# Music theory beginner.



## KaerbEmEvig

I will be reading through the music theory and when I'm done with it I shall, I think, take up piano lessons. The question is - can I be good (not competition good, but still play well), if I start at the age of 19 (or rather 20, as I will be of that age in January)?

I did have a short episode of playing an instrument (1st grade at school) but the teacher had not ignited the passion in my heart so I dropped it.

Anyways - what do you think about taking up an instrument this late?

EDIT: removed the off topic part.


----------



## handlebar

I didn't take up violin and cello until after age 35. I took up classical guitar at age 40.
So there you go. If an idiot like ME and do it then an intelligent and gifted person as yourself will have no problems. Just work at it.

Jim


----------



## colin

Its never too late to learn an instrument. Put it this way, if you just sit and look at the piano, you wont get any better at it.


----------



## Air

Go for it, but only if you enjoy playing the piano. I've seen so many children been "forced" to play the piano and ultimately, once it has been disposed onto a college app, it's of no use any more.

Also, do not aim to become "professional". There are very few pianists who start in their 20s, and even starting early, the competition is too fierce. There are some exceptions though; if you have extreme passion, talent, time, and dedication, it is still possible.

So the answer is yes, definitely, if you want to. You can still be good, but most of all it'll be something that you'll have for the rest of your life. In addition, it will increase your understanding of all genres of music. 

Personally, I don't know how I could've handled all the stress I've been through without my good ol' Kawai.


----------



## kmisho

I have thought about this question a lot. The main thing I've decided is that people pay way too much attention to talent. People are always saying, I can't play, I can't write, I can't draw or paint, I don't have the talent. The sad fact is that this is just an excuse. They don't do those things because, in the end, they don't really want to.

As Stephen King said about talent, some people are given small swords and some people are given big swords but no one is given a sharp sword. Regardless of the size of your sword, it's entirely up to you how sharp it will be. Just about anyone can learn to play the piano well enough to "wow the layman" as one of my college professors put. And if you too are a layman, cool. You just might wow yourself!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

kmisho said:


> I have thought about this question a lot. The main thing I've decided is that people pay way too much attention to talent. People are always saying, I can't play, I can't write, I can't draw or paint, I don't have the talent. The sad fact is that this is just an excuse. They don't do those things because, in the end, they don't really want to.


That's true. Although perfect pitch is harder to acquire for people who were not raised in tone language speaking family (scientifically proven - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041114235846.htm).

I haven't been raised to be a painter (didn't take any classes). I was drawing [with pastels] because it was fun. I only drew three works, though (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3096/dscn3454new.jpg and http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7571/deserteddesertbykaerbem.jpg I have pictures of).

Yes, there might be a little advantage that comes with one's genetics or their upbringing, but it can't be more important than the 10 000 hours one has to spend practicing (the number's based on the SciAm article) to master a skill. It's just that people who are brought up playing piano will achieve this much earlier in their lives.


----------



## david johnson

afaik nobody acquires perfect pitch. one must be born with it, but superb relative pitch can be developed and your practice will help that. 20 is young, go for it.
remember to practice smart, not just practice. 
don't overlook singing and then playing the same intervals, melodies, etc.

dj


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

david johnson said:


> afaik nobody acquires perfect pitch. one must be born with it, but superb relative pitch can be developed and your practice will help that. 20 is young, go for it.
> remember to practice smart, not just practice.
> don't overlook singing and then playing the same intervals, melodies, etc.
> 
> dj


Like I said, it's scientifically proven that users of tone languages such as Mandarin have a much higher probability of having perfect pitch, which defies the hypothesis of inheriting it from one's parents - vide: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041114235846.htm


----------



## david johnson

nope, they're incorrect


----------



## mamascarlatti

As an adult beginner myself. I would say that the obstacles that can get in the way of reasonable progress are:

1. Self criticism - ie "I'll never be as good as (insert name of famous musician)". This can mess with your mind. That's one area little kids have an advantage, they are far more positive about their own achievements.
2. Lack of time to practise
3. Crappy teaching
4. Playing music you don't really like because it's "good for you". Very demotivating.

So I'd say go in with a positive attitude, enjoy the ride, make time to practise, play music you love, and find a good teacher. 

Happy learning!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

david johnson said:


> nope, they're incorrect


I think you'll have to prove them wrong, not just say so.=]

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...+language&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

http://www.acoustics.org/press/138th/deutsch.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news161968399.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...uages-makes-you-musical-claim-scientists.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=speaking-tonal-languages


----------



## david johnson

it isn't just say-so. please note 'with roughly 20 seconds intervening between the two' in the links.
perfect pitch requires no time delay.

dj


----------



## kmisho

"No time delay" is nonsense. The question is how much time delay. Then, exactly what time delay are you going to allow to divide perfect pitch from really good relative pitch and why?

It does seem to me that the division between these two things is ultimately arbitrary.

I'll add that perfect pitch is not always a good thing. For the purposes of performance, I'd think really good relative pitch would serve you better.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

david johnson said:


> it isn't just say-so. please note 'with roughly 20 seconds intervening between the two' in the links.
> perfect pitch requires no time delay.
> 
> dj


You took it out of context. Read the paper again because it seems you misunderstood it. It was meant to show that whether it is an "immidiate" succession (it could have been 1 second instead of 20, it does not matter) or a difference of a whole day, the results stay the same (as in: outstandingly good) - huge majority of tone language speakers posses perfect pitch.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Another proof: http://www.talkclassical.com/3370-musical-mind.html



> One aspect of this is the prevalence of absolute pitch in congenitally blind people. This is something which is pretty rare in the general population.


Bear in mind that congenital does not mean genetic/hereditary (that's my point).


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Another proof: http://www.talkclassical.com/3370-musical-mind.html
> 
> Bear in mind that congential does not mean genetic/hereditary (that's my point).


I think you mean "congenital".

It's incorrect to say that "_congential does not mean genetic/hereditary_".

More correctly, congenital (in the sense of a genetic disorder) does not necessarily mean it was inherited genetically. It may have been but it is not necessarily so.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> I think you mean "congenital".
> 
> It's incorrect to say that "_congential does not mean genetic/hereditary_".
> 
> More correctly, congenital (in the sense of a genetic disorder) does not necessarily mean it was inherited genetically. It may have been but it is not necessarily so.


If the latter is "more correct" than the former cannot be "incorrect" (although I probably should have used the mentioned word).


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> If the latter is "more correct" than the former cannot be "incorrect" (although I probably should have used the mentioned word).


To clarify, you missed out the word in square brackets in: "_congential does not [necessarily] mean genetic/hereditary_".

It can mean _genetic/hereditary, _and therefore your statement is incorrect.

When I said "More correctly" it meant that I can't be bothered to give you the full medical explanation, but what I gave should suffice for the purpose of this thread.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Like I said, it's scientifically proven that users of tone languages such as Mandarin have a much higher probability of having perfect pitch, which defies the hypothesis of inheriting it from one's parents


What's with you and perfect pitch anyway??? Having perfect pitch -I repeat for the 50th time- has nothing to do with being a good musician!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> To clarify, you missed out the word in square brackets in: "_congential does not [necessarily] mean genetic/hereditary_".
> 
> It can mean _genetic/hereditary, _and therefore your statement is incorrect.
> 
> When I said "More correctly" it meant that I can't be bothered to give you the full medical explanation, but what I gave should suffice for the purpose of this thread.


My statement was not incorrect. By "does not mean" I meant "is not synonymous to"/"does not imply" (which it isn't/it does not) and thus my statement is correct. Congenital does not mean "genetic"/"hereditary" - it means "present at birth"...


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> My statement was not incorrect. By "does not mean" I meant "is not synonymous to"/"does not imply" (which it isn't/it does not) and thus my statement is correct. Congenital does not mean "genetic"/"hereditary" - it means "present at birth"...


A condition that is congenital will always be present at birth, but it may also have been present before birth, as a foetus or embryo. To this extent the condition could be the result of genetic/hereditary factors, in which case your original statement was clearly incorrect as it did not allow for this possibility.

Hence you are wrong.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> A condition that is congenital will always be present at birth, but it may also have been present before birth, as a foetus or embryo. To this extent the condition could be the result of genetic/hereditary factors, in which case your original statement was clearly incorrect as it did not allow for this possibility.
> 
> Hence you are wrong.





> it did not allow for this possibility


In what way exactly? Like I said "does not mean" as in "is not synonymous to", "does not imply". My statement was correct and you are playing the game of semantics since you are unable to admit you were wrong in the first place.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/mean



> stand for, suggest, imply, indicate


http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/imply



> Definition: indicate, mean


----------



## Artemis

I wish you wouldn't chop up my post into tiny fragments, and try to pretend that you have a good point. You don't. You have boobed and it's very simple to see why.

In your post #15 you wrote:"_Bear in mind that congenital does not mean genetic/hereditary (that's my point)._"​That statement is incorrect because it excludes the important word "necessarily" between "not" and "mean". This missing word vitally alters the meaning of the sentence, since without that word it states that congenital involves something other than genetic/hereditary factors at work. This is incorrect because some congenital disorders are due to genetic/hereditary factors. While it is correct that congenital means "present at birth", the abnormal condition present birth may also have been present before birth.

I can't make this point any clearer.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> I wish you wouldn't chop up my post into tiny fragments, and try to pretend that you have a good point. You don't. You have boobed and it's very simple to see why.
> 
> In your post #15 you wrote:
> "_Bear in mind that congenital does not mean genetic/hereditary (that's my point)._"​That statement is incorrect because it excludes the important word "necessarily" between "not" and "mean". This missing word vitally alters the meaning of the sentence. The word "necessarily" is required because some congenital disorders are due to genetic/hereditary factors. It is correct that congenital means "present at birth", but the condition may also have been present before birth.


Look, you are purposefully omitting the parts of my post that state


> "does not mean" as in "is not synonymous to", "does not imply"


The cited dictionary definitions that support my claim. I'm not trying to persuade you because you clearly do not care that a dictionary supports my statements.



> because some congenital disorders are due to genetic/hereditary factors


So what? Like I said "does not mean" as in "does not imply". I needn't use "necessarily" at all. Live with it. Just because you would use one does not make my initial statement incorrect - far from it.

Read this once again:



> http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/imply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition: indicate, mean
Click to expand...

Do you really want to argue with a dictionary?


----------



## Artemis

I'm not arguing with you any further. I will simply let others, if they wish, peruse these exchanges and let them draw their own conclusions.


----------



## danae

Artemis said:


> I'm not arguing with you any further. I will simply let others, if they wish, peruse these exchanges and let them draw their own conclusions.


Good for you, but I, for one, am not interested in pursuing the same subject with the OP. I'm still hung up on the "perfect pitch" thing, and my comment has gone unanswered, if not undetected...


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

danae said:


> Good for you, but I, for one, am not interested in pursuing the same subject with the OP. I'm still hung up on the "perfect pitch" thing, and my comment has gone unanswered, if not undetected...


I've been busy, sorry.



danae said:


> What's with you and perfect pitch anyway??? Having perfect pitch -I repeat for the 50th time- has nothing to do with being a good musician!


I never said it did. I just mentioned on a sidenote that people brought up using tone language happen to have it way more often.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> That's true. Although perfect pitch is harder to acquire for people who were not raised in tone language speaking family (scientifically proven - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041114235846.htm).


This is your first reference to "perfect pitch" in this thread. The poster above was talking only about talent, but for some reason, you felt it was relevant to mention "perfect pitch", which made me think that you probably think that perfect pitch has something to do with good musicianship...


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

danae said:


> This is your first reference to "perfect pitch" in this thread. The poster above was talking only about talent, but for some reason, you felt it was relevant to mention "perfect pitch", which made me think that you probably think that perfect pitch has something to do with good musicianship...


No, with so called talent. And I think that the role of "talent" in mastering something is highly overestimated. I've even mentioned the SciAm article on the magical number of 10000 (roughly, of course) spent on practicing.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> No, with so called talent. And I think that the role of "talent" in mastering something is highly overestimated. I've even mentioned the SciAm article on the magical number of 10000 (roughly, of course) spent on practicing.


OK I understand what you want to say. However, still, perfect pitch should not be connected to the concept of artistic (in this case musical) talent. Because talent does play a very important role in being a good musician, whilst perfect pitch doesn't. Furthermore, however much you work and study, without a little bit of talent, you 'll never be a good musician.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Like I said, kmisho and I belong to the group of people that think the role of talent (if it exists at all) is highly overestimated - you have an opposing opinion, fair enough.

You can't prove the role of so called talent anyways because every good musician has been practicing their whole life and usually since early childhood.


----------



## Aramis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> group of people that think the role of talent (if it exists at all) is highly overestimated


Group also known as "I have no talent so I don't belive that it exists at all - it's all about practice! It must be so! Argh! Where is the rope?!"


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Like I said, kmisho and I belong to the group of people that think the role of talent (if it exists at all) is highly overestimated


I totally agree, on the "overestimated" part, not the "if it exists" part. BUT, the fact that the role of talent is and always has been overestimated, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not important!

It's almost as if you're saying that all a person needs to do is work hard, and nothing else. Just work and practice. That doesn't make any sense. If that were the case, then I'd have the exact same possibilities of becoming a concert pianist as Argerich did when she was born.

This "tabula rasa" theory just doesn't apply to the human condition.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Aramis said:


> Group also known as "I have no talent so I don't belive that it exists at all - it's all about practice! It must be so! Argh! Where is the rope?!"


Quite the opposite, actually.

I've always been told I've had talent for mathematics/school in general (5.5 GPA in primary school, 5.6 GPA in secondary school and 5.0 GPA in high school - with spending as little as 20 minutes revising the day before the exam), for drawing (my first two, and only due to lack of time, drawings: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3096/dscn3454new.jpg http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7571/deserteddesertbykaerbem.jpg - so you can judge yourself; never took drawing classes) and so on and so forth.

I don't think that was the case at all. It's all about spending your time *effectively* and loving what you do. Yes, I do have good memory for these things but it's not because my memory is exceptional - it's because it's not being used up for stuff like the latest celebrity rumours, fashion trends and such.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Aramis said:


> Group also known as "I have no talent so I don't belive that it exists at all - it's all about practice! It must be so! Argh! Where is the rope?!"


Quite the opposite, actually.

I've always been told I've had talent for mathematics/school in general (5.5 GPA in primary school, 5.6 GPA in secondary school and 5.0 GPA in high school - with spending as little as 20 minutes revising the day before the exam), for drawing (my first two, and only due to lack of time, drawings: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3096/dscn3454new.jpg http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7571/deserteddesertbykaerbem.jpg - so you can judge yourself; never took drawing classes) and so on and so forth.

I don't think that was the case at all. It's all about spending your time *effectively* and loving what you do. Yes, I do have good memory for these things but it's not because my memory is exceptional - it's because it's not being used up for stuff like latest celebrity rumours and such.



danae said:


> It's almost as if you're saying that all a person needs to do is work hard, and nothing else. Just work and practice. That doesn't make any sense. If that were the case, then I'd have the exact same possibilities of becoming a concert pianist as Argerich did when she was born.


If it that easy - but it's not. You need to consider the circumstances. If you were born in her place but with your genes, then yes - in my opinion you would. But you need to understand that the circumstances quite different for her. She started playing piano at the age of three - how about you? What about your teachers? What about the time you dedicated to it? Were you passionate about it?


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> If it that easy - but it's not. You need to consider the circumstances. If you were born in her place but with your genes, then yes - in my opinion you would. But you need to understand that the circumstances quite different for her. She started playing piano at the age of three - how about you? What about your teachers? What about the time you dedicated to it? Were you passionate about it?


I don't know what else to say. It's one thing to rely completely on genes, as some people do, while they totally ignore the "learned behaviour" (that is, the enviromental factor), but to assume that *everything* is "learned" and created by your social enviroment is an equally absurd premise.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

danae said:


> I don't know what else to say. It's one thing to rely completely on genes, as some people do, while they totally ignore the "learned behaviour" (that is, the enviromental factor), but to assume that *everything* is "learned" and created by your social enviroment is an equally absurd premise.


It's highly unlikely that genes (at least as I see it) play a considerable role for one important reason - what reproductional advantages would being musically talented bring 100 000 years ago? Yes, maybe 10 000 years ago it would have been important as humans stopped living the life nomads.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

Im not very talented, but Im at the same time one of those people who belive in talent.
I know people who study hard whom still get mediocre grades, me among them.
If studying and working on your things was all that mattered then I would sit at the top of the world today.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Mozartgirl92 said:


> Im not very talented, but Im at the same time one of those people who belive in talent.
> I know people who study hard whom still get mediocre grades, me among them.
> If studying and working on your things was all that mattered then I would sit at the top of the world today.


Maybe your studying method doesn't suit you? Ever considered that might be the case? I for one can't sit down and revise after I get back home from school (now uni), I simply get bored after 10 minutes and go do something else.

Or maybe I'm wrong and I should be greatful to my parents that I was born intelligent and talented.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

KaerbEmEvig, I have chosen a good study method, and yes, good study method doesn´t necessarily mean good grades, so I think you should be grateful to whatever(good genes and good environment) made you this intelligent and talented.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

On the other hand I dislike to think that way as I'm a socialist when it comes to education. I think that everyone should have the same chance to achieve things in life, maybe I'm blinded by this notion.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

Yes, I think you are a bit blinded by your ideals, if everyone was the best noone would be the best.
So I think you should enjoy the fact that you have managed to do so well all of your life.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Or maybe I'm wrong and I should be greatful to my parents that I was born intelligent and talented.


I'm beginning to think that you don't actually read other people's posts. No one here claimed that it's solely a matter of inherited talent or genes that are responsible for high achievements.

I, for one, said (and I say again) that talent *does* play an important role. And I ask again, (since you never really answered): do you believe that the social enviroment and so-called "learned behaviour" are the *only* factors that determine our character, our decisions, our behaviour and performance through all walks of life?


----------



## kmisho

danae said:


> I totally agree, on the "overestimated" part, not the "if it exists" part. BUT, the fact that the role of talent is and always has been overestimated, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not important!
> 
> It's almost as if you're saying that all a person needs to do is work hard, and nothing else. Just work and practice. That doesn't make any sense. If that were the case, then I'd have the exact same possibilities of becoming a concert pianist as Argerich did when she was born.
> 
> This "tabula rasa" theory just doesn't apply to the human condition.


Of course talent is important in terms of the ease of progress and being realistic about the possibility of reaching the upper echelon. All I'm saying is that if your goal is to play decently and entertain yourself and others, talent is not the most important ingredient. One need not be on par with Vladimir Ashkenazy to be a good musician.


----------



## danae

kmisho said:


> Of course talent is important in terms of the ease of progress and being realistic about the possibility of reaching the upper echelon. All I'm saying is that if your goal is to play decently and entertain yourself and others, talent is not the most important ingredient. One need not be on par with Vladimir Ashkenazy to be a good musician.


No, one doesn't need to have the same talent as Ashkenazy to be a good musician but one *needs to have some talent!*

And that's all *I* am saying.


----------



## Aramis

Define talent.


----------



## danae

Talent: an obvious inclination towards a specific activity / action etc, and some level of natural ease while engaging in this activity.

Sorry, I don't have a dictionary with me right now. I did my best.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

danae said:


> Talent: an obvious inclination towards a specific activity / action etc, and some level of natural ease while engaging in this activity.
> 
> Sorry, I don't have a dictionary with me right now. I did my best.


I think, if I'm not mistaken, he wants something that can be scientifically measured.


----------



## Aramis

Yes, what I mean is: what precisely is talent? What is this "inclination" that makes pianist a great pianist? Is pianistic talent something that dwells in human fingers? Maybe there is some specific mental predisposition that allows him to understand and learn the keyboard better than others? Or maybe just combination of few obvious and ordinary features like good ear, musical imagination and swift hands?


----------



## kmisho

danae said:


> No, one doesn't need to have the same talent as Ashkenazy to be a good musician but one *needs to have some talent!*
> 
> And that's all *I* am saying.


Some for sure. I don't think it takes very much to have make a lifelong project of it.


----------



## kmisho

Aramis said:


> Yes, what I mean is: what precisely is talent? What is this "inclination" that makes pianist a great pianist? Is pianistic talent something that dwells in human fingers? Maybe there is some specific mental predisposition that allows him to understand and learn the keyboard better than others? Or maybe just combination of few obvious and ordinary features like good ear, musical imagination and swift hands?


The abilities of savants are a concrete measure of the power of raw talent. There was a savant who could hear nearly any piece of music performed on nearly any set of instruments and instantly transcribe it to piano. I heard of a savant who could hear any piano piece and instantly duplicate it note for note. That's talent.

But the example of the savant also proves the other side of my point. If talent was what we really wanted to hear, savants would be the top sellers. But they're not. Talent is an attractive and admirable ingredient, but it's not the main thing we listen for when we listen to performance.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I think, if I'm not mistaken, he wants something that can be scientifically measured.


Sorry, talent can't be scientifically easured. And he asked for a "definition" of talent. That's what I gave him. If he also wanted me to provide him with an objective and scientific method of measuring and calculating the "amount" or "volume" (!) of a person's talent (which is, of course, quite impossible), then he should have asked for just that.


----------



## danae

Talent can be a combination of many things. That doesn't mean I don't stand by the definition I gave earlier. However, my point was not to describe or define talent, but to contend that it's an important element in the development of an artist.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

kmisho said:


> The abilities of savants are a concrete measure of the power of raw talent. There was a savant who could hear nearly any piece of music performed on nearly any set of instruments and instantly transcribe it to piano. I heard of a savant who could hear any piano piece and instantly duplicate it note for note. That's talent.
> 
> But the example of the savant also proves the other side of my point. If talent was what we really wanted to hear, savants would be the top sellers. But they're not. Talent is an attractive and admirable ingredient, but it's not the main thing we listen for when we listen to performance.


Actually, anyone of us can be a "savant idiot". I can't find the article/excerpt right now but it has something to do with the fact that ordinary people "neglect" the "useless" details or else they would be overwhelmed by the information downpour (IIRC we pay attention to less than 1% of the information available).

I've actually spent 10 years in a class with a guy who suffered from the Asperger Syndrome (1 year of pre-primary school, 6 years of primary school and 3 years of secondary school). He was great with dates but could barely apply mathematics.



danae said:


> Sorry, talent can't be scientifically easured. And he asked for a "definition" of talent. That's what I gave him. If he also wanted me to provide him with an objective and scientific method of measuring and calculating the "amount" or "volume" (!) of a person's talent (which is, of course, quite impossible), then he should have asked for just that.


Everything can be measured (and he did ask for the latter, by the way) - just because we haven't found/decided on a way to do it doesn't mean it's impossible. Like Aramis said - is it about the flexible fingers?, long fingers?, big hands?, good ear? - what is it?

The way you look at it one cannot distinguish between hard work and talent. All you do is claim that everyone works hard those who make it to the top do so because of their talent.


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Everything can be measured (and he did ask for the latter, by the way)


First of all, the premise that everything can be measured doesn't make sense. Furthermore your statement is absolute, it doesn't leave any margin for interpretation.

Secondly, if he had asked for that, he would have said something more or something other than just "define talent".


----------



## danae

KaerbEmEvig said:


> The way you look at it one cannot distinguish between hard work and talent. All you do is claim that everyone works hard those who make it to the top do so because of their talent.


Did I ever say that? Please don't put words in my mouth, or, if you don't understand something you read, just ask.

I repeat (and I hope this time you'll get my meaning): talent plays an important role in the overall development of an artist. In order for one to be a good artist, one needs to possess *some* talent.

Now if, reading this, you understand that "everyone works hard but those who make it to the top do so because of their talent", then... what can I say?


----------



## Aramis

danae said:


> Secondly, if he had asked for that, he would have said something more or something other than just "define talent".


It was a challenge. I didn't ask for dictionary definition, but for meaningful and logical one. I was thinking about starting thread about this matter for some time and your discussion reminded me of this question which is connected with what you were discussing here.


----------



## danae

Aramis said:


> It was a challenge. I didn't ask for dictionary definition, but for meaningful and logical one. I was thinking about starting thread about this matter for some time and your discussion reminded me of this question which is connected with what you were discussing here.


Well then, did I answer your question? Did I define talent? Of course that was the short version. I could write pages defining talent, something which I do not intend to do right now.


----------

