# Does Talent Matter?



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Is it talent or is it concentrated practice? I'm bringing this up because I came across this on an Irish Traditional Music site. The starting point was The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle. It also included a critical review of the book.The discussion went on via Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice, by Matthew Syed.

Then it got into something more relevant to TC - a discussion of Mozart. In a New York Times op-ed, David Brooks pointed out that Mozart's early compositions "were nothing special. They were pastiches of other people's work." He added, "Mozart was a good musician at an early age, but he would not stand out among today's top child-performers. What Mozart had, we now believe, was the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills."

There was a reference to a paper on The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance which claimed :



> The theoretical framework presented in this article explains expert performance as the end result of individuals' prolonged efforts to improve performance while negotiating motivational and external constraints. In most domains of expertise, individuals begin in their childhood a regimen of effortful activities (deliberate practice) designed to optimize improvement. Individual differences, even among elite performers, are closely related to assessed amounts of deliberate practice. Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years. Analysis of expert performance provides unique evidence on the potential and limits of extreme environmental adaptation and learning.


Given that it was an Irish Traditional Music site, it was surprising to see how much of the discussion was taken up by Mozart (perhaps not given the location of some of our more devoted Mozartians). It ranged over who actually wrote Wolfgang's earlier works to how revolutionary was the man to how talented was he to how much did his father help him by teaching.

OK.There are two aspects that seem worth discussing here. One is, how much is performance or composition a matter of talent or perseverance and practice. And secondly, given that Wolfgang was a child prodigy, which Mozart wrote his early works - Leopold or Wolfgang - and how revolutionary was Wolfgang?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Techniques can be acquired by anyone of reasonable intelligence who chains themselves to a long-term (years and years) study and practice plan.

Talent cannot be imparted or taught, but only guided and further cultivated if it is already present, and there is just no substitute for what seems to be an innate ability / readiness to fully understand in some. Ask any teacher, if they are blunt and honest, if you wish to confirm that.

The current trend is (along with a huge incentive to sell your book 
~ To tell anyone they can be an expert: _"just put in 10,000 hours."_ 
~ That you can train yourself to be uber-creative: _"just think outside the box."_ (...here is how, just $22.59)
~ You can _Train your brain and become "a genius."_ (...here is how, just $22.59) 
etc.

I just haven't noticed the current landscape littered with any more wunderkindern ala Mozart per capita in the population, geniuses like Schubert, brilliant composer - conductors, super virtuoso performers, any more than it has been in the past.

To confuse that there are those with apparent very ready innate deftness with technique, theory, composition, etc. who still plainly lack that _je ne sais quois_, _it_, etc.

In the earlier stages, it is sometimes difficult to tell one from the other. It starts to show soon enough in advanced youngsters and certainly by the age one of those former outstanding children is in their college years... people with supposedly equal technical ability will demonstrate what seems like a more at home understanding, ability to work music to "speak" -- while others with, it would appear, the same innate understanding will be of an equal technical level but will "just play" or "just write."

Mozart may have been yet another trained monkey wunderkind in the earliest phase. But listen to those perfect [if not content near-empty] works from when the lad was just a teen, aged eleven, etc. and ask yourself what you were doing at that age, and I think any disputes as to what he was, or who wrote a few pieces when he was younger, somewhat melt away.

Yes anyone can improve, become technically adept, and improve enough to sound better. They will be cannier, better technically equipped, but that does not include any more or less talent than they had to begin with creeping in along the way.

All of the promotional schtick around betterment and 'talent' is perhaps a part of the egalitarian sentiment beginning to prevail _(anyone can do it.)_ [I'm so truly sorry, but not everyone can.] -- while that could be motivated by sheer capitalist desire to make money, knowing people at large love to hear the particular message, will eat it up, and line up in droves to purchase the how-to books at $_______ a pop 

Q: Does Talent Matter?
A: There is very little of worth without it.

ADD P.s. Since it is 2013, and some notions are freely flying about the populace, I should more than hasten to add that while talent is just about everything, talent alone is worth near nothing -- unless it is developed by tons of applied and disciplined hard work.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Nothing really matters more to me; for anything in life, especially music.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

"Talent" must (like most of the other terms that we like to discuss like 'greatness' and 'absolute' and 'atonal') be defined, at least a little further beyond the simple 'innate ability'. For one thing, a talent for musical composition is not the same as a talent for musical composition that makes grown wo/men weep over centuries. For another, talent for cerebral activity is not the same as talent for physical activity. I doubt that I could become like either Mozart or Beckham or Hawking just by putting in 10,000 hours. But I think it would be easier for me to become more like Beckham than either of the other two. I don't believe that discussions about talent v practice can encompass all fields of human endeavour without noting some differences between types of endeavour.

I would reemphasise the point alluded to already that a significant component of 'talent' are the inter and intra personal skills that are noted by Daniel Goleman and others, such as persistence, resilience, effort, high self-esteem etc. Perhaps the idea that geniuses have a god-given 'something' that we can't quite put our finger on has had its day: whether god has given it to us is not as important as deciding what, exactly, we have been given!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think PetrB has it right - the fashion at present is to 'explain' genius/talent/factor x by saying that the gifted person grew up in the right culture - had access to the right teacher - was determined - worked hard - focussed on where they needed to work hard. And it *is* a very comforting message, I think, as I get my fiddle out of her case. But it's just the old thing about *nurture vs nature*. 'Nurture' can do such a lot - but not if there's no 'nature' there already.

Re Mozart, there may be child _performers_ today who are more brilliant than the young Wolfie, but I haven't heard of any great child composers.
A similar case of 'talent from nowhere' then nurtured with hard work and good teachers is the child artist *Kieran Williamson*, the 'Mini Monet'. But he works because he wants to, and his parents have never pushed him against his will, so his astounding pictures have to be down to a natural talent, imo.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think talent becomes important when the competition gets real. When Mozart was a child, he was probably a good musician and an adequate composer (I haven't heard many of his early works) but I would guess there have been many child prodigies and at least some of them would have been better than Mozart at the same age. But as he grew up, his talent did not thin out as it does to a HUGE lot of talented people. In fact, as children, we are all sharper and more keen in whatever we do, we observe better, we have excellent memory, and we have the endless energy to apply ourselves. As we age, we have to develop our talents as well as delay the natural decay that tends to happen. Mozart must have had these qualities as well. Plus, he also had a conducive environment ready, in which he could develop his talents, hone them and have a stable life inside which there was room for creative endeavour. 

If you keep picking talented youngsters and give them such conditions, at least some of them will have a good chance of developing into something long-lasting, and they will produce something special. We should stop being over-emotional when not enough kids become special - or if a few "waste" their talent. It's life, it's kind of best if we do not try to control it mechanically, which is what is happening these days. 

It's still not late, we still get lots of talented youths. A lot of them do become great musicians, somehow I guess the market in which they operate is a little harsh - that market has too many demands sometimes, or art is produced in formats which do not do it justice - because of the proliferation of texts on music, a lot of quasi-experts start assuming that they are experts, which results in a gradual watering-down of the whole art...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

We live in a world that doesn't like Mystery - and "Talent" is a Mystery. Surely it can be explained materially? 

Eh, let me think about that for a sec.

No!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> As we age, we have to develop our talents as well as delay the natural decay that tends to happen.


Speak for yourselb! I see know signss that my brian is beginig to decae.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Kieran said:


> We live in a world that doesn't like Mystery - and "Talent" is a Mystery. Surely it can be explained materially?
> 
> Eh, let me think about that for a sec.
> 
> No!


Why on earth not?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Why on earth not?


Because it's intangible. Talent isn't something you can dissect in a brain and display in a jar. Least, not last time I heard this tried. It's a gift, a gratuitous ability that can strike one in a family and leave another to be forever named "Nannerl..."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> I think talent becomes important when the competition gets real. When Mozart was a child, he was probably a good musician and an adequate composer (I haven't heard many of his early works) but I would guess there have been many child prodigies and at least some of them would have been better than Mozart at the same age. But as he grew up, his talent did not thin out as it does to a HUGE lot of talented people. In fact, as children, we are all sharper and more keen in whatever we do, we observe better, we have excellent memory, and we have the endless energy to apply ourselves. As we age, we have to develop our talents as well as delay the natural decay that tends to happen.


A lot of "innate" brilliance is kaboshed by bad teaching very much in the general belief that how that bad teaching goes is actually good teaching. The child who has a canny sense of numbers arrives at the correct answer to a math problem, but they lack the required ability to show the steps along the way which allowed them to reach the conclusion of that answer. Instead of taking any time to figure out how that 'brilliant' child is arriving at the correct answer, it seems with an intuition for numbers which is not an everyday possession, they are told their correct answer is wrong unless they can produce all the workings along the way as their proof -- and zap -- they lose any self-confidence and self-esteem about a native talent which might have been much better nurtured and developed if they had been approached as an individual to be taught, rather than treated like a piece of sliced processed cheese prepared for mere "testing and grading."

I really don't think there will ever be a full explanation for why this child has such an innate and quick sense of numbers far beyond that of their peers, or why another "just gets" how music notation goes and seems to grasp the principles of playing an instrument as if it is first, not second, nature. That is not to at all glamorize "talent," but people do have innate abilities, or some innate ability to directly understand that which many others do not. Marketing the idea this could be the property of everyone, well, a lot of books get sold to eager parents and those who hope to increase what they already have.

To that, the analogy that sport might be more readily achieved than art I think is also wishful thinking, i.e. a Beckham also has a talent, a more quick and intuitive sense of playing the game than another who could learn and produce all the other physical prowess necessary to do what Beckham does. One could say the same about business, i.e. it is not necessarily rocket science to successfully study business, get a degree, and go into business as a profession. Some, readily observed on a daily basis, have a seeming highly canny sense of business, others don't ever get much past the theoretic training, and just can never seem to apply themselves in a way the "talented" do on a regular basis.

The selling of 'anyone can do it' is a market of enormous potential to yield, so we're seeing a lot of books and essays which advocate just that. Again, I'm so truly sorry, but not just anyone with all the other qualifications and practice to become a Beckham are going to ever become anything near another Beckham. There may be factors of upbringing, personal motivation in one person or another, but motivation for an achievement for fame or fortune is on another planet apart from a personal motivation which is _tantamount to a near obsessed fascination and drive within any particular discipline_.

The ensuing fame or fortune which comes to any known brilliant performer, whether it is in sport, business, art, is I believe a by-product of that primary curiosity and drive, and not the goal itself.

A lot of the looking into of the why of it is rather motivated by a fascination with monetary success and the prestige / esteem it brings, and those, as the primary goal, will nearly always fail -- they are just not, it has been found, the best motivator.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Because it's intangible.


Nonsense. One's ability to play the piano well is measurable. The time one spends practicing the piano is measurable. If some people get more benefit from less practice than others, I say those people are more talented pianists. Any music teacher will tell you there's a broad range from students who hardly practice at all yet progress well down to students who will never progress quickly no matter how much effort they invest.

Just because something's poorly understood and difficult to measure doesn't make it ineffable and intangible.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Nonsense. .... Just because something's poorly understood and difficult to measure doesn't make it ineffable and intangible.


All of science just loves to believe that


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Nonsense. One's ability to play the piano well is measurable. The time one spends practicing the piano is measurable. If some people get more benefit from less practice than others, I say those people are more talented pianists. Any music teacher will tell you there's a broad range from students who hardly practice at all yet progress well down to students who will never progress quickly no matter how much effort they invest.
> 
> Just because something's poorly understood and difficult to measure doesn't make it ineffable and intangible.


Yes, the mechanical repetitions of fingers on the old Joanna are measurable. Not always necessarily leading to greatness of the piano, but still, they can be easily counted if you have the patience. But where Schubert's final piano sonata comes from? How he came up with that isn't "measurable..."


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I'm only a case study of one, but in my case in my youth I played the guitar, and mostly self taught. If I couldn't play a certain piece or passage from another I'd give up, I had little patience. In my thirties I started to play the violin, and I took lessons, weekly for nearly three years. I learned discipline and patience in my 30s. I am far more patient and tenacious now than I was as a teenager. 

If talent is something in your DNA, I have the same now as I always did of course. But talent is hard work. I am a more talented musician now through hard work, not some intangible concept of talent. We can't all be touring soloists ( and who would want to be?) but we can all achieve some measure of talent.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Because it's intangible. Talent isn't something you can dissect in a brain and display in a jar. Least, not last time I heard this tried. It's a gift, a gratuitous ability that can strike one in a family and leave another to be forever named "Nannerl..."


Well I'd be surprised if talent (natural aptitude) for something did not have a genetic origin. The way inheritance works, it is quite possible for one child to show natural ability in an activity while a sibling doesn't. There may or may not be a 'musical' gene but talent alone is only an advantage, it must be nurtured and directed. 
Calling it a 'gift' implies there is a 'giver', one who purposely bestows it on seemingly arbitrary people. I do not believe that. If instead we call it nature's gift, then the answer will reside somewhere in the physiology/psychology of the body/brain.

We must also differentiate between technical ability and creativity. There seems to be an ever increasing stream of extremely accomplished toddlers performing everything from Chopin Etudes to Dave Weckl drum solos (see youtube) especially from the Far East. Whether any of these prodigies go on to make a lasting contribution as instrumentalists remains to be seen. And being an interpreter of other's works is not the same as creating lasting works of your own.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> A lot of "innate" brilliance is kaboshed by bad teaching very much in the general belief that how that bad teaching goes is actually good teaching. The child who has a canny sense of numbers arrives at the correct answer to a math problem, but they lack the required ability to show the steps along the way which allowed them to reach the conclusion of that answer. Instead of taking any time to figure out how that 'brilliant' child is arriving at the correct answer, it seems with an intuition for numbers which is not an everyday possession, they are told their correct answer is wrong unless they can produce all the workings along the way as their proof -- and zap -- they lose any self-confidence and self-esteem about a native talent which might have been much better nurtured and developed if they had been approached as an individual to be taught, rather than treated like a piece of sliced processed cheese prepared for mere "testing and grading."
> 
> I really don't think there will ever be a full explanation for why this child has such an innate and quick sense of numbers far beyond that of their peers, or why another "just gets" how music notation goes and seems to grasp the principles of playing an instrument as if it is first, not second, nature. That is not to at all glamorize "talent," but people do have innate abilities, or some innate ability to directly understand that which many others do not. Marketing the idea this could be the property of everyone, well, a lot of books get sold to eager parents and those who hope to increase what they already have.
> 
> To that, the analogy that sport might be more readily achieved than art I think is also wishful thinking, i.e. a Beckham also has a talent, a more quick and intuitive sense of playing the game than another who could learn and produce all the other physical prowess necessary to do what Beckham does. One could say the same about business, i.e. it is not necessarily rocket science to successfully study business, get a degree, and go into business as a profession. Some, readily observed on a daily basis, have a seeming highly canny sense of business, others don't ever get much past the theoretic training, and just can never seem to apply themselves in a way the "talented" do on a regular basis.


I'll agree with the point in your first paragraph. I'll clarify that I merely observed that I thought it more likely that I could get _closer _to Beckham than to, say, Hawking. But this is a comparison between being, in these particular cases, ten miles closer to Beckham and 1 mile closer to Hawking whilst still remaining a light year at least from both! I still don't think it diminishes the achievements of great athletes to suggest that the achievements of great physicists are of a greater order.

I note that still no-one is willing to suggest what they mean by 'talent'.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> I'm only a case study of one, but in my case in my youth I played the guitar, and mostly self taught. If I couldn't play a certain piece or passage from another I'd give up, I had little patience. In my thirties I started to play the violin, and I took lessons, weekly for nearly three years. I learned discipline and patience in my 30s. I am far more patient and tenacious now than I was as a teenager.
> 
> If talent is something in your DNA, I have the same now as I always did of course. But talent is hard work. I am a more talented musician now through hard work, not some intangible concept of talent. We can't all be touring soloists ( and who would want to be?) but we can all achieve some measure of talent.


You *always* had talent, senza sordino - but now you have the mindset to *build* on your talent.
This is similar to me; I played the violin when young and was picked out to be in the York Schools Strings Orchestra, so I must have had some talent. I hardly practised and gave up when I was 14. Now I've been playing for two years, in my sixties, and I am better than I was, because I am obsessed with practising. But I will never be what I could have been.
You need talent *and* hard work to achieve competence. But genius - a gift - is in another category entirely.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'd say talent plus imagination is what sets the greats apart. You can listen to any two talented musicians or composers, and with one you only hear music with a capital M. The talented artist with ample imagination brings something else to the notes on the page. A unique voice, a personal mark on the music. That's what matters to me, anyways. I don't like generic music making.

Of course, none of this will come to fruition without the required practice, study, and discipline. This goes without saying.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> But genius - a gift - is in another category entirely.


A good point. Thanks. It's easy to obscure the fact that you can have talent and develop it well without reaching the outliers of achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I note that still no-one is willing to suggest what they mean by 'talent'.


"A marked *innate* ability,"

"a special *natural* ability or aptitude:"

"After Matthew 25, above: A marked *natural* ability or skill. [from 15th c.]"

The bold font is mine, the rest, from three quick show up right near the top definition searches.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I note that still no-one is willing to suggest what they mean by 'talent'.


I think I suggested very precisely what I mean by talent.

As to the question of where one off events like the composition of Schubert's quintet 'came from', it is of course impossible to say with certainty, but this is very different from the question of why some people become better pianists or composers or novelists or engineers or computer programmers with less effort that others.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

There's a fascinating slant on this from another footballer - Michael Owen. Writing in Saturday's Daily Telegraph he described the mental attitudes need to do well in sport and the unshakable belief that is needed. We all joke at the Tennis commentators who say this, but Owen describes it as part of the way he made the best of his abilities. We've had something like that on TC previously where it was noted that we could spot the winners of musical competitions without hearing them, simply by their "poise" or "belief".


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Taggart said:


> OK.There are two aspects that seem worth discussing here. One is, how much is performance or composition a matter of talent or perseverance and practice. And secondly, given that Wolfgang was a child prodigy, which Mozart wrote his early works - Leopold or Wolfgang - and how revolutionary was Wolfgang?


In answering such questions, it depends on who I'm talking to. If David Brooks or one of his ilk tells me that the greatness of Mozart is just a product of good old-fashioned hard work, I'm inclined to say he's being ridiculous and that Mozart was an incomparable genius and prodigy. If, on the other hand, I'm reading Mozart's and his acquaintances' correspondence and Wolfie's going on about what a genius he is, I think it might be more a matter of the intensive training his father inflicted on him.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> A good point. Thanks. It's easy to obscure the fact that you can have talent and develop it well without reaching the outliers of achievement.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)


Too, there is not just one packet of talent. Just as people get dealt cards, like people get different genetic inheritance packets, there are various hands.

Some people seem to get a very full and winning hand, others, well, they have to play the cards they were dealt.

Both have to work hard at it to make anything worthwhile happen; those with the fuller hand have a bit, if not a lot, of advantage, but they must work those advantages nonetheless.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> I think I suggested very precisely what I mean by talent.


You'll have to help me: I can't find the post where you do so. Thanks.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You'll have to help me: I can't find the post where you do so. Thanks.


Here:



ahammel said:


> One's ability to play the piano well is measurable. The time one spends practicing the piano is measurable. If some people get more benefit from less practice than others, I say those people are more talented pianists.


You may substitute any activity you like for playing the piano.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Too, there is not just one packet of talent. Just as people get dealt cards, like people get different genetic inheritance packets, there are various hands.
> 
> Some people seem to get a very full and winning hand, others, well, they have to play the cards they were dealt.
> 
> Both have to work hard at it to make anything worthwhile happen; those with the fuller hand have a bit, if not a lot, of advantage, but they must work those advantages nonetheless.


I get the gist, but it's an imperfect analogy, not least because in most card games, I know what hand I've been dealt. If there is a connection between talent and potential, it's difficult to say what potential I have (of what type and how much) whereas in cards, the potential of the hand is capped.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Here's another one-off casestudy; mine. 
Started to play classical guitar around the age of 14/15, studied reasonably hard, enjoyed playing and passed several leveltests at our local musicschool. Got even more interested in music that at the tender age of around 18 I thought I could make it my profession and wantend to go to the "conservatorium". Our musicschool had a preparationyear for those who wanted to go to "pro", one needed to be a level5 student to be admitted.
I got in and worked hard. Then one day another guitarplayer walked in and we started talking about music and our future lives and stuff adolescents talk about. Then he asked what are you working on at the moment, and I showed him my sheetmusic. Pieces by Bach and Villalobos. "Hey, that's interesting", he said and started playing them better than I ever could, and "a vu" !!! I had been slaving over these works for months, blood sweat and years, and then I met Talent.
Wakeup call, cold shower, reality check.
Went to university instead of guitarschool. (Still play every now and then, and enjoying it, no real harm done...)
Sorry for rambling
To OP's question: talent is everything!!

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

There are just too many variables to narrow this down. Genetics, ambition, environment, etc... Yes, some people can have more of an innate natural ability, but without the ambition and environment, that talent may never be fully realized. While someone who has less natural ability, but with the proper environment and ambition, can really make things happen.... Variables


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Talent and genius are not the same.
For a musician, talent could be for example having the absolute pitch. Some aspects of talent are measurable indeed!
But genius it's a completely different thing.

Oh, I would have done anything to have the absolute pitch....


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it's nothing more than a mathematical relationship between 'benefit' and 'practice'? No, I'm not serious. I don't think you mean that, exactly, but it doesn't seem you have said 'precisely' since you offer no insight into what 'playing well' looks like. Does it mean merely hitting the right notes in the right order at the right tempo? Or does it mean imparting feeling and 'soul' into the playing too? Don't we then stray into the whole business of what it is we, the listener prefer our pianists to do?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I don't think you mean that, exactly, but it doesn't seem you have said 'precisely' since you offer no insight into what 'playing well' looks like. Does it mean merely hitting the right notes in the right order at the right tempo? Or does it mean imparting feeling and 'soul' into the playing too?


I'm going to exercise my prerogative and ignore 'feeling and soul' for the purposes of this exercise, on the grounds that it really doesn't matter how much 'feeling and soul' you're putting into the piece if you consistently play wrong notes and screw up the tempo and dynamics.

Regardless, I suspect that 'feeling and soul' are measurable quantities of piano playing as well, it's just that people are fuzzy on what they mean by the terms.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe that talent matters enormously as it can limit one's ultimate ability. There is a wonderful story from sports that relates to this limiting effect. Michael Shermer participated in a bicycle race across the US (Race Across America) where participants cycle almost non-stop about 3000 miles. Toward the end of the race when it was clear that Shermer would not win, a reporter asked him what he would have done differently to prepare. He replied that he would have had different parents. 

Obviously determination, special environmental conditions (some, I suppose, would include this in their definition of talent), and other factors can play a significant role, but talent will always remain a limiting factor,


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> I'm going to exercise my prerogative and ignore 'feeling and soul' for the purposes of this exercise, on the grounds that it really doesn't matter how much 'feeling and soul' you're putting into the piece if you consistently play wrong notes and screw up the tempo and dynamics.
> 
> Regardless, I suspect that 'feeling and soul' are measurable quantities of piano playing as well, it's just that people are fuzzy on what they mean by the terms.


With respect, that sounds like a cop-out. You're just being as fuzzy as the rest of us!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think PetrB has it right - the fashion at present is to 'explain' genius/talent/factor x by saying that the gifted person grew up in the right culture - had access to the right teacher -

I have no doubt that "talent" exists in the sense that some individual's brains are hard-wired in such a manner to more rapidly grasp skills and concepts within a given area. Few educators would question this... especially after Howard Gardner's studies on the brain. "Genius", one might assume, is but "talent" taken to a level few ever attain. Still, there is much to be said for culture. What would have happened to a Mozart born and raised in a small village in Portugal, Norway, Hungary, or Russia? Could Michelangelo ever risen to the heights of "genius" measured as the result of his achievements if he were not is the right place at the right time... in Rome under Pope Julius as opposed to laboring in some obscure village in Romania? I don't think that to suggest that it is essential to have grown up in the right place, with the right teachers, and the right career breaks to achieve a Mozart or a Michelangelo undermines or questions the fact that these individuals were also driven geniuses... although I agree that it may make one feel better to assume that if only they had the right breaks they too could have been such.

was determined - worked hard - focussed on where they needed to work hard.

This goes without question. Most professors and teachers that I know will take the highly driven/motivated student over the student with a high level of inherent "talent". Of course the ideal is to have both... and again, "genius" is something else altogether. Sometimes I think too many fall for the notion that Mozart or Van Gogh or Shakespeare were not as driven and self-motivated as anyone else.

And it is a very comforting message, I think, as I get my fiddle out of her case. But it's just the old thing about nurture vs nature. 'Nurture' can do such a lot - but not if there's no 'nature' there already.

I suspect that "nurture"... self-motivation, drive, persistence can achieve much... but obviously the individual cannot be wholly without "talent" in a given discipline. I think of Cezanne, for example. By the standards of his time he was largely a ham-fisted duffer. He lacked even one-tenth of the inherent talent for drawing or painting that Manet or John Singer Sargent had. But he had endless drive and persistence and eventually found a way to make his short-comings work for him.

A similar case of 'talent from nowhere' then nurtured with hard work and good teachers is the child artist Kieran Williamson, the 'Mini Monet'. But he works because he wants to, and his parents have never pushed him against his will, so his astounding pictures have to be down to a natural talent, imo.

The art critic, Clement Greenberg observed that child prodigies are almost wholly irrelevant within the visual arts. Your example is quite talented... for a child of his age... but he is not in any way spectacular in comparison to most adult artists of any ability... let alone Monet.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> With respect, that sounds like a cop-out. You're just being as fuzzy as the rest of us!


No, it isn't. What I mean by talent is the ability to acquire a skill with more or less study. It's my position that it's possible to tell whether one pianist is more skilled than another. Whether this is difficult or not is rather beside the point, so far as the definition of the word 'talent' goes.

Whether you _like_ the playing of one pianist better than another is an entirely separate question.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Just because something's poorly understood and difficult to measure doesn't make it ineffable and intangible.





PetrB said:


> All of science just loves to believe that


Yes, scientists do believe that, but actually most people should as well. ahammel's statement is equivalent to "not everything that is poorly understood and difficult to measure is ineffable and intangible." Bacterial disease was a complete mystery (poorly understood and difficult to measure) centuries ago, but today it is well understood and has a clear material cause. There are many other examples.



Kieran said:


> But where Schubert's final piano sonata comes from? How he came up with that isn't "measurable..."


How Schubert (or modern composers) create their works is not measurable today, but that does not mean it is unmeasurable in principle. We don't know whether such things will be measurable in the future. We do know that many things which were inconceivable in the past are possible now. Personally I believe it is a materialistic phenomenon of the brain rather than supernatural or magical so in theory it could be "measurable". Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that any of us living today will ever know whether that is true.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I get the gist, but it's an imperfect analogy, not least because in most card games, I know what hand I've been dealt. If there is a connection between talent and potential, it's difficult to say what potential I have (of what type and how much) whereas in cards, the potential of the hand is capped.


Nope. How many times have you seen the bridge problem where a defender makes an unexpected play and deceives the declarer or where the declarer manages to lose an otherwise unbeatable game by either haste or stupidity or the declarer plays in an unusual way to deceive the defenders? Alternately, we all know the rankings of poker hands, so how is it possible for a player to bluff others and make more of his cards than they would apparently be worth? That means that the player with the "winning" hand or "best" hand is outplayed. In both these instances, part of the "skill" is not to do things in an obvious way - to make the deceptive play as smoothly as the ordinary one.

The full potential of the hand is developed by the skill of the player. Therefore, I would argue @PetrB has chosen an excellent analogy.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have no doubt that "talent" exists in the sense that some individual's brains are hard-wired in such a manner to more rapidly grasp skills and concepts within a given area. Few educators would question this... especially after Howard Gardner's studies on the brain. "Genius", one might assume, is but "talent" taken to a level few ever attain. Still, there is much to be said for culture....
> 
> ...Most professors and teachers that I know will take the highly driven/motivated student over the student with a high level of inherent "talent". Of course the ideal is to have both... and again, "genius" is something else altogether. Sometimes I think too many fall for the notion that Mozart or Van Gogh or Shakespeare were not as driven and self-motivated as anyone else.
> 
> ...




I'm a bit puzzled by the way you quote me, StLuke'sGuild, as I think we're actually _*in agreement*_, aren't we?

I was saying, _like you_, that hard work & a supportive culture are needed, but the individual must have some talent too - and to underline the last point, that _talent_ produces success *if supported by work and training*, I introduced a 'child prodigy'.

The actual merits of Kieran Williamson are irrelevant to this discussion - but I believe many critics do rate him more highly than just 'quite talented for a child of his age'. I think he will turn out to have staying power, but we shall have to see...

In the post that you quote from, I was agreeing with Petr B that it is the (highly profitable) fashion to stress 'training' over inborn talent, but that does not mean that talent can do it on its own. PetrB says you need to back up talent with tons of hard work, and I agree - as you do, I *think*.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Nope. How many times have you seen the bridge problem where a defender makes an unexpected play and deceives the declarer or where the declarer manages to lose an otherwise unbeatable game by either haste or stupidity or the declarer plays in an unusual way to deceive the defenders? Alternately, we all know the rankings of poker hands, so how is it possible for a player to bluff others and make more of his cards than they would apparently be worth? That means that the player with the "winning" hand or "best" hand is outplayed. In both these instances, part of the "skill" is not to do things in an obvious way - to make the deceptive play as smoothly as the ordinary one.
> 
> The full potential of the hand is developed by the skill of the player. Therefore, I would argue @PetrB has chosen an excellent analogy.


Speaking of the hands pianists have been dealt, I'd recommend the following fascinating article about Glenn Gould:

http://www.handoc.com/Documents/GOULD_Tubiana20001.pdf


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

Taggart said:


> The full potential of the hand is developed by the skill of the player. Therefore, I would argue @PetrB has chosen an excellent analogy.


I agree with your first statement, but whether it can be played to win depends partly on the components of the game - Bridge might be easier than, say, Sgt Major or simple Whist - and partly on interaction with the other players where bidding and bluffing is an additional component. I still think that the analogy has limited value.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

The most important "talent" a musician can have is drive, a great teacher, ambition, the ability to structure your practice to improve your weak spots. 

I also don't like it how people put down that 10,000 hours claim without even having read the study. I have and Ericsson(the guy who wrote that book) doesn't even make that claim in that way. He simply says that if you start young(!!!!) and have a good teacher then it take about 10,000 hours of deliberate structured practice to be able to perform at an expert level.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I think you do a lot of something, perhaps to the neurotic exclusion of everything else in life, forgoing food, sex, sleep, companionship, because it all seems like a paltry waste of time by contrast.

At a certain point, you rise to levels of perception of the wholeness of your obsession, and if you are talented, or better, a genius, you make great leaps beyond where everyone else distracted by food, sex, etc. will ever go.

This is not easy, and requires an active commitment to give everything else up, and to pursue your obsession through thick and thin, with no ultimate doubt over whether it is worthwhile.

If that doubt stops you; if you fear losing balance, and normalcy; if external factors become sufficient enough impediments to drag your screaming soul down into the horrors of mediocrity, in, say, a culture that worships mediocrity; then, your gift is lost, and the rest is silence.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2013)

Copperears said:


> I think you do a lot of something, perhaps to the neurotic exclusion of everything else in life, forgoing food, sex, sleep, companionship,


There's at least one of those that I'm not prepared to forgo...

Come to think of it, I'd not be prepared to give up any of it!

Just proves I've no talent worth getting neurotic about.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Kieran said:


> We live in a world that doesn't like Mystery - and "Talent" is a Mystery. Surely it can be explained materially?
> 
> Eh, let me think about that for a sec.
> 
> No!


But talent can be used for providing enormous wealth...Thus it can be expressed as a material thing


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Flamme said:


> But talent can be used for providing enormous wealth...Thus it can be expressed as a material thing


Well, the _rewards _for it can be, maybe...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Flamme said:


> But talent can be used for providing enormous wealth...Thus it can be expressed as a material thing


Sorry, _musical_ talent can be used for providing enormous wealth?

If you listen closely you can hear the bitter laughter of the ghosts of Mozart and Schubert and Berg and...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Sorry, _musical_ talent can be used for providing enormous wealth?
> 
> If you listen closely you can hear the bitter laughter of the ghosts of Mozart and Schubert and Berg and...


Or see the satisfied nod of Haydn. "Three thousand gulden in one night...only in London!"

Wagner accused Meyerbeer of only writing for money (he was a Jew after all). But he may not have made much since his spectacular operas were so expensive to stage. Not that it mattered, because he was quite wealthy to start with. Which may have been the *real* reason Wagner detested him...

Added: Between the commission fee, subscriptions, and publisher's payments, Beethoven made about $100 thousand US dollars (equiv.) from the Missa Solemnis. Kind of the Lady Gaga of his day.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Or see the satisfied nod of Haydn. "Three thousand gulden in one night...only in London!"


That may have more to do with Haydn's sound business sense than his musical talent, though.

For some reason, those two things seem to coexist very rarely in the same person.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I was thinking more of a music in general...Not only classical one...One can deny some talent of many famous rock musicians for example...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> That may have more to do with Haydn's sound business sense than his musical talent, though.


I think it had to do with Haydn's talent and Salomon's business sense.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Sorry, _musical_ talent can be used for providing enormous wealth?
> 
> If you listen closely you can hear the bitter laughter of the ghosts of Mozart and Schubert and Berg and...


I've heard recently that Mozz wasnt buried in a ''mass tomb'' cause of his poor standard but because it was a practice at that time 'cause of the epidemy


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Self-knowledge is a beautiful thing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Flamme said:


> I've heard recently that Mozz wasnt buried in a ''mass tomb'' cause of his poor standard but because it was a practice at that time 'cause of the epidemy


Details and further debunking here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_mozart#Funeral


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

So can we dig the aristocracy up, now, and maybe put them outside the door for decorations next Halloween?

Or is it still too soon?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I think Daniel Coyle and Matthew Syed's obvious talent is for manipulating people by working on their insecurities and offering them some feel-good pop psychology. I noticed David Brooks conveniently neglects to mention that, despite receiving the same grueling hours of practice and instruction from her father, Nannerl never developed Mozart's ability for improvisation--nor the fact that Mozart could distinguish within an 8th of a pitch, absorb information so quickly simply through hearing and reading musical works of contemporary composers, and sight-read and improvise fugues by the time he was 13. There are kids who practice hours every day and still do not reach that level so quickly. Social environment obviously important, but today's society is so politically correct and uncomfortable in acknowledging innate differences, the message is now "Everyone is the same. You can do anything you set your mind to!" The dull-witted jock who threw airplanes in class COULD have been a veterinarian or neurosurgeon if he really wanted to, he just didn't believe in himself and study hard enough.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

*''Following her husband's death, Constanze recovered from her despair and addressed the task of providing financial security for her family; the Mozarts had two young children, and Mozart had died with outstanding debts.''*
Was life really That expensive back then? I mean they didnt have electricity, mobile phones, water supply system, sewer...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Flamme said:


> Was life really That expensive back then? I mean they didnt have electricity, mobile phones, water supply system, sewer...


All of those things are cheap. Instead they had servants, which are expensive.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Well i dunno they are a great cut from a money cake in my family and so i heard in the world situation aint better... Vienna was one the most expensive towns in that time too so it seems...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Flamme said:


> Was life really That expensive back then? I mean they didnt have electricity, mobile phones, water supply system, sewer...


Mozart was a notoriously high liver and supposedly quite bad with money. I seem to remember that among his must-haves were quarters renting for far more than they could really afford and a carriage with two horse (very expensive to own). And he loved fancy clothes -- lots of them! There's also some speculation that he had a gambling addiction. Believe his debts were incurred through loans from friends. Constanze seems to have done better on her own efforts after he was gone.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

What saddens me most as a teacher is talented students who aren't interested in working hard. Talent without sweat gets us nowhere. (I also wish more parents understood this...)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven wrote his publisher that his Op. 101 sonata should be titled the "Hard Sonata," adding words to the effect that ""music that makes us sweat is good!" Can't find the exact quote right now, but his sense of humor was obviously intact.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven wrote his publisher that his Op. 101 sonata should be titled the "Hard Sonata," adding words to the effect that ""music that makes us sweat is good!" Can't find the exact quote right now, but his sense of humor was obviously intact.


Reminds me of Debussy's Études: "a warning to pianists not to take up the musical profession unless they have remarkable hands".


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> There are just too many variables to narrow this down. Genetics, ambition, environment, etc... Yes, some people can have more of an innate natural ability, but without the ambition and environment, that talent may never be fully realized. While someone who has less natural ability, but with the proper environment and ambition, can really make things happen.... Variables


Nothing one could reduce to a body of criteria that would make a researcher looking for a scientific result on talent happy, anyway. "innate ability" is not qualified by measurements within any of the definitions, it is just "innate ability." How much, how much to be meaningful, a real factor in a person succeeding with that talent to a degree we generally call outstanding, the many factors of environment the person with talent has grown up in, all too much to nail and qualify one simple definition.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Reminds me of Debussy's Études: "a warning to pianists not to take up the musical profession unless they have remarkable hands".


... and of course, the brain controls and drives everything


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> What saddens me most as a teacher is talented students who aren't interested in working hard. Talent without sweat gets us nowhere. (I also wish more parents understood this...)


Here enters that factor which is the other part of the equation: those who work at it, maybe less visibly talented, who don't do it out of duty, but out of what can only be called a highly personal and great need -- those who seem personally compelled to do it, and I would add that done without thought as to potential revenue, esteem, fame, etc.

I don't know about you, but as a child, I had to be told to stop practicing and go out of doors and play (whether it was that bad and driving the family crazy, or a real concern it was not healthy for a child to sit and play the piano hours a day.) The music, playing, just had me, and I can not think of anything much else -- then or later -- which has ever seized my imagination and psyche to the same degree.

This is where an old saw comes in: 
It seems more like the craft chooses you and gives you no choice as to feeling at all satisfied or complete if you decide to pursue anything else other than that craft.

In the pith of that saw lies the difference between a capable / talented youngster who practices 'sort of enough' and the student who always puts in _whatever it takes_, and without needing to be urged to do so.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

trazom said:


> I think Daniel Coyle and Matthew Syed's obvious talent is for manipulating people by working on their insecurities and offering them some feel-good pop psychology. I noticed David Brooks conveniently neglects to mention that, despite receiving the same grueling hours of practice and instruction from her father, Nannerl never developed Mozart's ability for improvisation--nor the fact that Mozart could distinguish within an 8th of a pitch, absorb information so quickly simply through hearing and reading musical works of contemporary composers, and sight-read and improvise fugues by the time he was 13. There are kids who practice hours every day and still do not reach that level so quickly. Social environment obviously important, but today's society is so politically correct and uncomfortable in acknowledging innate differences, the message is now "Everyone is the same. You can do anything you set your mind to!" The dull-witted jock who threw airplanes in class COULD have been a veterinarian or neurosurgeon if he really wanted to, he just didn't believe in himself and study hard enough.


Nailed it! Learn how to transcend yourself and become talented, successful and wealthy... your average child will become extraordinary, financially independent (he can take care of you in your later years, too) just $44.58 in hard cover.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Talent is overrated.

Apparently, all you need is this.









*Mastering!
30 days or less!*

By January, I should be banging out the Waldstein like Kovacevich. By February, I'll be playing it with my toes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mastering *your* instrument in less than 30 days? Surely they must be referring to a non-musical instrument.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I don't want to hear or see people give up their instrument because they think they have no talent, however hard it is to define talent. I think talent is hard work, and over coming your difficulties and disabilities.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Talent can only take you so far.*



hreichgott said:


> What saddens me most as a teacher is talented students who aren't interested in working hard. Talent without sweat gets us nowhere. (I also wish more parents understood this...)


hreichgott,

I have been reading these post and yours is the only one that appears to mirror my experiences.

In the classical music world, talent alone can only take one so far. The opposite is also true, practicing twenty-four hours a day will not compensated for a lack of talent.

There are some genres of music where a musician can make it on talent alone. I have a niece who is a very talented folk musician. She is self taught and does a great job playing "Amazing Grace" on a dulcimer. She has competed in and won dulcimer playing contests. Even with her great ear and talent, she can not perform the _Toccata & Fugue_. That would take a lot of blood, sweat and tears.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

trazom said:


> I think Daniel Coyle and Matthew Syed's obvious talent is for manipulating people by working on their insecurities and offering them some feel-good pop psychology. I noticed David Brooks conveniently neglects to mention that, despite receiving the same grueling hours of practice and instruction from her father, Nannerl never developed Mozart's ability for improvisation--nor the fact that Mozart could distinguish within an 8th of a pitch, absorb information so quickly simply through hearing and reading musical works of contemporary composers, and sight-read and improvise fugues by the time he was 13. There are kids who practice hours every day and still do not reach that level so quickly. Social environment obviously important, but today's society is so politically correct and uncomfortable in acknowledging innate differences, the message is now "Everyone is the same. You can do anything you set your mind to!" The dull-witted jock who threw airplanes in class COULD have been a veterinarian or neurosurgeon if he really wanted to, he just didn't believe in himself and study hard enough.


Like I said before it is not about simply practicing. You need to work on your skills in the same way a professional athlete does with a great coach


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Mastering *your* instrument in less than 30 days? Surely they must be referring to a non-musical instrument.


No, I'm am master of my piano. I tell it to sit there and shut up and it does! When I decide to play it, it plays exactly what I tell it to. 
What I would like is mastery over my_ fingers_, then I could really play!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I find it both amusing and sad that we are even here discussing this. Sheer, natural talent is something that will never be scientifically understood or explained.

My honest belief is that anyone trying to do so more than likely possesses none at all; talent, that is.

A true talent is a beautiful 'mystery', as someone stated earlier here. It is to be used. It is to be enjoyed. Everyone has a talent in something or other. So, in music, some do...some don't. It's as simple as that. Of course, there are some "professional" musicians and recording artists who could have just as well taken up a profession in business or bull**** but even they are surrounded by _someone _ talented enough to even sell their crap. So, anyway...


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

kv466 said:


> I find it both amusing and sad that we are even here discussing this. Sheer, natural talent is something that will never be scientifically understood or explained.


Well, never say 'never'.

It's certainly true that we understand almost nothing about it _now_, though.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

That'd be funny if a day comes where scientist can discern who garners a natural talent/genius for a particular art. "Ma'am, your baby is a future Beethoven... get him a piano immediately."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> That'd be funny if a day comes where scientist can discern who garners a natural talent/genius for a particular art. "Ma'am, your baby is a future Beethoven... get him a piano immediately."


Well, I doubt if it'll ever be as simple as a routine check for susceptibility to heart disease, cancer, and Mendelssohnism.


----------



## Reinhold (Nov 24, 2013)

It all boils down to the fact that talent is useless without commitment and discipline to self-improvement/practice. Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as talent, but some people may appear naturally better than others through an innate drive to accomplish something.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

"I listened more than I studied... therefore little by little my knowledge and ability were developed."
- Joseph Haydn


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I think at this point, no scientist, psychologist, or musician can really say for sure what combination of talent and hard work creates an individual that is highly skilled and possibly considered genius. Tons of things I have read as well as quotes upon quotes by numerous geniuses have stated hard work is everything. On the other hand, there's no denying that certain people will learn faster or pick up an instrument faster under the exact same teaching environment. So yes, in my opinion natural talent/learning ability does matter but I can't guess how much it matters.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

If you think about it, the human brain is capable, given the right circumstances, of the most astounding feats.
If the autistic child's brain can calculate 12 digit prime numbers, recreate a piano piece after one hearing, draw from memory an intricate and complex scene after a few moments viewing (these are all recorded in studies), then *everybody's brain has the potential* to do the same.

The tragedy of autism is that these capabilities come at the expense of the brain's other, far more important functions, of making sense of the world and communicating effectively with fellow humans. Far more important in evolutionary terms that is. After all, a species made up of individuals who can't properly interact, isn't going to be around for very long.
We know of many examples of creative 'geniuses' who lack social skills or are 'absent-minded' or have 'peculiar' habits. Perhaps there is always some sort of trade-off between different skills and autism represents an extreme example.

One might say that the child who can play or draw as in the above examples, is supremely 'gifted' but sadly, the flip-side is that they cannot grow into an adult who has the ability to interpret the world and represent it to others (art?) in a meaningful or insightful way.

In short, I suppose talent is less important than the ability to think creatively and communicate effectively.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

There seems a 'fated quality' to the lives of the great composers. Scott Skinner, the nineteenth-century Scots fiddler, put it succinctly: '*Talent* does what it _can_; *genius* does what it _must_.'

To which I always add, sotto voce: 'And *hobby *does what it can _get away with_!'


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> There seems a 'fated quality' to the lives of the great composers. Scott Skinner, the nineteenth-century Scots fiddler, put it succinctly: '*Talent* does what it _can_; *genius* does what it _must_.'


That's brilliant. It does appear that genius is an outpouring from some unseen place. Even many genius have claimed that they don't know where their work comes from... it just comes.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Reinhold said:


> It all boils down to the fact that talent is useless without commitment and discipline to self-improvement/practice. Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as talent, but some people may appear naturally better than others through an innate drive to accomplish something.


I'm pretty sure genetically speaking there is such a thing as talent. You could have a controlled experiment and prove this and I'm sure it's been done many times. To use the piano as an example, some people just pick it up quicker even though they may practice the same and have the same desire as another person.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> That'd be funny if a day comes where scientist can discern who garners a natural talent/genius for a particular art. "Ma'am, your baby is a future Beethoven... get him a piano immediately."


Better yet, and even more likely, "Your infant has tested with a high propensity for musical talent, meaning that no matter what your arguments against, they will more than likely pursue it and make it their career. However, we do have a handy anti musical talent vaccine we can give the child right now to take care of that problem."


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Better yet, and even more likely, "Your infant has tested with a high propensity for musical talent, meaning that no matter what your arguments against, they will more than likely pursue it and make it their career. However, we do have a handy anti musical talent vaccine we can give the child right now to take care of that problem."


Oh, the horror. I'd send those parents to the freakin' moon.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

From my own little observations(just from reading and stuff..) talent seems to be a combination of natural intelligence(spearman's G) and the individual's personality, which determines what they might like/what they're sensitive to. Apparently, personality is a much more important influence on the quality of the artist's work than their intelligence or IQ.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Relieved*



PetrB said:


> Better yet, and even more likely, "Your infant has tested with a high propensity for musical talent, meaning that no matter what your arguments against, they will more than likely pursue it and make it their career. However, we do have a handy anti musical talent vaccine we can give the child right now to take care of that problem."


My youngest son has become a successful studio musician and teacher in Los Angeles. When people ask me if I am 'proud', I respond 'relieved' is a more accurate word, since I know how tough it is to make as a professional.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> My youngest son has become a successful studio musician and teacher in Los Angeles. When people ask me if I am 'proud', I respond 'relieved' is a more accurate word, since I know how tough it is to make as a professional.


Congratulations to your youngest son: your relief as a parent and dedicated experienced player is, of course, because you are very well-informed of what a damned hard row this is to ***.

Pleased too, for your relief as a parent, but you should be also congratulated from checking the stronger impulses to urge him toward something else -- which happens all too often 

[[Add, P.s. aside...
"hoe1
hō/

noun: ***; plural noun: hoes
1.
a long-handled gardening tool with a thin metal blade, used mainly for weeding and breaking up soil.

verb: ***; 3rd person present: hoes; past tense: hoed; past participle: hoed; gerund or present participle: hoeing
1.
use a *** to dig (earth) or thin out or dig up (plants)."

*Whomever has programmed the censoring software on TC has really taken it to a degree which makes a mockery of what, I'm sure, was originally well-intended.*]] What on earth are we to make of Santa Claus here, is he uttering a stream of inappropriate obscenities?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Congratulations to your youngest son: your relief as a parent and dedicated experienced player is, of course, because you are very well-informed of what a damned hard row this is to ***.
> 
> [[Add, insert....
> "hoe1
> ...


That kind of censorship is not well-intentioned. There is almost never a good reason for limiting the language people can use to express themselves, and often the people who have a problem with "bad words" are the worse people (in my experience).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think that talent is a tough thing to measure or explain, I still believe that what is most important is passion and effort. If you aren't as "naturally adept" at musical skills, you can still develop them with hard work (and really, I think most people have some talent for music). If you are naturally more adept in musical things, hard work can really cultivate that, so either way, the effort is paramount. I find it annoying that talent is often given all the credit for these great works, when artists had to put tons of work (and their personal time) into creating. (its even more stupid when credit is given to some divine being)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> That kind of censorship is not well-intentioned. There is almost never a good reason for limiting the language people can use to express themselves, and often the people who have a problem with "bad words" are the worse people (in my experience).


When censorship includes a harmless word for a garden tool which is embedded in a long-established analogous adage, well, someone has been both over-eager and exaggeratedly "sensitive."


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> When censorship includes a harmless word for a garden tool which is embedded in a long-established analogous adage, well, someone has been both over-eager and exaggeratedly "sensitive."


Or when discussing a well known dance work by Mr Copland - the ***-down. It is sensitive to the e because ho-down is OK. Hence Santa is fine, but gardening (and dancing) is not.

NB _Purely personal opinion_.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Or when discussing a well known dance work by Mr Copland - the ***-down. It is sensitive to the e because ho-down is OK. Hence Santa is fine, but gardening (and dancing) is not.
> 
> NB _Purely personal opinion_.


I find that hilarious, because ho is the singular of that which is the "offensive" meaning (and again, the world should not be tailored to overly sensitive prudes)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Nonsense. One's ability to play the piano well is measurable. The time one spends practicing the piano is measurable. If some people get more benefit from less practice than others, I say those people are more talented pianists.


While I am sympathetic to what you are trying to prove, I think you have it wrong. Getting more benefit from less practice does not necessarily have anything to do with talent. It might result merely from efficiency, an acquired knowledge of how to practice - knowing what aspects of the mechanics need attention. It could be as simple as having the patience to meticulously choreograph every aspect of the physical motions. Efficient practice techniques can be taught and according to your view, those who learn them would be judged more innately talented. I don't think that is the result you want.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Reinhold said:


> It all boils down to the fact that talent is useless without commitment and discipline to self-improvement/practice. Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as talent, but some people may appear naturally better than others through an innate drive to accomplish something.


While I accept your point that drive toward accomplishment is essential, perfect pitch does seem to be genetically based (heritable). Many consider this ability an important aspect of talent among the high achieving musicians and composers who possess it.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

"I had to work hard. Anyone who works as hard will get just as far." - JS Bach


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> While I am sympathetic to what you are trying to prove, I think you have it wrong. Getting more benefit from less practice does not necessarily have anything to do with talent. It might result merely from efficiency, an acquired knowledge of how to practice - knowing what aspects of the mechanics need attention. It could be as simple as having the patience to meticulously choreograph every aspect of the physical motions. Efficient practice techniques can be taught and according to your view, those who learn them would be judged more innately talented. I don't think that is the result you want.


There probably should have been an 'all other things being equal' addendum. I accept the rebuke.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Yardrax said:


> "I had to work hard. Anyone who works as hard will get just as far." - JS Bach


Easy to say while rather contextually meaningless as heard by the average from a staggering genius


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> While I accept your point that drive toward accomplishment is essential, perfect pitch does seem to be genetically based (heritable). Many consider this ability an important aspect of talent among the high achieving musicians and composers who possess it.


You do know there are people with absolute hearing who have no musical inclinations or other musical ability whatsoever, don't you? That is another one of those weird and rare gifts (isn't it something like one of 10,000 people have it?) which does not get distributed with maximum efficiency / efficacy. A handful, not all, of the "greater" composers have had it, while a good deal of the others had / have relative pitch.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

This is by the way, but I thought I'd mention that I've been reading a fair amount about Sviatoslav Richter lately, and have been rather surprised at ostensibly critical scholars repeating his claims to practice only 3 hours per day and to have been self-taught in the piano at an unusually late age, given that he made "exceptions" to his practice-regimen for the concerts he was always giving and that his father was a professional pianist. I had just assumed he was exaggerating his natural ability (or genius) in such circumstances. Many performers seem unable to resist that kind of boasting. 

Just a hunch, mind you.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Glenn Gould also claimed not to practice much.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> While I accept your point that drive toward accomplishment is essential, perfect pitch does seem to be genetically based (heritable). Many consider this ability an important aspect of talent among the high achieving musicians and composers who possess it.


See wiki on Absolute Pitch and this on the relationship between tonal languages and the development of perfect pitch. Chinese and Vietnamese raised in America speaking mainly English don't develop perfect pitch to the same extent that those raised in Asia not speaking English do despite coming from genetically similar backgrounds.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Taggart said:


> See wiki on Absolute Pitch and this on the relationship between tonal languages and the development of perfect pitch. Chinese and Vietnamese raised in America speaking mainly English don't develop perfect pitch to the same extent that those raised in Asia not speaking English do despite coming from genetically similar backgrounds.


I've read this fact as well (discussed in _Musicophilia_ by Oliver Sacks). Of course, perfect pitch could have a genetic component that allows some people to develop it more easily or at all. There is obviously an environmental component as well that contributes (I know this is true of all phenotypic traits).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> You do know there are people with absolute hearing who have no musical inclinations or other musical ability whatsoever, don't you? That is another one of those weird and rare gifts (isn't it something like one of 10,000 people have it?) which does not get distributed with maximum efficiency / efficacy. A handful, not all, of the "greater" composers have had it, while a good deal of the others had / have relative pitch.


Yes, of course. Not sure about how many of the greater composers had it. Among the Russians it seems to have been prevalent: Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich had it. Just don't know about the others. This, however, could be skewed by conservatory admissions criteria.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> While I am sympathetic to what you are trying to prove, I think you have it wrong. Getting more benefit from less practice does not necessarily have anything to do with talent. It might result merely from efficiency, an acquired knowledge of how to practice - knowing what aspects of the mechanics need attention. It could be as simple as having the patience to meticulously choreograph every aspect of the physical motions. Efficient practice techniques can be taught and according to your view, those who learn them would be judged more innately talented. I don't think that is the result you want.





ahammel said:


> There probably should have been an 'all other things being equal' addendum. I accept the rebuke.


I'm with ahammel on this one. I think even with all other factors(how you practice...etc) equal, some people just pick things up much quicker, such as the piano. And to restate what someone said earlier, if you are trying to define talent, I would say natural intelligence and ability to focus and problem-solve well would be two key aspects of it. Expanding further on the talent/intelligence comparison, it is definitely clear that some people are just naturally smarter than others(even at a young age with no extra schooling or work put in). So I don't see how it could be disputed that the same could be said with talent in regards to musical performance/composition ability.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> See wiki on Absolute Pitch and this on the relationship between tonal languages and the development of perfect pitch. Chinese and Vietnamese raised in America speaking mainly English don't develop perfect pitch to the same extent that those raised in Asia not speaking English do despite coming from genetically similar backgrounds.


The statistic of occurrence of absolute hearing per capita is much greater in those places where several degrees of pitch are necessary to distinguish meaning by pitch when speaking. Add that say, in Korea, solfege is a requisite part of general education, taught to everyone in primary school level classes, and that must boost that ability even further.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, of course. Not sure about how many of the greater composers had it. Among the Russians it seems to have been prevalent: Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich had it. Just don't know about the others.


I believe Schoenberg had absolute pitch.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Dustin said:


> I'm with ahammel on this one. I think even with all other factors(how you practice...etc) equal, some people just pick things up much quicker, such as the piano. And to restate what someone said earlier, if you are trying to define talent, I would say natural intelligence and ability to focus and problem-solve well would be two key aspects of it. Expanding further on the talent/intelligence comparison, it is definitely clear that some people are just naturally smarter than others(even at a young age with no extra schooling or work put in). So I don't see how it could be disputed that the same could be said with talent in regards to musical performance/composition ability.


I so agree. What's interesting is how sometimes a 'genius' pops up in an otherwise ordinary family. One thinks of the late Seamus Heaney, born to a farming family, and the only one among his siblings with the gift of lucid, evocative poetry.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

I believe everyone is under-estimating a lot of factors. 
It's as if it boiled down to hard-work + talent.
As someone who was deeply impressed by Descartes' Discours de la méthode, I just cannot bring myself to accept the existence of this obscure and very vague thing called talent. I don't care about the "mystery" it's supposed to be.

Why are we underestimating intelligence ? 
Method (method is always seen as some kind of accessory to learn a little bit quicker, but hey, it's the most important thing about learning, the way you learn) ? 
Memory ? 
Personality ?
Charisma ?
Curiosity ?! Why is that never mentionned ? If there's one thing that could lead you further than your musical colleagues, it's curiosity. 
For instance, they memorize by sheer mecanical repetition. You had the curiosity to borrow a book about musical memorization at the library, and you can now, after having worked on it, memorize a piece without the instrument in a relatively short time. You are now more talented ! There are just so many musicians who do not really use their minds...
And luck, too ! Like, being born in the right familly, or beginning your instrument with an outstanding teacher..

And so many other things - some people are very at ease with their body, others are a big walking knot of tensions. Some have a very sensitive aural perception because since their childhood they paid attention to it - and when they pick up their instrument, they retain this quality, paying attention the minute details of timbre, articulation, to the intervals between notes, rhythmic precision, etc. and hence progress much faster than those who believe it's about the hands.

There are so many things I can think of which could influence someone to the point of making him/her look like some kind of genius or a a lost cause...

But in short, what I just hate about the way everyone thinks about talent or genius, is that it's supposed to be something hard-wired into your brain. So, you have that, you sit, "practice" and are supposed to passively absorb everything like a sponge. 
Nothing could be further from the truth IMHO. You just cannot consider that a musician who learns fast is a sponge. It's a searching mind, someone curious, determined, intelligent, with fine tuned kinaesthetic, aural and visual perceptions, a good memory, and a great love for the music.
All those things, except the love, can be learned, so my mind is pretty clear about innate abilities. Anyway, even if some kind of talent existed (which we can't prove now), the human mind, our intelligence and our reason is much more powerful than this and will ever be !

BTW, an interesting video with Mitsuko Uchida talking about this:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Praeludium said:


> I believe everyone is under-estimating a lot of factors.
> It's as if it boiled down to hard-work + talent.
> As someone who was deeply impressed by Descartes' Discours de la méthode, I just cannot bring myself to accept the existence of this obscure and very vague thing called talent. I don't care about the "mystery" it's supposed to be.


If you want to demystify genius, you'd best not refer to one of the great geniuses of all time for support! :lol:

Incidentally, though, his book on music isn't all that great, imho.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Praeludium said:


> I believe everyone is under-estimating a lot of factors.
> It's as if it boiled down to hard-work + talent.
> As someone who was deeply impressed by Descartes' Discours de la méthode, I just cannot bring myself to accept the existence of this obscure and very vague thing called talent. I don't care about the "mystery" it's supposed to be.
> 
> ...


Your list, at least, is like Dr. Frankenstein's laundry list of necessary body parts, but omits the SPARK / CHARGE of electricity which made all the difference -- and despite everything known, "where" electricity comes from is as yet undetermined.

And citing a genius in this matter is like whomever quoted Bach as saying anyone who worked as hard as he did could do as well as he did... well, if you are a staggering genius _and_ work hard, maybe


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

it comes from hard work the genius part is being human.

like with most tings we have to learn to do it. and society can effect what you learn.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> While I accept your point that drive toward accomplishment is essential, perfect pitch does seem to be genetically based (heritable). Many consider this ability an important aspect of talent among the high achieving musicians and composers who possess it.


Perfect pitch is not important. Good relative pitch is much more useful.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

LordBlackudder said:


> it comes from hard work the genius part is being human.
> 
> like with most tings we have to learn to do it. and society can effect what you learn.


Hard work is the struggle of being human, the genius aspect is superhuman. At least for now.

There are a lot of hard-working musicians out there, but you're not seeing them come out with works to rival the greats like Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Praeludium said:


> Why are we underestimating intelligence ?
> Method (method is always seen as some kind of accessory to learn a little bit quicker, but hey, it's the most important thing about learning, the way you learn) ?
> Memory ?
> Personality ?
> ...


"Talent" is a word that can be used to describe a lot of different things - certain natural ability, or a quickness of learning, it is not necessarily a different thing than those characteristics you mentioned. If a person has a great musical memory, a curious personality that leads to good work ethic and charisma in performance etc. that is the same thing as being talented.

I've never understood the idea that talent cannot exist, I don't even know where to begin arguing this point, to me it seems self-evident. Its not like one should ever feel discouraged if they think they might be less talented though, time and time again it has been shown that talent alone is not the most critical factor in success in a given field.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

PetrB, Blancrocher & tdc : two little precisions :
1) My rant is against talent as some kind of vague unexplainable, unanalyzable phenomenom, and as something that is innate. 
If for you talent is a huge set of (uncommon) skills that can be acquired inconsciously or consciously, then we agree.

2) "The chicken or the egg" ? 
Was Bach able to have this amazing brain (and hands (and feet !), probably) because he was BACH right from the beginning, or is it because he was able to acquire all these things and go further and further in what he was doing that he became the great BACH ? q:
The same goes for Descartes. On the top of that, I think it's quite the paradox to say "Descartes was a genius so his explanation on how he became so good mustn't be taken seriously" ! Or "he was a genius so he's wrong" o_o
If he was a genius, then I would definitely listen to him. And if what he says does not work for me at a given moment in a given context, it doesn't mean he was wrong, it means he was misunderstood - at least that's how I think.


edit : PetrB -> for the sparkle, the electrivity, well, that's one of the main role of love isn't it ? 
And I guess you could find a lot of psychological, sociological and whatever factors which could lead one person to end having a mindset totally different for the rest of his/her peers and be totally obsessed with what he/she does.
Now there's the case of those not working much. I believe they have acquired one or many of the skills which end up looking like "talent" when accumulated and rely on that to learn faster than those who don't have that.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

This is certainly an interesting thread. I think that just as some people *from birth* have more intelligence or more of other faculties such as better or worse eyesight or hearing, or an eidetic memory, so some people are born with brains that have more capacity for making music. Bach was one of them. This is not to deny the vital importance of personality, teaching, the culture of the time, hard work, passion to succeed, and, of course, *luck*.

So yes, in my view, Bach succeeded because of all his passion & hard work, *and also* because from the beginning he was BACH! If 'Johann Schmidt' had had Bach's life-experience, we should probably have had a very fine musician, but not the genius that was BACH. 

I have one in-law who has no sense of rhythm, and another who cannot 'sing' a note after it's been played on the piano. They have both improved their deficiency very slightly by working on it, but each is left with a below-average weakness in that area.

So - does talent matter? For me, the answer is, yes.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Teachers recognize talent. It's real and it shows,usually, from a young age.
I can practice all I want, I wont be a Richter or Pollini or Heifitz.

Or a Sandy Koufax or Lebron James.


----------

