# Talent vs Money



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Recently a post was made in which it was suggested there may be such things as musical "prodigies" without talent, whose status is derived more from money and parental drive than from anything innate within themselves. Also brought up was the idea that there may be many "natural talents" who are simply denied access to the things they need to develop because of their economic situation. I don't have much interest in discussing the fairness of the situation, that's a much bigger subject and one which falls some way outside our purview here. What I am interested in is what you (yes, you!) think:

Do musical "prodigies" whose parents' money and drive are substituted for "actual talent" exist?

Is it possible to learn by rote something that is supposedly innate?

if so:

How common do you believe either of these phenomena to be?

If a composer/musician is good at what they do, is it really important where that goodness comes from?

And of course: why did you answer the way you did?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"If a composer/musician is good at what they do, is it really important where that goodness comes from?"

I choose to answer this one only. Not to me.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

*Do musical "prodigies" whose parents' money and drive are substituted for "actual talent" exist?*

Pop stars, the Britney Spearses, Jennifer Lopeses and others like them who are usually selected for their body proportions, not singing talent. The latter afterwards has to be substituted by a huge amount of marketing, image creation and promotion which in turn, costs a lot of money.

*Is it possible to learn by rote something that is supposedly innate?*

Maybe, but you will always be like a school kid who has memorized a poem by heart, instead of being like a poet who actually writes his own poetry.

if so:

*How common do you believe either of these phenomena to be?*

As common as pop stars and marketing.

*If a composer/musician is good at what they do, is it really important where that goodness comes from?*

If you are really good, it means you have a talent, period. If it's all marketing and no talent, anyone with any capability of discernment will see through it.

*And of course: why did you answer the way you did?*

For one, because I don't believe everything in life (including the music world) is about money. I am not a Marxist whose whole worldview revolves around economics


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Recently a post was made in which it was suggested there may be such things as musical "prodigies" without talent, whose status is derived more from money and parental drive than from anything innate within themselves.


I don't think this kind of thing exists, and if it does it would be very hard to prove. So, no I don't think the "how" a composer/musician gets to be good matters very much. Based on my own observation I do think for a small percentage of people learning music comes very naturally, and for another very small percentage it is virtually impossible. For the majority I think musical ability is something that they have to some degree and it can be learned and improved upon. Parents with money can certainly enhance and cultivate a child's abilities, but I think the child has to have some degree of innate ability for this to be successful. Whether or not the hypothetical person actually enjoys music I think is also critically important.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> *How common do you believe either of these phenomena to be?*
> 
> As common as pop stars and marketing.


Some silliness here I think. Read the histories of the great pop bands (all in Wiki) and see if this is true. Not everybody's a Disney character. The best grunge bands from Seattle were quite literally "garage bands" and made it on their own before they were "discovered" (yes, it takes money) and left us classics like "Black Hole Sun" and others. In my view, your take on things is cynical beyond any sense of realism.

Do you begrudge Haydn his box-office take? "Three thousand gulden in one night. Only in London!" Haydn, of course, was marketed plenty at that stage of his life.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think talent as a concept is undeniable. But there's no talent-to-play-the-piano-well as such, of course. But there are certain talents - agility, flexibility, muscle coordination, mental processing, etc. - which may significantly help with certain activities. Certain born-with skills that others would have to attain through training first.

As always, money will get you far. Money and a strong will, either your own or somebody else's, can make up for lack of talent, no doubt. Money and talent, however, will probably always be an unbeatable combination.

I suppose the question is difficult to answer because you can't really tell if a performer has a natural talent or whether it's all just a result of money and ambition. By the time kids make it to their debut on the Big Stage, maybe around the age of 10-12, they may have already had 7-9 years of training. How to tell the original amount of talent they started out with?

On the other hand, there are these Youtube video of much younger kids, age 5 or 6, playing their instruments stunningly well. Are they prodigies? It sure looks like it, but even then, I'd think they've already have a couple of years of training.

Now, would any child have been capable of that, regardless of talent? Is such training at an early age maybe only possible if there is a natural talent to begin with? Difficult questions.

However, we consider it nothing special that all kids manage to learn to read, write and do basic math at a quite early age. Apparently, no particular talent is needed for that, daily practice will do it. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many mothers of musicians who could testify that their children sang intricate classical melodies, pitch-perfect, at 2 years old, and there's hardly a way to account for that other than admitting an unusual gift.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Some silliness here I think. Read the histories of the great pop bands (all in Wiki) and see if this is true. Not everybody's a Disney character. The best grunge bands from Seattle were quite literally "garage bands" and made it on their own before they were "discovered" (yes, it takes money) and left us classics like "Black Hole Sun" and others. In my view, your take on things is cynical beyond any sense of realism.
> 
> Do you begrudge Haydn his box-office take? "Three thousand gulden in one night. Only in London!" Haydn, of course, was marketed plenty at that stage of his life.


Well, sorry, but a bunch of heroin junkies strumming guitars do not quailify as talented in my book. They are just as commerical as Britney Spears, only instead of sexuality they market teenage rebellion and "life sucks" attitude.

No, I do not begrudge Haydn anything he earned, or Beethoven all the money he got for Missa Solemnis, or Wagner his villa in Bayreuth for that matter. They made music that is beautiful and inspiring, unlike the abovementioned junkies, they fully deserve to be rewarded.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't think money can do so much to create a fake talent. It can do something, I don't doubt that. But ultimately, if you can't hit a major league fastball, your parents' money can't get you into the major leagues. The working class kid who can hit that fastball is going to take your place.

Instead, as far as money goes, the key issue is the lack of it. If you're too poor to play baseball, the world will never know what you might be able to do.

Besides money, obviously, there is the question of exposure. If your culture doesn't value baseball, that ends the discussion right there.

Hopefully... it's clear that baseball is just a simpler analogy. I think roughly the same principles apply to musical talent.

Outside of realms like sport and music, the role of talent is much less clear. If you want a sinecure from sitting on the board of a massive corporation signing blank checks for the other board members, you'd better know the right people, _tout court_.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, sorry, but a bunch of heroin junkies strumming guitars do not quailify as talented in my book. They are just as commerical as Britney Spears, only instead of sexuality they market teenage rebellion and "life sucks" attitude.


This kind of thing always surprises me. If it's so easy and so profitable, we should all do it!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I doubt the usefulness of discussing something that needs to be researched instead of discussed. I have a scientific study by Anders Ericsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Anders_Ericsson) who goes into talent a little bit. His conclusion is that good coaching and consistently working toward a clear goal is more important than talent, so this seems to back your up your statement.

I do disagree a lot with how you are trying to frame it; this has nothing to do with buying skill, that is absurd. They are clearly able to provide the best form of coaching and stimulation and that is what is important. Child prodigies don't have some innate talent that springs out of nowhere; these kids work every bit as hard as other music students. They just start earlier.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

science said:


> This kind of thing always surprises me. If it's so easy and so profitable, we should all do it!


A lot of people believe anybody can do it, that is why there are those TV shows like American Idol, Pop Idol, Deutschland sucht den Superstar etc, depending on the country. Everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame, the winners get aggressive promotion for a while, their managers squeeze out of them every cent their popularity can deliver, and then they vanish into oblivion and the machine keeps rolling.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> A lot of people believe anybody can do it, that is why there are those TV shows like American Idol, Pop Idol, Deutschland sucht den Superstar etc, depending on the country. Everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame, the winners get aggressive promotion for a while, their managers squeeze out of them every cent their popularity can deliver, and then they vanish into oblivion and the machine keeps rolling.


This process can probably be taken as evidence of the imperfection of the machine. How come some heroin junky punks from Seattle can change the course of pop music history but the stars created by these shows fade into oblivion in a year or so?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

science said:


> This process can probably be taken as evidence of the imperfection of the machine. How come some heroin junky punks from Seattle can change the course of pop music history but the stars created by these shows fade into oblivion in a year or so?


They (as brands) are designed to fade into oblivion. The pop music industry is based on assembly line principles, including planned obsolescence. They don't want people to remember so-and-so years down the line because they need to make way for the other so-and-sos.

In any case, pop stars and the pop music industry is not what this thread was intended to discuss, unless those pop stars happen to be prodigies. Michael Jackson might be a good example, but in his case the question of natural talent vs. money and "tiger parenting" still remains.

Furthermore, in response to Piwikiwi: I never suggested that "real prodigies" didn't have to put any work in to realise their potential, my line of questioning was related to the idea that it is (or is it?*) possible to drill a child into being prodigious regardless of natural talent with the right kind of money and the right kind of parenting. Cheap thinking like "buying skill" was never part of the idea. Furthermore, if you feel the discussion of these issues is useless, you are free to leave the thread.

*and therein lies the point of the thread: I don't know if it is possible, that's why I want to discuss it with you or anyone else who is interested in doing so.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Furthermore, in response to Piwikiwi: I never suggested that "real prodigies" didn't have to put any work in to realise their potential, my line of questioning was related to the idea that it is (or is it?*) possible to drill a child into being prodigious regardless of natural talent with the right kind of money and the right kind of parenting. Cheap thinking like "buying skill" was never part of the idea. Furthermore, if you feel the discussion of these issues is useless, you are free to leave the thread.
> 
> *and therein lies the point of the thread: I don't know if it is possible, that's why I want to discuss it with you or anyone else who is interested in doing so.


The way you are wording your proposition(is this the correct word?) is highly framed. You could easily formulate it like this: "Is it possible that a normally untalented child will develop into a child prodigy with the right kind of parental support, coaching and effort?"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> They (as brands) are designed to fade into oblivion. The pop music industry is based on assembly line principles, including planned obsolescence. They don't want people to remember so-and-so years down the line because they need to make way for the other so-and-sos.
> 
> In any case, pop stars and the pop music industry is not what this thread was intended to discuss, unless those pop stars happen to be prodigies. Michael Jackson might be a good example, but in his case the question of natural talent vs. money and "tiger parenting" still remains.
> 
> ...


I think you might be confusing songs with singers. Of course they don't want a famous singer to sing his one famous song over and over again, they want him to come out with new songs (or albums or whatever) that they can also sell.

But I don't think the industry guys would ever actually want their pop stars to become less famous. That'd be like the Yankees' owner wanting his team to stop winning so many World Series. Once you own an asset, you want to maximize its value. Whoever owns Justin Timberlake's music would love for him to still be famous in 30 years, still selling out concerts and having new number one hits.

And of course they want the popularity of everything they own to last as long as possible: whoever owns Miles Davis' recordings is thrilled that they're still selling. Miles Davis's music turned out to be a much better investment than the Hi-Lo's' music.

So if you owned the rights to the music of a winner of American Idol, what would you want? You want the her to turn out to be the next Nena or the next Madonna? It'd be nice of course if you could guarantee yourself three decades of consecutive Nenas, but there are no such guarantees.

For the market is at work, as so many companies compete to make their stars famous, trying all kinds of marketing, all kinds of music, all kinds of whatever they can think of, inevitably someone whose brand/music has won the competition is no longer able to win. It's not easy for Miles Davis's or Madonna's managers to keep up the popularity for so long when there are so many record companies out there marketing other stuff.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Well, quite often my analogies here go over like a lead balloon. Time to try another. My 13 year old son asked me recently, and I quote, "Why aren't there more black hockey players in the NHL?" I didn't want to go into a long dissertation so I gave a quick answer. I told him there are three major factors to playing hockey at a high level. (Keep in mind this has nothing to do with race or skin color. This applies to ANYONE wanting to pursue a professional career. I only answered my son's question.)
1. The desire to play
2. The talent to play
3. The finances to play
Often, if only one part of this equation is missing, success will not come. There are exceptions for #3. #1 can be worked with. The absence of #2 will end things before they begin. Can we not draw parallels to music here? Or can we use another sport? In the U.S., children have dozens of sports to pursue. Is it not possible that Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, and Mike Modano could have led Team USA to a World Cup Championship, had their efforts and talents only been directed towards a different sport in their youths?

My nephew was a 2013 American Visions Medal (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.625868110772510.1073741825.117509044941755&type=3) winner for a comic book he wrote about my sons and nieces and nephews. He's extremely talented in the field and could have a fruitful career. He's also gifted musically, in sculpture, drawing/painting, and has numerous scholarship offers to Ivy League schools. He's chosen a small art institute, to study special effects and costume design, which channels graduates directly into jobs in the film industry. Whether he finds success in this field is irrelevant. How many others fields is he passing up? Could one of them be where he'd find his true stroke of genius?

In relation to music, and more importantly to the topic at hand, do similar limitations or choices apply here? For the sake of argument and to assist with my point, let's suppose there will be 3 children born in 2015 with the preternatural musical talents of Mozart. What are the chances that even one of them will have the exposure or finances to explore these talents? How many other gifted, privileged, and willing "prodigies" will be paraded out for future Youtube viewing? Is it not possible that history has buried thousands of prodigies due to circumstance? I for one truly believe that talent is everywhere but a true genius needs certain stars to align before they will ever even get a chance to prove their merit.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

An interesting question. I can only speculate that it *is* possible for someone to become a virtuoso on an instrument because of his/her parents' commitment, money and connections, and to receive acclaim for being so good.

One imagines that there would be something lacking from his/her performance - soul, emotion or whatever - and that he or she would substitute manufactured dynamics; furthermore, that the acclaim they received was down to fashion & the zeitgeist. In theatre history the actor William Betty was an absolute sensation as a teenager, but his comeback post-university was a complete flop. The vogue had passed. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Betty

As regards composing skill, I think the odds of succeeding on sheer money and tiger parenting would be very much reduced - though again in literature we have the example of the huge popularity of gothic novels, most of which are seen as laughable now.

Why do I answer as I do? Being pretty dim as regards knowledge of music, I tend to extrapolate from literature and drama, because here I have more confidence, knowledge & experience. Also, I have always been aware of the ridiculousness of fashions, probably since the hula-hoop craze of the 1950s.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Musicality is an aptitude -- like math, writing ability, hitting a major league fastball -- and like those, if you have it, having means can be helpful in helping develop it. Marketing can sometimes create demand where it doesn't necessarily belong (witness the David Helfgott phenomenon back in the '90s) but those things generally have shelf lives. Money cannot create artistry, but can help nurture it.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> The way you are wording your proposition(is this the correct word?) is highly framed. You could easily formulate it like this: "Is it possible that a normally untalented child will develop into a child prodigy with the right kind of parental support, coaching and effort?"


If you feel that's a better wording of the question, then I'll concede to it. I certainly didn't intend to "frame" it in a particular bias, though sometimes it is difficult to spot such mistakes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud;764004 said:


> *Do musical "prodigies" whose parents' money and drive are substituted for "actual talent" exist?*
> I find the very thought of this odd. There is no creating or buying talent, after all. If a child is ready enough to please the parents and those parents have the money and ambition, the kid might work like the devil and be of some note, but really, I think we all seen / heard some exactly like this, in classical music and elsewhere, and those kids who are doing it 'for the parents' rather than having innate talent and their own drive just do not prove very interesting, ergo, they don't make the news, as it were.
> 
> *Is it possible to learn by rote something that is supposedly innate?*
> ...



------------------------------------------------


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ha! Ha! All the money in the world can't buy talent.

I know people who have spent a bloody fortune on golf lessons, and while they are better golfers because of it, are nowhere near the genius level of professional golfers.

There are certain things money can't buy: love and talent, among them.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I agree entirely with with Scratchgolf, although I'll have to take the sports analogy on trust! I've noticed that in the past, singers often came from humble backgrounds, whereas composers and instrumentalists (about whom I know little, so I could be wrong here) were more likely to come from upper middle class backgrounds where they were exposed to art music, given the opportunity to own an instrument and have lessons and, once their talent had been recognised, were able to train seriously instead of being forced to learn a trade in order to earn a more secure living. The singer, on the other hand, needs no instrument but his own body (as useful as a piano/guitar etc would be) and is more likely to be able to learn intuitively without formal instruction, and could thus have given sufficient proof of his talent to attract a benefactor when he was of an age to undertake full time formal training. The would-be composer or instrumentalist from a working class background was in a less fortunate position than the singer, for unless somebody happened to give him a violin (say) his potential as a violinist would be forever unknown, and even if he did manage to acquire an instrument he would not have had the money or possibly the leisure to take formal lessons. 'Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen,/And waste its sweetness on the desert air.' The families of professional musicians are an exception to the rule, since regardless of social status they would have the ability to pass on musical knowledge as well as probably the motivation to do so, since the child would be carrying on the family business. So to sum up: the prodigies may well be talented, but they represent only a fraction of the innate talent that exists, being those whose parents have money and ambition to channel into their child's career. The social origins of historical musicians are interesting for those with an interest in social history as they allow us to analyse the conditions under which musical talent could flourish, although the 'mute inglorious' undiscovered talents will remain unknown. There are likely to be lessons from history for us today, in spite of the somewhat less socially stratified nature of modern society and the greater access to information and to 'virtual' tuition which today's aspiring musicians benefit from.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The 2014 World Chess Championship has just ended, with Magnus Carlsen retaining his title for another year. His FIDE rating is 2863, close to the highest ever achieved.* He's 23 years old and has been playing at the grandmaster level since he was twelve. Talent? Sweat? Money? Parental coaching? Only one of these is absolutely required, though some of the others might help.

BTW Viswanathan Anand, who just lost to Carlsen in the championship, match says of his play: "The majority of ideas occur to him absolutely naturally. He's also very flexible, he knows all the structures and he can play almost any position... Magnus can literally do almost everything."

* The highest rating ever is 2881, which is actually Carlsen's own, achieved earlier this year.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The 2014 World Chess Championship has just ended, with Magnus Carlsen retaining his title for another year. His FIDE rating is 2863, close to the highest ever achieved. He's 23 years old and has been playing at the grandmaster level for a decade. Talent? Sweat? Money? Parental coaching? Only one of these is absolutely required, though some of the others might help.


And that is Chess. A game that can be played for free in a park, or purchased for $5 at a local store. A game that takes a day to learn and years to truly understand. It doesn't require coaching, although it can help, and money or sweat have nothing to do with it. You can compare that to banging out a tune on a piano but certainly not to orchestrating music. Succeeding in Chess or Basketball has very little to do with finances. Succeeding in a sport that requires expenses or a field where money can buy the best teachers, equipment, facilities, and resources is a much different story. Did Karl van Beethoven not have every opportunity in the world to become a brilliant musician? He simply lacked that stroke of genius. Still, he came much further than he would have had he been born in a small, remote village in the Hindu Kush.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

scratchgolf said:


> ...Still, he came much further than he would have had he been born in a small, remote village in the Hindu Kush.


Actually, the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan came from just such a background of poverty in India. He was entirely self-taught. After he sent some of his theorems to Hardy in England, he was immediately invited there and remained until he died, which was only a few years later.

Hardy said that his reaction on receiving the theorems was that he couldn't understand most of them, but that "they must be true, because if they were not true, no one would have had the imagination to invent them."


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Actually, the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan came from just such a background of poverty in India. He was entirely self-taught. After he sent some of his theorems to Hardy in England, he was immediately invited there and remained until he died, which was only a few years later.
> 
> I don't have the quote, but Hardy said of Ramanujan's theorems something like, "I couldn't understand most of them. But it was apparent that only a genus could even have made them up."


Maths, like chess (and regarding the specific talents involved, it is VERY like chess) can be largely self taught: somebody needs to point you in the right direction, but after that you've either got it or you haven't, money and parental encouragement notwithstanding. Most of the state school kids I was at university with were reading STEM subjects: they seemed better able to compensate for the deficiency of their previous formal education than those who applied to read arts subjects, where a lack of general knowledge (and the confidence and articulacy a private education generally encourages) is an impediment. Music is entirely different: although the maths/chess boffin types frequently excel at it, they tend not to do so without a good deal of formal training and encouragement.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Actually, the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan came from just such a background of poverty in India. He was entirely self-taught. After he sent some of his theorems to Hardy in England, he was immediately invited there and remained until he died, which was only a few years later.
> 
> Hardy said that his reaction on receiving the theorems was that he couldn't understand most of them, but that "they must be true, because if they were not true, no one would have had the imagination to invent them."


I'm familiar with this. I also saw _Good Will Hunting_. That's a joke Ken. I respect your point of view and almost always agree with you. In this case, we're comparing apples to oranges. Genius can spring from anywhere, but I'm certain you'll agree with me when I say some have an easier path. Ramanujan was the rarest of geniuses but he would have accomplished whether raised in a village or a NYC penthouse. Those of lesser abilities can be greatly affected by their surroundings. That is the point of the thread, and the point I made with KvB.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

So, in short, the world isn't perfectly fair, nor is it totally unfair. The truth is things are complicated. The race is not to the swift, but being swift definitely won't hurt if you hope to win the race.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> So, in short, the world isn't perfectly fair, nor is it totally unfair. The truth is things are complicated. The race is not to the swift, but being swift definitely won't hurt if you hope to win the race.


It's hard to imagine a CM composer who leaves a significant mark on music and who doesn't have a rare, even freakish, natural talent. Certainly other factors help in many cases. But if we look at the formative years of the composers we consider "great" today, we find all sort of backgrounds, rich and poor, supportive parents and otherwise, etc.

One thing that seems to stand out is the number of these composers who came from musical families. In that, music seems different from chess and mathematics.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Is it all that different from chess? Carlsen's father taught him to play; Kasparov's talent began to be discovered when he solved a chess problem his parents were working on. In another strategy game, the strongest go player of the past decade or so is Yi Se-dol, whose given name means "strong stone," because his father loved go so much. 

In sports, we see things like the Manning family in football, or the Matthews family, and many less famous sets of brothers or cousins or nephews; the Griffey family in baseball, and many others. There might actually be some genetic element to it, but the fact that Eric Lindros grew up in a family obsessed with hockey rather than soccer or football probably explains why he never played linebacker in the NFL. Take someone like Danny Watkins, who probably had the physical gifts to be an offensive lineman, but didn't devote any time to it until he was in college. Had he been adopted by the Matthews family.... 

And of course, as for myself, if I'd been raised in Frederik Magle's family, needless to say I'd now own the finest classical music discussion forum on the internet.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Jeepers Ken. I paid you a compliment and didn't even get a grunt in return. I shall double my efforts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

scratchgolf said:


> Jeepers Ken. I paid you a compliment and didn't even get a grunt in return. I shall double my efforts.


Thank you. That was, in fact, my hope. But since you have now promised, I went back and gave you a "like" anyway!


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Thank you. That was, in fact, my hope. But since you have now promised, I went back and gave you a "like" anyway!


I'm now a lifelong friend and fan. It's a burden and a blessing.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Talent _vs._money? I believe that "talent" is evenly spread across humankind (as much as "intelligence") but unfortunately it is "money" (or socioeconomic privilege) that calls the tune, with certain notable exceptions, of course. In my own case as a music teacher at a French university, I have several groups of students of varying talent, but (sadly) the overwhelming majority of them are from middle to upper-class backgrounds, with well-heeled parents able to fund their children's aspirations, expensive instruments and extra tuition (when necessary). The rich are as talented as the poor, just that the rich get an easier crack of the whip.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Few people are talented like SCHUBERT & MOZART .These guys wrote music like Schubert over 600 songs Mozart made some 622 pieces of music.A lot of people like in other music forms are not really talented to me.You see talent is a special skill singing is not a special skill to me almost everyone can do that.Rapping is not a special skill because one is just talking with music playing in the background.Also they just take others ideas & redo or remix much does not take much skill.Even a child can make rhymes.The music just use deceit often to sell albums/mp3s.They lie about these artist as talent but most have no talent.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

mtmailey said:


> Few people are talented like SCHUBERT & MOZART .These guys wrote music like Schubert over 600 songs Mozart made some 622 pieces of music.A lot of people like in other music forms are not really talented to me.You see talent is a special skill singing is not a special skill to me almost everyone can do that.


You jest, surely?!  I can just about sing Gute Nacht or Der Lindenbaum but if you were to listen to me you would soon be very keen to go back to hearing them sung by Julius Patzak or Gerard Souzay, or indeed by any professional singer! You might even have to admit that compared to me or any other random casual listener and hummer-along to Schubert's songs, the professional in question has talent!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Is it all that different from chess? Carlsen's father taught him to play; Kasparov's talent began to be discovered when he solved a chess problem his parents were working on. In another strategy game, the strongest go player of the past decade or so is Yi Se-dol, whose given name means "strong stone," because his father loved go so much.


Thanks...didn't know that! But I guess it's not surprising. Looks like my vague perception was in error.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> Is it possible to learn by rote something that is supposedly innate?
> 
> if so:
> 
> ...


One of the most intelligent and skilled musicians I know who is getting up there in age said if he knew exactly how little "talent" mattered he would've spent more time practicing his scales, arpeggios, and would've ignored all the hype that surrounded prodigies, many of whom have long since faded into obscurity. In fact, what sets most prodigies apart is nothing more than their dedication to practice, usually because they love the subject so much. Also, they're younger so their brains are at the most flexible and they learn much faster, so they advance at a quicker pace. Many great composers were not prodigies, and far more prodigies in music did not go on to become great composers. I only care about how great the music sounds, and I'm not going to stop listening just because they weren't a prodigy or "teh next Mozblart!? " as a lot of nincompoops immediately start chanting every time a talented kid makes a guest appearance on Ellen.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course, sometimes genius is quashed, by a number of things. English poet Thomas Gray puts it well in his _Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard_.

For those couple of you who may not know this poem.... The poet walks through a cemetery in his hometown village in England, musing upon the lost lives buried beneath his feet. He ponders possibilities, and laments.

Here are two verses, beginning at line 45:


Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid 
Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; 
Hands that the rod of empire might have swayed, 
Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre.

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page 
Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; 
Chill Penury repressed their noble rage, 
And froze the genial current of the soul. 

That "Or waked to ecstacy the living lyre" is a direct reference to a potential composer/musician whose genius/talent was denied access due to poverty and lack of education.

I've often wondered how many Mozarts were born in villages in the Himalayas destined to herd over yaks in the Langtang region of Nepal.

Speaking of Langtang ... that reminds me --

Are there prodigies who have great abilities, but lack that extra measure of ineffable somethingness that raises talent and effort to the level of genius? Perhaps.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Unlike pop music , you are not going to get anywhere in classical music without consideravle talent .
Being good looking and sexy doesn't hurt in classical music , and yes, many classical musicians today, particularly young women, are 
marketed for sex appeal . 
But if you don't have the technique to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata , you are not going to make it as a pianist , for example, or the technique to play the Tchaikovsky violin concerto as a violinist .
Looks are important in opera today , more than ever , but without the anility to sing at least decently , you're not going to make it to the Metropolitan opera ,or Covent Garden, or the Vienna State opera .
If you want to aim for a career as a conductor , and you're invited to guest conduct the New York Philharmonic o any of the world's top orchestras or opewra companies , and you don't know the scores thorougholy , have a lousy stick technique ,
and a lousy ear , you are not going to be invited back to conduct . Orchestra musicians are merciless to conductors they think don't have the right stuff . At a rehearsal, they can tell instantly whether you know what you're doing , and your chances of fooling them are non-existent .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Unlike pop music , you are not going to get anywhere in classical music without consideravle talent .


My perception is that pop music is at least as competitive as classical, maybe more so with a lot more contestants and higher rewards. If not talent, what determines success in this potentially remunerative field? What does it take to make millions, as opposed to fading into obscurity, as most do? Is it as "easy" as some here seem to think?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> Maths, like chess (and regarding the specific talents involved, it is VERY like chess) can be largely self taught: somebody needs to point you in the right direction, but after that you've either got it or you haven't, money and parental encouragement notwithstanding. Most of the state school kids I was at university with were reading STEM subjects: they seemed better able to compensate for the deficiency of their previous formal education than those who applied to read arts subjects, where a lack of general knowledge (and the confidence and articulacy a private education generally encourages) is an impediment. Music is entirely different: although the maths/chess boffin types frequently excel at it, they tend not to do so without a good deal of formal training and encouragement.


The Chess analogy is plainly wrong, this is one of the only disciplines which has been studied quite thoroughly. If a person wants to play chess at a high level then they simply need to study famous matches by grandmasters. You will improve if you just practice but you will never get as good as a grandmaster because they don't have to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Unlike pop music , you are not going to get anywhere in classical music without consideravle talent .
> Being good looking and sexy doesn't hurt in classical music , and yes, many classical musicians today, particularly young women, are
> marketed for sex appeal .
> But if you don't have the technique to play Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata , you are not going to make it as a pianist , for example, or the technique to play the Tchaikovsky violin concerto as a violinist .
> ...


Technique isn't the thing that makes a great instrumentalist a great musician. Almost all conservatories graduates have amazing technique, yet only a handful will ever make it as a soloist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> My perception is that pop music is at least as competitive as classical, maybe more so with a lot more contestants and higher rewards. If not talent, what determines success in this potentially remunerative field? What does it take to make millions, as opposed to fading into obscurity, as most do? Is it as "easy" as some here seem to think?


Success, I suppose, depends mostly on your ability to do something that other people will pay you to do, and on somebody (in some cases yourself) funding you to get up before people and do it. Does success prove you have talent? I'd say it only proves that you're able to do something that people like enough to pay for. Is that what talent is? People pay to hear you because you're talented, and you know you're talented because people pay to hear you...

Exactly why people like certain things enough to pay for them is a mystery.

Knowing zilch about popular music, I'd guess that "talent" (a variable mix of natural aptitude and training) is necessary in some quantity, and that more talented people tend to become successful more easily and are more likely to stay that way. But because popular music centers on the performer rather than on the music as such, talent in popular music seems often to be identified with "fashionableness" - the right voice type for the music of the moment, a "look" that projects the right "image," an "attitude" that presently seems "cool" - whereas in classical music talent will be judged mainly by less personal, more permanent, widely acknowledged standards. In that sense, "talent" in popular music and "talent" in classical music are not always the same thing.

It probably isn't easy to be successful in popular music, but I think the criteria may often be ones that classical musicians don't have to give much thought to.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Does success prove you have talent? I'd say it only proves that you're able to do something that people like enough to pay for. Is that what talent is?


A good answer overall IMO. But I'd ask: If talent isn't that, then what is it?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Look at my success here. Who needs talent?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, sometimes genius is quashed, by a number of things. English poet Thomas Gray puts it well in his _Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard_.
> 
> For those couple of you who may not know this poem.... The poet walks through a cemetery in his hometown village in England, musing upon the lost lives buried beneath his feet. He ponders possibilities, and laments.
> 
> ...


Also, from the same poem the following stanza says it nicely.

_Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air._

There are probably many manuscripts lying in desk drawers and attics. Some of them may be masterful and never see the light of day- for any number of reasons.

I once heard it said that all successful people belong to one group. That is, the group of *people who never give up*. Many people do give up and many people lack the confidence, opportunity or encouragement to struggle on in pursuit of their art.

It is now coming to light that the Mozart and Bach families may have included members of genius _beyond_ even that of Wolfgang and JS. Members who, because they were female, were unable to pursue a career in music.
The musical canon - whether it is the classical, rock, jazz or pop canon, is populated by composers who firstly had talent but also had opportunity and often a slice of luck (a big break). Talent alone is never enough, it is a starting point and must be followed by dedication, hard work, persistence and more often than not, being well connected or being in the right place at the right time. Of course there are no doubt some exceptions to that but I think in general it's true.

As for the posters on this thread who dump on all pop, rap and other commercial performers and creators. They are wrong to do so. There is plenty of talent in those fields but not necessarily the same kind of talent that is needed in the classical field. Great musicality or musicianship is not only to be found in one kind of music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Look at my success here. Who needs talent?


Of course, if someone were to offer _me_ either a big bag full of money or one filled with talent, I _too _know which I would grab.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*http://www.talkclassical.com/images/icons/icon12.png*



hpowders said:


> Look at my success here. Who needs talent?


Of course, if someone were to offer _me_ either a big bag full of money or one filled with talent, I _too _know which I would grab.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> As for the posters on this thread who dump on all pop, rap and other commercial performers and creators. They are wrong to do so. There is plenty of talent in those fields but not necessarily the same kind of talent that is needed in the classical field. *Great musicality or musicianship is not only to be found in one kind of music.*


Bravo to this, too


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A good answer overall IMO. But I'd ask: If talent isn't that, then what is it?


:lol: Yes, I suppose that, strictly speaking, that is what talent is. Still, it does appear that an awful lot of people are willing to pay an awful lot of money for very little of it. And then then there are all the gifted people whose gifts are sadly unwanted by their contemporaries. I, for example, may have been the only kid in my high school who could play a Brandenburg Concerto by tapping on his cheek. In my senior yearbook I was voted "most talented," but not "most likely to succeed." And sure enough, I never made so much as a dime performing on street corners. Maybe I should have tried something by the Monkees...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, if someone were to offer _me_ either a big bag full of money or one filled with talent, I _too _know which I would grab.


Right. _The Talent,_ (doh...) with which one has a better assurance of continuing to be able to make money


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> It is now coming to light that the Mozart and Bach families may have included members of genius _beyond_ even that of Wolfgang and JS. Members who, because they were female, were unable to pursue a career in music.


You're not referring to the Nannerl film and the telegraph article that questioned whether Bach's wife completed many of his works, are you?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Also if one lacks talent such as a composer his music will not last that long.Like some songs lasts like 16 weeks at number one then rarely heard.But certain composers can write music that is popular after their deaths.BEETHOVEN,SCHUBERT,DVORAK,TCHAIKOVSKY,HAYDN,mozart,schumann music is popular even though they are dead. for over 100 years.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> You jest, surely?!  I can just about sing Gute Nacht or Der Lindenbaum but if you were to listen to me you would soon be very keen to go back to hearing them sung by Julius Patzak or Gerard Souzay, or indeed by any professional singer! You might even have to admit that compared to me or any other random casual listener and hummer-along to Schubert's songs, the professional in question has talent!


 Well singing in classical music may take some talent such songs are often harder to sing you know.But still do not see it as a special skill though.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

mtmailey said:


> Well singing in classical music may take some talent such songs are often harder to sing you know.But still do not see it as a special skill though.


To have one sing any song and have it MOVE people, that's talent. Anyone can sing, either on pitch or off, but to bring tears to one's eyes, with no onions near.....AHH!!! that's talent!!!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

trazom said:


> You're not referring to the Nannerl film and the telegraph article that questioned whether Bach's wife completed many of his works, are you?


I presume the film "Mozart's Sister"?


----------

