pianist

> if you’re a concert pianist, it doesn’t mean that you have any special knowledge about how to cause social change.

I'm not a pianist, but every single one I know whom I asked about this said that the difference is too great, at least to learn on.

It was obvious I'd never be a concert pianist or master painter or even get paid for either.

Many are essentially freelancers and take gigs as they come-- choir accompanist, pit orchestra pianist, keyboardist in a band, resident organist in a church...

Thumbs down from a lifelong DDRer and casual pianist.

The real problem is some people think that because they are a better programmer (or a better pianist, or athlete, or engineer, or doctor) they are better people.

Being a concert pianist (or Lady Gaga or Floyd MayWeather) is competitive in such a way that the return on being the 1-in-a-thousand is way better than 1-in-ten.

Will the hobbyist pianist give a great performance?

Being a concert pianist can intersect with many fields as well (acoustics and music theory alone can get quite deep), but ultimately the immediate direction is much more narrow.

Amazing pianist, and just awesome person.

For wind instruments, e.g., the dynamics can get quite complex - if a pianist has to read 5 notes, a flute player has to read one but with 5 dynamics annotations.

I guess I completely disagree, as another lifelong pianist.

>“If you’re a concert pianist, it doesn’t mean that you have any special knowledge about how to cause social change,” Mr.

The excessive focus on the idea of a "concert pianist" talent leads to this situation where the day to day programmers aren't getting the credit they deserve.

Another well-known case of retrograde amnesia is Clive Wearing, a British pianist who was the subject of a BBC documentary, "Man Without a Memory" [2].

I'm not saying the hobbyist pianist shouldn't try any more than I'd say anyone who wants to write a program shouldn't try -- but the article suggests there's no real benefit to "talent" and that's just silly.