with my grandmother, who was a violin teacher...), some people might consider that late, but look! I'm up to Grade 8 level already, and that is what happens when you are serious about something and practice lots.

Anyways, I'm probably not very helpful, but anyways...  Good luck with your studies!

P.S. If you don't start now, you'll never really be able to play (well). Once you get older, well, it's not as easy to learn.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Steve Reich first wanted to be a composer when he was 17. Guess who was 40 when he started?
> 
> I think starting as a teenager is the best way to go. You are intelligent enough to pick up technique more quickly and it'll be easier for your teacher to teach a 14 year old rather than a 3 year old. Your still young enough to learn at a faster rate than adults which is an advantage if you'd like to become good in a short amount of time.


Steve Reich wanted to be a composer from the age of 17: He then, 'on schedule' first attended a junior college with a music department of the highest of academic standards, continued directly in upper level undergraduate, and later at Mills College, where his composition teacher was Darius Milhaud. Afterwards he consistently remained active in and with music as a job, often driving a taxi and other odd jobs to 'keep afloat.' Around the age of forty, he began to have 'success' in that his works began to be performed, recorded and 'consumed.'

The way you put it, it sounds like he 'knocked around doing a lot of other stuff' and 'got around to music' at age forty -- a careless near misrepresentation of 'how careers in classical music happen.'

Tut, Tut.

I cannot think of one successful professional who 'just started' at age forty....


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> '
> 
> The way you put it, it sounds like he 'knocked around doing a lot of other stuff' and 'got around to music' at age forty -- a careless near misrepresentation of 'how careers in classical music happen.'
> 
> Tut, Tut.
> 
> I cannot think of one successful professional who 'just started' at age forty....


In the UK this is probably due to ageism as much as anything else. I have managed to prove that someone starting an instrument at age 42, can get to the standard at which most ex music college students would start to get professional playing work. I admit that it was a second instrument, but I did go from brass to woodwind, and I did manage to learn to play it faster than most of the students who started as children. So I know that age has nothing to do with speed of learning, eventual standard achieved, and natural talent on a particular instrument show at any age.


----------



## PetrB

Drat I duped an A once again....


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> In the UK this is probably due to ageism as much as anything else. I have managed to prove that someone starting an instrument at age 42, can get to the standard at which most ex music college students would start to get professional playing work. I admit that it was a second instrument, but I did go from brass to woodwind, and I did manage to learn to play it faster than most of the students who started as children. So I know that age has nothing to do with speed of learning, eventual standard achieved, and natural talent on a particular instrument show at any age.


Please, and how long were you at music study and that first instrument, and were you already a professional. I don't think your personal story is relevant or helpful in dispelling a text which could easily be seen to mean a guy lolligagged about until the age of 40 and 'just picked up music and became a successful contemporary classical composer.'

So right, agism has nothing to do with what I said, or a comment to counter that comment so sloppily written as to be readily misconstrued as 'falling into success with no preparation.'

Sheesh. Call up the newspaper with your wonderful success story, but make certain the journalist does not exclude your years of prior preparation and professional life before you picked up another wind instrument.

What a fourteen year-old with a passion and ambition towards a career needs to be told other than 'follow your dream' and "you can do it late, start at forty," is:

Passion and dreams are fine, but one has to work hard to realize them, and first find out what is required, then aggressively go about getting what is required. "Study hard and work harder."


----------



## Jaws

The point about my reply is that basically if anyone is starting an instrument at the age of 14, there is no reason why anyone can't get to professional standard if they want to enough. The important thing is to do enough of the right kind of practise. 

Anyone can practise for hours with their mind on something else. (This wastes time) Always starting a piece from the beginning instead of only practisiing the bits you can't play, wastes time. What I did which is much faster than anything else is I only practised the bits of a piece that I couldn't play. 

As a brass player I already knew the importance of doing long notes for about an hour a day, so I did this on a woodwind instrument. I have seen a professional double bass player doing long notes so it works for strings as well. 

Always doing what your teacher tells you in the lesson to do, lets you learn the instrument faster. Ignoring what your teacher says makes going to the lessons a waste of time and money. 

Learning to play an instrument is hard work. I admit that I had reached professional standard on the first instrument about 20 years before starting the second, however I was nowhere near that standard on the !st one when I started the 2nd. I also had to learn a new skill. My 2nd instrument is a double reed and I had to learn to make reeds. It took 12 years of really hard work to learn the 2nd one. 

The more concentrated practise you do the better you get sooner. People who only do small amounts of practice will take longer to learn an instrument than someone who does a lot of practice.

The more pieces and studies you can learn the better you will be. Only playing tunes you know will hold you up, and your progress will stop until you start to learn something new.


----------



## PlaySalieri

You should stop dithering - the fact you have some onto this forum is a bad sign - you need action and quick as you are already starting later in the day. There is another poster in this forum who is starting at 17 - and that really is late. I agree that you can become a pro from starting at teen years - but the odds are against you becoming something like a concert performer - but if you would be happy doing something else like orchestral work and of course teaching then that is realistic. Nearly all performers teach anyway. But for gods sake - stop messing about and start learning. Find a good teacher - high level if you can afford it. Good luck.


----------



## Lenfer

Strordio said:


> Hi, I'm only 14 years old and I'm wondering. Am I going too far about being a musician? I started to really like orchestra music and the Violin Family when I turned 13. But what happens if this is the wrong thing to do? I can't find anything else greater than music. So it may be my passion. But people have started at the age of 3 and 4 and 5. So I may not be born to play, I may be. And my other relatives listen to far more music than I do. I was thinking about joining an orchestra when I grow up but like I said I may be going too far. Cause I don't want to be like just because I love this instrument doesn't mean I have to play it. I just had to get this in before I go higher in my age so I could start as soon as possible. But I may be going too far on this I may not. It kind of hurts me that I don't listen to much music as much as my relatives do. Help me.


I wouldn't worry about what age you are when you start learning. Yes it's easier to start as young as possible I started when I was 3 or 4 years old. However my other half didn't start learning until he was slightly older than you and has played some major venues.

It's all down to you how committed you are to your love of music and sadly it's down to luck some people have a natural affinity for music. I don't know if you are one of those people, I don't know if you will make it as a professional but what I do know is that if you stick to it and learn whatever your instrument of choice is your life will be all the richer for it. Good luck and welcome to the forum.

*L'enfer* :tiphat:


----------



## Abracadabra

Strordio said:


> It kind of hurts me that I don't listen to much music as much as my relatives do. Help me.


There are a lot of people who need to have "music" on all the time simply because they can't handle silence. In fact, if you pay close attention you'll probably notice that it really doesn't matter much whether it's music or just background TV commercials, or even news broadcasts. They just can't handle silence is all. It's not that they are obsessed with music.


----------



## Lenfer

Abracadabra said:


> There are a lot of people who need to have "music" on all the time simply because they can't handle silence. In fact, if you pay close attention you'll probably notice that it really doesn't matter much whether it's music or just background TV commercials, or even news broadcasts. They just can't handle silence is all. It's not that they are obsessed with music.


You hit the nail on the head, I think that is the expression? I am like this the only time I can be without noise is when I am reading.


----------



## Jaws

stomanek said:


> You should stop dithering - the fact you have some onto this forum is a bad sign - you need action and quick as you are already starting later in the day. There is another poster in this forum who is starting at 17 - and that really is late. I agree that you can become a pro from starting at teen years - but the odds are against you becoming something like a concert performer - but if you would be happy doing something else like orchestral work and of course teaching then that is realistic. Nearly all performers teach anyway. But for gods sake - stop messing about and start learning. Find a good teacher - high level if you can afford it. Good luck.


I have worked very hard over the last 12 years to disprove the myth that to be good you have to start young. Having managed to prove that you don't have to start young to be very good at playing an instrument, I am always annoyed when someone continues to repeat the myth.

If you start at age 14, or 17 or 30, or in my case 42, it doesn't mean that you won't reach professional standard. It does mean that when you go to music college most of the students will be younger than you. Some of the ones who started very young finish up at music college almost by accident. Most older people choose to be there, and understand better the value of the education on offer.

There is no rush to learn a musical instrument take your time. See if it is really what you want to do as you go along. The only thing you need is to like doing personal practise. The most useful bit of information that I can give is it takes a maximum of 10 years from starting, to playing in a professional orchestra standard. If you learn slower than this the chances of you getting a job in an orchestra is smaller, because there are always other people coming along who can learn to do it in this time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jaws said:


> I have worked very hard over the last 12 years to disprove the myth that to be good you have to start young. Having managed to prove that you don't have to start young to be very good at playing an instrument, I am always annoyed when someone continues to repeat the myth.
> 
> If you start at age 14, or 17 or 30, or in my case 42, it doesn't mean that you won't reach professional standard. It does mean that when you go to music college most of the students will be younger than you. Some of the ones who started very young finish up at music college almost by accident. Most older people choose to be there, and understand better the value of the education on offer.
> 
> There is no rush to learn a musical instrument take your time. See if it is really what you want to do as you go along. The only thing you need is to like doing personal practise. The most useful bit of information that I can give is it takes a maximum of 10 years from starting, to playing in a professional orchestra standard. If you learn slower than this the chances of you getting a job in an orchestra is smaller, because there are always other people coming along who can learn to do it in this time.


If you read what I say rather than assuming - I do not contradict you. If you aim is orchestral work then that is achievable though there is still enormous competition and despite what you say - it is an advantage to start young. None of the great violinists that I can think of started after 10 and indeed concert soloists in the modern world have started at a young age and I doubt if anyone ever became a concert virtuoso starting late as you did. The eminent violin and piano teachers I have met have also all stressed that starting young is essential if you want to reach the top.
It may be true that some who start young were mostly pushed in that direction by their parents when it was clear that they had some exceptional talent - but those are the very children who account for nearly all the great musicians of the past and present and I would challenge you to show me any exceptions. 
You say: "Some of the ones who started very young finish up at music college almost by accident. Most older people choose to be there, and understand better the value of the education on offer. " How do you know? Did you do a survey? Or do you just suppose? Talk about myth making.


----------



## Jaws

stomanek said:


> If you read what I say rather than assuming - I do not contradict you. If you aim is orchestral work then that is achievable though there is still enormous competition and despite what you say - it is an advantage to start young. None of the great violinists that I can think of started after 10 and indeed concert soloists in the modern world have started at a young age and I doubt if anyone ever became a concert virtuoso starting late as you did. The eminent violin and piano teachers I have met have also all stressed that starting young is essential if you want to reach the top.
> It may be true that some who start young were mostly pushed in that direction by their parents when it was clear that they had some exceptional talent - but those are the very children who account for nearly all the great musicians of the past and present and I would challenge you to show me any exceptions.
> You say: "Some of the ones who started very young finish up at music college almost by accident. Most older people choose to be there, and understand better the value of the education on offer. " How do you know? Did you do a survey? Or do you just suppose? Talk about myth making.


The bit about the young ones finishing up at college was what I got from listening to a programme on the radio about musicians realising at about age 32 that they had only ever studied music and that they had realised that they didn't really want to do it, but pressure from parents and teachers had decided their career paths for them. Some had real difficulties when they realised that they actually never wanted to be musicians, but had never had the chance to change direction as children. 
Someone I know who used to teach at one of the top colleges complained that many of the students were not interested in learning their instrument and were studying music because they liked playing in ensembles. They of course would never get a job in an orchestra or professional group because they hadn't learned to play well enough. 
Adult beginners on the other hand tend to want to learn to play the instrument, so they practise to play better, rather than to play in groups. This worked in my favour because I can practise just for the sake of playing not because I am practising to play in something. Adults also have a better idea about what hard work means.

There is no way that we can tell whether the reason that older people don't become soloists is because that at the age they started they are not good enough or because they have the kind of life style which means that they don't want to go on a lot of touring.

Some teachers still don't realise that it is possible to start later. Of course the ones who still believe the myth won't want to teach older people because they will not expect them to be able to do anything. I am expecting in the future for there to be more people who get to professional standard and some who become soloists. There needs to be some change of expectations within the classical music education establishments. I hope that in the future there will be more opportunities for older people to study at top conservatoires. In theory anyone of any age can study now, however in practise,in my experience older people have to be at least twice as good as the young students to get a place and even then I was often not taken seriously.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Look, I don't really want to interrupt your wonderful argument...

Can I just say that parts of what you have both said are true.

You do have to start at an age when your joints are still supple... But. Once you have shaped your hand into the right position, you can give it up and don't start again until, as said above, 40 something. 

Probably, it is better not to start at the very beginning after 20. I'm just saying. As you wouldn't become soloist.

Right, ignore me, continue on.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MaestroViolinist said:


> Probably, it is better not to start at the very beginning after 20. I'm just saying. As you wouldn't become soloist.
> 
> Right, ignore me, continue on.


20 is way too late as the joints have all fully developed much earlier.
I would say 12 is the latest you could start and with exceptional talent and total dedication plus correct tuition of the highest level - you might make it to international level. But few if any pedagogues would take you on as you would have to prove your talent and already be able to play at a high level - Brohn certainly would not.
Unless you can prove me wrong with an example of a world class solo perfomer who started after 12?
Of course some make it into orchestras.


----------



## PlaySalieri

You have some very odd points there Mr Jaws. 
I agree that some kids are pushed hard by ambitious parents - it is well known that in asia children are beaten if they do not practice and that is clearly wrong. I think nearly all those that are forced or don't really want to do it - vanish from the scene before they reach music college. You can't make an older child become a musician if that is not what they want. Yet there are some who are forced - beaten even - and realise as teenagers - they have been abused - but - music is not such a bad thing and they have all the skills to make it and while they reject their parents - really go for it. There is a Russian pianist (Polina .. can't recall her surname) who became a successful concert pianist after her father forced her - beat her - into practice - as a teenager she ran away from him and went to a russian conservatoire. She wrote about it in her autobiography. And now she is happy. 
I have never before in all my years heard of anyone starting late and being good enough to - say - play Tchaikovsky's violin concerto with ease at the top level in front of a paying audience - it would indeed be a wonder. Starting late I believe it is possible to play well - just not at the level required to be a top soloist - so I doubt if it happens that there is someone of that calibre who rejects those opportunities due to the lifestyle. Still - if you find anyone who gets those invitations please let me know who it is. I do know that there are hundreds of violinists in their prime - mid 20s - who can play Tchaik VC with ease and yet cannot find those invitations - so they do a lot of thankless freelance work - waiting for the phone to ring - calling their agent day after day hoping for some work. So where are these late starters? All the greats hit their peak when young - Mehuhin, Heiftetz - were never so good as when they were late teens, twenties. Then they go downhill, at different rates - you can listen to their recordings to confirm it. The reason? Physical agility is at its peak in those years - so is stamina. So starting late and hitting your peak at - say 30 or 35 - you have already missed your true peak. If you start young and achieve mastery by 18 or under - you will have a possible solo career lasting 10 to 15 years as you will enjoy mastery during your golden years. Then you can look forward to a professorship at one of the music colleges. But if you believe differently good luck to you and good luck to anyone who comes to music late - I mean that.


----------



## Jaws

There is something that you haven't considered. The human body changes as it ages. Someone I knew who was an ex dancer said that the major changes come at around 40 years of age. This is also the time when people who start instruments young find out how bad the faults on their techniques are. At a young age the body is more flexible so technical faults can be masked. At 40 this is no longer possible. People who start after 40 have to have very good postures otherwise their bodies let them know. Not long ago here there was a flautist who was a finalist in a youth competition here who didn't hold her instrument properly. Good adult learners always hold their instruments properly. The young flute player will most likely get neck problems at around 40. I play the oboe. I didn't learn it slower or less well than the students that I studied with. So to say that everyone will not get to international performance level is a generalisation. There has been a professional violinist here in the UK who didn't start the violin until they were 27. I am told that the reason that wind players used to be past their peak in their 50s was due to poor dental hygiene their teeth used to fall out. Menhuin is not a good example. He was a natural violinist who did what a lot of young natural players do, he questioned how he used his bow in his late teens and early 20s. Many really exceptional young natural players go down hill from their early 20s, when they try to question how they play.

The young people who I was talking about who had gone into music by accident and were extremely unhappy about it, were usually not beaten by their parents, but the parents did make a decision to send them to specialist music schools, and then the schools did expect them to go to music college, and then the colleges expected them to become professional players, and then at around 32 they would wake up and find that they had a job they hated. Many had to visit a doctor. Basically the realisation made them ill, especially as all they had ever done was music and to get a job in anything else would mean complete retraining from school exam qualifications upwards.


----------



## Moira

Abracadabra said:


> There are a lot of people who need to have "music" on all the time simply because they can't handle silence. In fact, if you pay close attention you'll probably notice that it really doesn't matter much whether it's music or just background TV commercials, or even news broadcasts. They just can't handle silence is all. It's not that they are obsessed with music.


I, from time to time, do a sound "fast". This is a deliberate spiritual exercise in not having music playing as background sound, which usually makes up the bulk of my listening. I live alone with my cat, so the companionship of the radio doesn't impede normal family communication. I work from home so that adds considerably to the amount of time I have available for such listening. When I do one of these sound "fasts" I find so much other noise intrusive, but also a lot of little blessings which I don't hear over the music. One of these blessings is the sound of children playing. I can also "time" my day by the distinctive sound of buses passing by my window (I live on a busy street).


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jaws said:


> There is something that you haven't considered. The human body changes as it ages. Someone I knew who was an ex dancer said that the major changes come at around 40 years of age. This is also the time when people who start instruments young find out how bad the faults on their techniques are. At a young age the body is more flexible so technical faults can be masked. At 40 this is no longer possible. People who start after 40 have to have very good postures otherwise their bodies let them know. Not long ago here there was a flautist who was a finalist in a youth competition here who didn't hold her instrument properly. Good adult learners always hold their instruments properly. The young flute player will most likely get neck problems at around 40. I play the oboe. I didn't learn it slower or less well than the students that I studied with. So to say that everyone will not get to international performance level is a generalisation. There has been a professional violinist here in the UK who didn't start the violin until they were 27. I am told that the reason that wind players used to be past their peak in their 50s was due to poor dental hygiene their teeth used to fall out. Menhuin is not a good example. He was a natural violinist who did what a lot of young natural players do, he questioned how he used his bow in his late teens and early 20s. Many really exceptional young natural players go down hill from their early 20s, when they try to question how they play.
> 
> The young people who I was talking about who had gone into music by accident and were extremely unhappy about it, were usually not beaten by their parents, but the parents did make a decision to send them to specialist music schools, and then the schools did expect them to go to music college, and then the colleges expected them to become professional players, and then at around 32 they would wake up and find that they had a job they hated. Many had to visit a doctor. Basically the realisation made them ill, especially as all they had ever done was music and to get a job in anything else would mean complete retraining from school exam qualifications upwards.


And I say to you - good luck to mature players on the international stage - I am still waiting to see one. The oboe is easy to play in comparison with the violin. I know young violinists who start a wind instrument as a second instrument - within 6 months they can play grade 6-8 pieces on minimal practise. I am 47 now - there is no way I would start a string instrument at my age - but wind - maybe. I have good lungs. Menuhin questioned his bowing because he saw how Heiftetz played - his solid technique - and Heiftetz played well into old age and Menuhin's technique was just not there - he relied on natural talent.


----------



## Jaws

Some military musicians are handed violins when they join a military band in the UK at age 16 or older and have to get to at least grade 8 on the violin in two years, and they do it, lots of them. It is no more difficult to get to grade 8 on the violin than it is on any other instrument. There is a very good argument for saying that actually the violin is one of the easiest instruments to start on. This can be seen by how far children learning by the Suzuki method get in a very short time, by copying their teachers. Brass and wind players can't copy how their teachers play, because they can't see what is going on inside their teacher's mouth. 

I would suggest to anyone thinking of starting an instrument that they take up the violin. a) because it is easy to play ( the myth that it is difficult I think refers to the time when gut strings were being used, but since the modern strings have become available it has made violin playing much easier.) b) many more of them are needed in an orchestra.

Grade 8 is an exam for beginners. So anyone being able to finger grade 6-7 pieces in 6 months doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that it ever takes anyone more than two years to pass grade 8 on any instrument from when they start if they can already read music. 

One adult late starter passed grade 8 on the bassoon 6 months after starting to play it. 

Of course ensemble skills are different and exam passes can't help with learning to play in an ensemble.

In the UK it is not unusual for children to pass grade 8 violin with distinction at ages 10 and 11. It really is an exam for beginners.

It is no accident that many of the young solo performers are violinists. It just takes longer to reach the same standard on other instruments because many of them have extreme problems that take years to overcome. The problem with the oboe is the reed.


----------



## PlaySalieri

My experience is different - I never heard of a wind player getting to grade 8 on the violin in 2 years. But anyway end of debate - good luck to you.


----------



## Head_case

Strordio said:


> Hi, I'm only 14 years old and I'm wondering. Am I going too far about being a musician? I started to really like orchestra music and the Violin Family when I turned 13. But what happens if this is the wrong thing to do? I can't find anything else greater than music. So it may be my passion. But people have started at the age of 3 and 4 and 5. So I may not be born to play, I may be. And my other relatives listen to far more music than I do. I was thinking about joining an orchestra when I grow up but like I said I may be going too far. Cause I don't want to be like just because I love this instrument doesn't mean I have to play it. I just had to get this in before I go higher in my age so I could start as soon as possible. But I may be going too far on this I may not. It kind of hurts me that I don't listen to much music as much as my relatives do. Help me.


Just 1 post since April...?! 

Maybe you've not gone far enough lol.

Most teenagers are very passionate about something - like learning the violin. The next year, you might want to be a vet.

It's great that you have the flexibility to try on different hats - everyone seems to encourage you to do this. Perhaps, try different hats, and keep different doors open too. When I was your age, I was *certain* I didn't want to play the flute any more. That was it: classical music sucked, and I wanted to be in a boy band. Now that I've grown up, I realise that classical music doesn't suck and I really really wish I was in a boy band


----------



## Head_case

Jaws said:


> In the UK it is not unusual for children to pass grade 8 violin with distinction at ages 10 and 11. It really is an exam for beginners.
> 
> It is no accident that many of the young solo performers are violinists. It just takes longer to reach the same standard on other instruments because many of them have extreme problems that take years to overcome. The problem with the oboe is the reed.


I grew up with the assumption that children learnt wind instruments like the flute later, since this required their lungs to mature in a different way than say, the recorder (the flauto dolce - or soft/sweet flute). Not so sure I'd knock the ABRSM as an exam for beginners - the Grade 8 flute repertoire includes both Grade 8 contemporary work by James Rae; baroque classical sonatas by Danzi, Bach and Quantz, which are the virtuoso standards in flute music, recorded by the likes of Marilyn Mooney, Jed Wentz, Emmanuel Pahud, James Galway.

Being able to sight read and play Grade 8 music in any key is a very useful skill. I used to be able to do this, and now, I'm really doing a tortoise crawl pace just to read 7 flats in the key signature. Most band musicians I've ever come across cannot sight read to this standard, and played fixed repertoire, or in diatonic keys (flutes of course).

You're spot on though - the world of an instrument opens up vastly after the basics are sorted out. Some of us are lucky to have that foundation. One of my heroes is Suzanne Teng, from the University of California. She graduated playing flute, including alto flute, and instead of confining herself to fixed known stock standard classical repertoire, has gone on a world flute discovery, absorbing different cultural flute influences, and different musical styles. It's very hard to do this kind of 'fusion' without a formal training. Similarly - late adult starters, with no background in music, often find the task rather daunting, particularly if self-taught. One girl I met did her Grade 8 flute in a year, however was able to play other instruments before. In that respect, it's a bit like having the foundation blocks in position; everything thereafter makes sense.


----------



## Jaws

Head_case said:


> I grew up with the assumption that children learnt wind instruments like the flute later, since this required their lungs to mature in a different way than say, the recorder (the flauto dolce - or soft/sweet flute). Not so sure I'd knock the ABRSM as an exam for beginners - the Grade 8 flute repertoire includes both Grade 8 contemporary work by James Rae; baroque classical sonatas by Danzi, Bach and Quantz, which are the virtuoso standards in flute music, recorded by the likes of Marilyn Mooney, Jed Wentz, Emmanuel Pahud, James Galway.
> 
> Being able to sight read and play Grade 8 music in any key is a very useful skill. I used to be able to do this, and now, I'm really doing a tortoise crawl pace just to read 7 flats in the key signature. Most band musicians I've ever come across cannot sight read to this standard, and played fixed repertoire, or in diatonic keys (flutes of course).
> 
> You're spot on though - the world of an instrument opens up vastly after the basics are sorted out. Some of us are lucky to have that foundation. One of my heroes is Suzanne Teng, from the University of California. She graduated playing flute, including alto flute, and instead of confining herself to fixed known stock standard classical repertoire, has gone on a world flute discovery, absorbing different cultural flute influences, and different musical styles. It's very hard to do this kind of 'fusion' without a formal training. Similarly - late adult starters, with no background in music, often find the task rather daunting, particularly if self-taught. One girl I met did her Grade 8 flute in a year, however was able to play other instruments before. In that respect, it's a bit like having the foundation blocks in position; everything thereafter makes sense.


In terms of general music making and education grade 8 in the UK is an exam that beginners take. The easiest part of playing any instrument is getting fingers around notes, however many there are and at whatever speed they have to be played at.

Very skilled musicians learn the fingering first and then spend a lot of time on all the other aspects of interpretation. If you start from the idea that not all beats in a bar have the same stress you can soon see that it is very important to be able to play all notes as the player wants to. So on a flute high notes and low notes in the same phrase might have to be the same dynamic, or the low notes might have to be louder than the high notes regardless of how high they are. Someone taking grade 8 will not be expected to be able to play very high notes very quietly, or to be able to play all the stresses in the right part of the bar, because when taking the grade 8 exam it is realised that someone will not have enough skill to do this. However playing an instrument properly does require this extra skill, along with playing all the notes so that the tone of them is the same, being able to tongue repeated notes so that they are all exactly the same length, start and finish exactly at the same time as each other, and are exactly the same dynamic, and that they are also all the same pitch. A skilled player can do this on any note, at any dynamic. A skilled player can also play completely even fingering on any moving passage of notes. They can also put the stresses on the right notes (this is required for real phrasing) They can play cresc and dims on notes without going sharp or flat. In fact a very skilled player can tell their instrument exactly what they want it to play and nothing happens by accident it is all controlled by the player. To be able to do this takes a lot of practise. Compared to this amount of skill grade 8 is nothing, it is just right at the beginning when someone starts. A retired professional player I know refers to it as nothing, just a start.

I have found that although professional players and ex top conservatoire players in the UK know this about grade 8,(that it is a beginners exam) the level of adult music education is generally so poor that many adult amateur players think that passing grade 8 is something to really aspire to. They don't realise that it is an exam for beginners. There are many amateur groups doing concerts in the UK where they advertise for people to have passed this beginners exam. I am sure that many of them do not realise that with grade 8 skill level there is no chance that their group can get anywhere near what the composer of most classical music intended. They just do not have the skill required to play it. The best they can do is to get the notes right the most basic part of playing a piece of music. In my experience of many amateur orchestra concerts the phrasing is played in reverse of what is written. This happens because the player doesn't have enough control over what they are telling their instrument to play. However I can't blame the players for this lack of knowledge because no one ever seems to be interested in providing good quality adult music education that explains what is needed in terms of skill level to play music. In London where I live people continue to start amateur orchestras, but the level of adult education for music players seems to be as low as ever.

Adults are not children. They need to know the truth about grade exams and orchestral playing skills. I am sure that if many of them knew what a low standard they actually are they would be mortified that not only have they expected people to listen to them but also to pay to listen to them. "Ignorance is bliss."


----------

