# How Long Would It Take A Young Adult Prodigy To Learn Music/Violin etc From Scratch?



## AHeinrich

*How Fast Would It Take A Genius Young Adult Prodigy To Learn Musical Notation/Violin/Piano etc From Scratch?*

Say, hypothetically, we have a young adult prodigy. So, he's extremely intelligent, a genius in several fields - in other words, this young adult can pick things up very quickly (high IQ, great memory, general developed mental abilities). Now, he has an intense willingness to master musical notation and instruments (particularly violin/piano).

With the above in mind, how long would it take that young adult to learn music from scratch up to an advanced level? How long, also, would it take for this prodigy to play the violin/piano at an advanced level?

(Bear in mind, that he would be willing to devote as much time as possible and money is of no worry or space to practise.)


----------



## ahammel

You would probably do well to examine the biographies of actual prodigies.

Mozart: learned piano at the age of 3, was good enough to go on tour by the time he was 10.
Paganini: leanred mandolin at 5, violin by 7, giving concerts by the time he was 17.
Mendelssohn: learned piano at 6, first public concert at the age of 9, studying counterpoint by the time he was 10, writing actual masterpieces at 16.

So, based on _n_ of 3, somewhere between 3 and 10 years.


----------



## PetrB

There are NO ADULT PRODIGIES, by definition 

Over age 11? No longer a kid, no longer a prodigy.

BUT, if you learn and understand rapidly, have the luck of an eidetic memory (99% recall of all you read / see / hear), then you have a leg up in getting to it.

HOWEVER, there is no real substitute for years of working experience, seeing the notes on the page and reflexively going for those on the instrument. Add to that an incalculable number of nuanced elements, touch, phrasing, articulation, in short, all those more abstract things 'musical,' and you would be safer to assume that cliche 10,000 hours of practice to sound 'experienced.'

*[ADD:* MUSCLE CONTROL: if it is safe to assume your only experience in finer control of your digits is typing, you are on the thinnest of surfaces compared to the depth of what is required to play a keyboard or a fiddle. Whether the fingerboard of the violin in combination with the bowing, or playing independent parts in the right and left hand at the keyboard, each requiring a great independence of finger, hand, arm and all that is physically involved -- this is something, I believe, beyond 'IQ capacity' -- and can only be learned by the doing, the macro first, layering down to infinity on the micro end. "Just Takes Time." *END ADD/]*

IF your sensibility is more brimming with this 'hedging the bet' before the fact of making a commitment to start, i.e. more a matter dependent upon your sense of self / pride in 'getting things quickly,' I would recommend not starting at all, because that is not what music, performance or composition is about.

The better and most advanced of musicians can tell you it is 'not about them' at all, but will sincerely tell you, with a genuine humility, that even with great expertise and prowess, 'greatness' and 'perfection' are bitch goddess myths, and that they most humbly 'serve music.' 'Art' music is not a vehicle for self-dramatization 

START, then, if you have a sincere interest in music, and wish to learn to play -- well -- for your own pleasure; getting good enough to perform and leave some worthwhile impression of something 'worth saying' about the pieces you play takes a long time, prodigy or no.

P.s. Studies were done which showed that nearly 100% of all concert performers, solo or orchestral musicians, started lessons between ages two to no later than four years. An older mind can learn much more quickly, but that earliest exposure puts the 'data input' parallel with the base of learning how to speak, that empiric 'getting it' prior any formal training -- music for those is actually as much their 'first language' as is their native spoken language.

High IQ, rapid learning / high retention -- helpful but no guarantee at all.


----------



## Kopachris

How quickly can you become fluent in another language (reading/writing AND speaking/listening, preferably with a different writing system such as Cyrillic, or (better) Chinese or Japanese)? How quickly could you become "fluent" in typing using a completely different keyboard layout on a computer (e.g. from QWERTY to Dvorak)? How quickly could you become fluent in typing that foreign language using that foreign keyboard layout? Add those three together and you've got a rough estimate, as music requires both language and motor coordination.


----------



## PetrB

Kopachris said:


> How quickly can you become fluent in another language (reading/writing AND speaking/listening, preferably with a different writing system such as Cyrillic, or (better) Chinese or Japanese)? How quickly could you become "fluent" in typing using a completely different keyboard layout on a computer (e.g. from QWERTY to Dvorak)? How quickly could you become fluent in typing that foreign language using that foreign keyboard layout? Add those three together and you've got a rough estimate, as music requires both language and motor coordination.


A decent analogy as criteria, but still, a good base, no guarantee of instant understanding or rapid / accelerated improvement.


----------



## AHeinrich

PetrB said:


> There are NO ADULT PRODIGIES, by definition
> 
> Over age 11? No longer a kid, no longer a prodigy.
> 
> BUT, if you learn and understand rapidly, have the luck of an eidetic memory (99% recall of all you read / see / hear), then you have a leg up in getting to it.
> 
> HOWEVER, there is no real substitute for years of working experience, seeing the notes on the page and reflexively going for those on the instrument. Add to that an incalculable number of nuanced elements, touch, phrasing, articulation, in short, all those more abstract things 'musical,' and you would be safer to assume that cliche 10,000 hours of practice to sound 'experienced.'
> 
> *[ADD:* MUSCLE CONTROL: if it is safe to assume your only experience in finer control of your digits is typing, you are on the thinnest of surfaces compared to the depth of what is required to play a keyboard or a fiddle. Whether the fingerboard of the violin in combination with the bowing, or playing independent parts in the right and left hand at the keyboard, each requiring a great independence of finger, hand, arm and all that is physically involved -- this is something, I believe, beyond 'IQ capacity' -- and can only be learned by the doing, the macro first, layering down to infinity on the micro end. "Just Takes Time." *END ADD/]*
> 
> IF your sensibility is more brimming with this 'hedging the bet' before the fact of making a commitment to start, i.e. more a matter dependent upon your sense of self / pride in 'getting things quickly,' I would recommend not starting at all, because that is not what music, performance or composition is about.
> 
> The better and most advanced of musicians can tell you it is 'not about them' at all, but will sincerely tell you, with a genuine humility, that even with great expertise and prowess, 'greatness' and 'perfection' are bitch goddess myths, and that they most humbly 'serve music.' 'Art' music is not a vehicle for self-dramatization
> 
> START, then, if you have a sincere interest in music, and wish to learn to play -- well -- for your own pleasure; getting good enough to perform and leave some worthwhile impression of something 'worth saying' about the pieces you play takes a long time, prodigy or no.
> 
> P.s. Studies were done which showed that nearly 100% of all concert performers, solo or orchestral musicians, started lessons between ages two to no later than four years. An older mind can learn much more quickly, but that earliest exposure puts the 'data input' parallel with the base of learning how to speak, that empiric 'getting it' prior any formal training -- music for those is actually as much their 'first language' as is their native spoken language.
> 
> High IQ, rapid learning / high retention -- helpful but no guarantee at all.


Excellent answer - thank you! :tiphat:

Of course, you are indeed correct - it would have been ideal to learn music at the same time as a young human is learning language, because then it would become ingrained into the child, as natural as their native tongue.

So, in short, however clever or intelligent or apt our hypothetical genius is, he will only be able to go just a tad bit quicker than the regular human? OK, that's fair enough. It's just that our particular hypothetical human would have wanted to rapidly learn voraciously and probably make it to concert playing - but maybe that's wishful thinking?


----------



## AHeinrich

ahammel said:


> You would probably do well to examine the biographies of actual prodigies.
> 
> Mozart: learned piano at the age of 3, was good enough to go on tour by the time he was 10.
> Paganini: leanred mandolin at 5, violin by 7, giving concerts by the time he was 17.
> Mendelssohn: learned piano at 6, first public concert at the age of 9, studying counterpoint by the time he was 10, writing actual masterpieces at 16.
> 
> So, based on _n_ of 3, somewhere between 3 and 10 years.


Interesting take, thank you.

Of course, our hypothetical human would be starting much, much later and would only have acquired mental abilities to aid him, whereas, one who was a young prodigy and learned very, very young would of course have the upper hand due to music being almost like a native language to him!


----------



## PetrB

AHeinrich said:


> Excellent answer - thank you! :tiphat:
> 
> Of course, you are indeed correct - it would have been ideal to learn music at the same time as a young human is learning language, because then it would become ingrained into the child, as natural as their native tongue.
> 
> So, in short, however clever or intelligent or apt our hypothetical genius is, he will only be able to go just a tad bit quicker than the regular human? OK, that's fair enough. It's just that our particular hypothetical human would have wanted to rapidly learn voraciously and probably make it to concert playing - but maybe that's wishful thinking?


Concert playing? More than likely not. That attitude, that abstract ambition -- with music and performing mere ancillary props in an imagined slipped-into 'starring' role -- means the youngster is not innately compelled 'to do.'

Many a bright youngster will do whatever they are good at, can excel at, whether they care for it / have a drive for it, or not: it becomes their mode of gaining recognition, attention and praise: what is done can be primarily motivated to please others, not the self. Me, I'd nip that one in the bud, trying to impart the lesson that one should do / is best doing, that which most personally engages them, not just that for which they have a ready facility. With bright kids, sometimes, 'they can do anything they choose.' It is what is chosen, and why, which becomes critical to their long-term well being.

Careers are not 'roles,' but many a young person does fantasize about a career just as they also imagine themselves to be character X from this or that story or film.

Adults know those are pipe dreams and / or poses of self-conceit.

Whatever the discipline, it must seize an individual at a primal level, engage and interest them so much that 'drive' / 'practice' / 'study' are not even issues. Otherwise, I can think of many careers other than music one can do successfully, and with less effort, and without needing such a deep innate interest in the field.

No reason on earth, truly, to pick up any genre of music and hope for a performing career unless you are compelled to do it, and deeply feel you must.

A strong want / need to play an instrument is encouraging, without further speculation of 'what later.'
A strong conceit you want to 'be a concert performer' - before one has even begun! -- has little hope of any real success... because an intangible identity 'outside yourself' is ultimately insupportable. It is an imagined role vs. something you actually want / need to do.

The only reason for thinking of that destination, it is to be hoped, comes from a native enthusiasm for the study, not outside recognition, one-upping his peers, etc.

All too common, the idea of 'trumping' people and situations with such a gift is exacerbated / amplified by parents who are either keen on boasting rights, or have ambition and see $$$ in the young persons future, sometimes with real prodigies, part of the drive is the parents 'going for the money' the child can make -- all those 'negative' values and ambitions often backfire, the young bright person fizzling out or quitting.

I'd emphasize 'face value' of people perceiving you as you walk in to a room, with none of the 'credentials' known. It is the first, and most basic, thing any of us has _(stripped bare, it is all we have.)_ Then let him find his own passions, without which, no matter how bright, precocious, etc. he might be, "Jack is a very dull boy."


----------



## Praeludium

This thing about starting at three being a must in order to be a professional musician (not even solist or whatever, just professional) seems very strange to me. I know both musicians who started late and early at the conservatory, and it doesn't look like musical flows naturally from those who started early and only with a lot of difficulty from those who started late.
Some of those who started early are plain mediocre. Some who started later got to a very respectable level in a few years.

I notice that it's only in classical music that you have to start very early or you can't be professional. You can take up jazz late and learn how to improvise on very complex and fast moving harmonies, rythm, learn how to pick up pretty much anything by ear instantly, get a first class virtuoso technique, etc. nobody will be shocked. But if you start classical music later than 10, there's no hope for you to be a professional musician.


----------



## hreichgott

Praeludium said:


> This thing about starting at three being a must in order to be a professional musician (not even solist or whatever, just professional) seems very strange to me.


Me too. Actually it's a common critique I hear about the Suzuki method (which can start at any age once a kid is able to hum a tune and follow directions for 20 minutes at a time) that we have no business teaching kids formal lessons until age 7 at least. Mainstream pedagogy doesn't seem that interested in starting kids super-young, and they turn out lots of great musicians.

I think the only real obstacle when starting later is a matter of time and priorities. The younger you start, the more hours you've logged by adulthood; and the older you start, the more likely you are to have accumulated other activities that demand a lot of your time. That's all.

I also observe (and so has Praeludium, I think) that this thread has lumped together playing advanced music as a student, being a professional musician, and being a concert performer. Those three things are very different and they require very different levels of effort, experience, skill and talent.


----------



## AHeinrich

Praeludium said:


> This thing about starting at three being a must in order to be a professional musician (not even solist or whatever, just professional) seems very strange to me. I know both musicians who started late and early at the conservatory, and it doesn't look like musical flows naturally from those who started early and only with a lot of difficulty from those who started late.
> Some of those who started early are plain mediocre. Some who started later got to a very respectable level in a few years.
> 
> I notice that it's only in classical music that you have to start very early or you can't be professional. You can take up jazz late and learn how to improvise on very complex and fast moving harmonies, rythm, learn how to pick up pretty much anything by ear instantly, get a first class virtuoso technique, etc. nobody will be shocked. *But if you start classical music later than 10, there's no hope for you to be a professional musician.*


Why not? If everything is there (enthusiasm, money, intelligence etc), what is stopping them?


----------



## ahammel

AHeinrich said:


> Interesting take, thank you.
> 
> Of course, our hypothetical human would be starting much, much later and would only have acquired mental abilities to aid him, whereas, one who was a young prodigy and learned very, very young would of course have the upper hand due to music being almost like a native language to him!


Well, there's no real way to determine how entirely hypothetical human beings would behave. Figuring out how fast real prodigies learn is the best you can do.


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> Well, there's no real way to determine how entirely hypothetical human beings would behave. Figuring out how fast real prodigies learn is the best you can do.


The actual 'prodigy' of the OP, then, as recommended, should 'just start' and with no present aim or thoughts to later 'be a performer,' but instead with an aim to simply commence learning and continue ~ that is the only non 'speculative' course of action


----------



## GreenMamba

AHeinrich said:


> Why not? If everything is there (enthusiasm, money, intelligence etc), what is stopping them?


As mentioned above, muscle control. Practice.

I suspect you're overrating the importance of intelligence and underrating the physical aspect. It's a bit like a sport. If you've never kicked a soccer ball by the age of 14, you'll never turn into Lionel Messi.


----------



## tdc

Praeludium said:


> But if you start classical music later than 10, there's no hope for you to be a professional musician.


Surely there have to be _some_ exceptions to this rule?? I just looked up a bunch of the famous classical musicians I know of and I could not find any that started later than the age of 8. Automatic "like" for anyone who can name a professional classical musician that started after the age of 10!


----------



## Praeludium

Roger Muraro starter piano at 13 but he was already playing saxophone before.
Arcadi Volodos began to really study piano at 16 but he was singing before.

You can actually find many examples even amongst the famous concertists, but most of the time they began an other instrument before. But I still don't think age is the most important factor here... (the phrase that you quote wasn't meant to be read literally but I probably wasn't clear enough in my writing).
It probably depends on the instrument and its culture too. I wouldn't be surprised if many famous organ player began to study organ past 10 (Kevin Bowyer began organ at 14 according to his website. And he's known for playing insane stuff)


I think the culture of the instrument has a lot to do with this kind of thing. In the 60's and the 70's many classical guitarist were late starters and it didn't bother anyone. It probably wouldn't be possible today (it's all in their head...)... For instance, Norbert Kraft started at 17, I think. He recorded Villa-Lobos' Douze études.


----------



## ahammel

Praeludium said:


> Roger Muraro starter piano at 13 but he was already playing saxophone before.
> Arcadi Volodos began to really study piano at 16 but he was singing before.


Not to mention one of my favourite musicians: Barry Tuckwell. Took up the horn at 13, was playing it professionally six months later. He had studied piano, organ, and violin previously, of course.


----------



## Jaws

AHeinrich said:


> *How Fast Would It Take A Genius Young Adult Prodigy To Learn Musical Notation/Violin/Piano etc From Scratch?*
> 
> Say, hypothetically, we have a young adult prodigy. So, he's extremely intelligent, a genius in several fields - in other words, this young adult can pick things up very quickly (high IQ, great memory, general developed mental abilities). Now, he has an intense willingness to master musical notation and instruments (particularly violin/piano).
> 
> With the above in mind, how long would it take that young adult to learn music from scratch up to an advanced level? How long, also, would it take for this prodigy to play the violin/piano at an advanced level?
> 
> (Bear in mind, that he would be willing to devote as much time as possible and money is of no worry or space to practise.)


The reading the music bit is going to be the same length of time as it would take him to learn to read the written word from scratch if he was starting to do this as an adult. Learning to read music is difficult for adults just as learning to read is difficult for adults. 
Learning an instrument takes about 10 years these days, if you are a very fast learner.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> Surely there have to be _some_ exceptions to this rule?? I just looked up a bunch of the famous classical musicians I know of and I could not find any that started later than the age of 8. Automatic "like" for anyone who can name a professional classical musician that started after the age of 10!


The poll taken was from professional classical concert performers, I believe mainly the soloist career player, but that too could have been the professional classical orchestra member.

No, it takes THAT MUCH, the vast majority of them started between ages two to four, eight, as per your example, being already a bit 'late.'

You may have missed the little factor about becoming familiar with music, notation at the same age one is intuitively, without formal training, picking up language. It seems that at this critical learning juncture, if the music -- reading it, playing it, no matter how 'non-prodigy' level it be -- is learned at the same time language is being intuitively grasped, that is the best base for the possibility of later becoming a high-end concert player.

You can bet all of them, excluding that early childhood, have put in way more than that cliche prescription of ten thousand hours, as well.


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> You can bet all of them, excluding that early childhood, have put in way more than that cliche prescription of ten thousand hours, as well.


I think there are exceptions to this too though, Glenn Gould for example has suggested he didn't need to constantly practice like most other concert performers. I read he often would mostly study scores before performing works, doing a few practice runs through before the performance - I believe he did this with a Brahms Piano Concerto. I've read that John Williams (guitarist) also claimed to not need the constant practice hours many others have needed to learn his guitar technique and that his fingers (to paraphrase) 'just always seemed to work well'.

The examples of certain musicians starting late and still attaining professional status at a relatively young age also suggests these things are not barriers to all performers. I personally think it is counter-productive to suggest and set limitations on what a human being can achieve. Statistics, studies, scientists and doctors are constantly proven wrong. I don't think everything is genetic or predetermined by one's formative years. These things have a huge effect but aren't impenetrable barriers no one can get away from.


----------



## hreichgott

tdc said:


> he often would mostly study scores before performing works, doing a few practice runs through before the performance - I believe he did this with a Brahms Piano Concerto


That sounds normal for performing music that's old familiar repertoire one has already performed many times -- lots of mental rehearsal and just a few run-throughs to "knock off the rust" and make sure all the physical stuff is shipshape.

I think PetrB was talking about the amount of time one needs to become expert at music/at one's instrument, in the first place.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> I think there are exceptions to this too though, Glenn Gould for example has suggested he didn't need to constantly practice like most other concert performers. I read he often would mostly study scores before performing works, doing a few practice runs through before the performance - I believe he did this with a Brahms Piano Concerto. I've read that John Williams (guitarist) also claimed to not need the constant practice hours many others have needed to learn his guitar technique and that his fingers (to paraphrase) 'just always seemed to work well'.
> 
> The examples of certain musicians starting late and still attaining professional status at a relatively young age also suggests these things are not barriers to all performers. I personally think it is counter-productive to suggest and set limitations on what a human being can achieve. Statistics, studies, scientists and doctors are constantly proven wrong. I don't think everything is genetic or predetermined by one's formative years. These things have a huge effect but aren't impenetrable barriers no one can get away from.


Here it is. Those who have the extraordinary ability / affinity which gets them through starting later are a super rare exception. You can quote the stats for 'average' all day long to an exceptional person and it will not make one jot as to their decisions as to their personal goals or direction.. they're exceptional.

There are thousands and thousands of folk just like the 'prodigy' described in the OP. They end up perhaps graduating a year or two early, many are very good at what they later do but are not winning prizes, nor famous as major contributors in the field.

I got nothing -- 0 from the description in the OP that in any way indicated real native talent to me; actually, it sounded more like an extremely projection-inflected parent writing the OP.

The death knell was the OP saying the 'young prodigy' had a thought to get really good at piano (or violin, LOL) very quickly and soon become a professional level performer. Completely the wrong answer for anyone who has any true drive to do it.

There are constant exceptions to overcoming the limitations of one's birth and environment: those exceptions are truly exceptional people, not just exceptionally bright overachieving children.


----------



## Jaws

Praeludium said:


> This thing about starting at three being a must in order to be a professional musician (not even solist or whatever, just professional) seems very strange to me. I know both musicians who started late and early at the conservatory, and it doesn't look like musical flows naturally from those who started early and only with a lot of difficulty from those who started late.
> Some of those who started early are plain mediocre. Some who started later got to a very respectable level in a few years.
> 
> I notice that it's only in classical music that you have to start very early or you can't be professional. You can take up jazz late and learn how to improvise on very complex and fast moving harmonies, rythm, learn how to pick up pretty much anything by ear instantly, get a first class virtuoso technique, etc. nobody will be shocked. But if you start classical music later than 10, there's no hope for you to be a professional musician.


I have found because I am someone who started late and then studied classical music at college that the reason that it is so difficult to get into classical music if you started late is not because you aren't good enough it is because so many educators in the classical music field still believe the myth that you have to start young to be good.

I used to teach brass instruments to children and many, many of those children were not going to make professional players.

When I started my second instrument oboe at age 42 I had to be at least twice as good as the young people in my college in order for anyone to take me seriously. Eventually it got to the stage that I could be treated as an idiot if I did an audition on cor anglais on a reed that I had made (a skill that is needed to be a professional oboist/cor anglais player) and the reed didn't play quite as well in tune as a bought one, when there were students in the same college who had started when they were young passing the same auditions and higher ones on reeds that they had bought. This college states that it give the skills needed to become a professional player, but since the auditions were of a post grad level and since the other students couldn't make reeds that they could play anything on, not only could I play better than them, but also made reeds better and then still got treated like an idiot simply because I was an adult late starter and didn't fit with their belief system.

Fortunately my cor anglais teacher at said college eventually told me that I wasn't passing auditions hadn't anything to do with my playing but was "because the college didn't know what to do with you." They couldn't tick boxes. I could sight read cor anglais music that other students had to practise.

It is extremely difficult to alter a belief system that in the classical world has so many vested interests.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> Surely there have to be _some_ exceptions to this rule?? I just looked up a bunch of the famous classical musicians I know of and I could not find any that started later than the age of 8. Automatic "like" for anyone who can name a professional classical musician that started after the age of 10!


It is exceptional, and exceptionally rare. I could _destroy myself_ contemplating having had an earlier start than the age of six, and 'what might have been' other than having become a kinda great but nonetheless 'journeyman' classical pianist. No one can afford to 'go there,' and absolutely shouldn't ever take a moment to even dwell upon it, since _there is no going back_ to alter anything.

Besides, _"Regrets are degrading." ~ Voltaire_

You can only start from where you are....


----------

