Talent vs. effort

[molto-marcato]

Hello,

after "violent" discussion with some friends of mine i want to bring the topic to a place, where many professional musicians, teachers, students and passionate amateurs can be found at the same time.

The question arouses in my head, because ever after i play for my family/friends (all together not musically educated people) i am told:"Wow, you're so talented." Or: "i could never do that". Something like this. I always tell them: "of course you could if you would put as much time and effort into making music like i do". They don't believe. Musicality is often thought as something which you are born with like a birth-right or something like that.

I don't believe this. If you take most of professional musicians, they usually (like me) start very early in their lives and work very hard, either because of free will or by "force" from their parents. At some certain point every one of us develops a deep passion for making music. For some people this starts very early, others realize this later in live. All of us (including the ultra geniuses) have in common that we put vast effort in developing the ability of making music.

So why should this be something only a few people are born with?

Imagine Mozart. A true genius. He was introduced to music by his very strict father at the age of 3. After 3 years of very hard work he showed immense talent. Of course he did, i say. If you start learning a language at the age of three you will adapt it easily to perfection.

So what do you think about this topic? Is there something like talent? Is there a birth-right to musicality? Can we achieve outstanding results by effort and passion alone?

Thanks for your replies

Daniel

[counterpoint]

I have often wondered too about this. Why are so many people talking about "talent" (something, you get as gift) instead of the achievement someone has made by hard work. It seems to me, that people want to think of music and art as something, that's fallen from heaven, not made by man. These people are not able to imagine, what music making is like. They think, you fall in a dreamy mood and then a higher power drives your fingers and hands across the keyboard.

"Talent" in a real sense is propably the ability to learn things faster and with less effort. But if you don't work carefully and accurately, you will not have any profit from your "talent".

[term]

Interesting topic!

So what do you think about this topic? Is there something like talent? Is there a birth-right to musicality? Can we achieve outstanding results by effort and passion alone?

My opinion is, that 5% is talent 95% is work. With talent you'll get it faster, but the other guy who works much harder but has less talent will get better results - because he works harder.
*Every*body could be a Mozart if enough time and work is invested. I do believe this, but this is true only if you really believe it.
Of course not only time and work count, but how interested you are, how much you like it...you can spend 10 hours on something without achieving anything if you're not concentrated or don't like it or whatever.
So efficiency is important as well, but this can (and must) be trained. If I want, i can be a new Einstein. But it will take a ridiculous amount of time and effort to reach that level *g*

[el nino]

i would much rather say opposite,5% work,95% talent. one can work 26 hours a day but without talent that's worth nothing. at least to me

[counterpoint]

i would much rather say opposite,5% work,95% talent. one can work 26 hours a day but without talent that's worth nothing. at least to me

A provocative statement for someone, who does play piano himself. Or don't you?

I first thought, you're joking, but then I read your tagline

"the more you practise the smaller is the chance that you will produce magic during performance"

So you think, practising is bad for musicality and magic playing comes out of nothing?
How funny   

[invictious]

Depends on how your practice, in a context. Asian style means no musicality, generally.

Talent and effort are different things. Talent only means you get a head start, if you don't put effort into it, then ti will just be wasted, and you will be playing just as good as that random neighbor.

Talent IS crucial actually, but effort is even more important. Being talented means you need to put MORE effort to sound good, because if that's the case, you will sound better than many people. It makes the effort, however, easier.

[henrah]

I think talent comes from effort, at least in the majority of cases. Of course there are those few exceptions where their talent came extremely easy, and now they need effort to keep their talent.

Anyone who puts the effort in can become talented at what they do, but sometimes a lucky one has the talent without effort, like savants. They are incredibly talented people, but their talent didn't come from hard work and perserverance.



So in conclusion, talent is a product of effort.... most of the time anyway

[rc]

I can relate to that, hahaha.  Most people really don't understand the work that goes into it, it really does seem like magic to them.  When we say it takes a lot of work but anybody could do it, they think we're just being modest.

Close friends know because they're always hearing "can't come hang out tonight, I wanna practice".  Some friends don't ask "what's up?" when they call anymore, they ask "How's the practice?"

Maybe people tend to assume others do things the same way they do, so somebody who doesn't work too hard at anything (doesn't concentrate so much, doesn't stick to any discipline) might assume everybody works the same as they do, so they figure those who get better results must be a lot more gifted.

Anyways I agree with most here...  But I'm a bit more extreme, all I believe in is work.  It's 100% effort.  Some are more obsessed, some love it more - so they put in more effort.  Some are practicing music while they get the mail.  Some in their sleep.

...Some are hardly practicing while sitting in front of the piano.

[ada]

There's a saying that perfection is 10 per cent inspiration and 90 per cent perspiration, or words to that effec....

[molto-marcato]

I like henrahs view, that talent comes from effort. If talent is, what i believe, the ability to get into a piece (into the music) in shorter time, then of course talent can be "learned"/improved by effort. Then we would meet rc's view that music is 100% work. So there is no supernatural requirement for making supernatural music  .

Additionally i personally would like to discuss this with some people with opposing views like el nino, but please make your position more clear to us.

[zheer]

  Some people  Discover they have talent, with some its an awakening, others know they have a talent from age 2. The effort part is very important ,however i believe you cant start a fire with-out a spark, if their is a teeny weeny idy bidy bitt of spark one can start a fire. For instance if a car company put in 100% in building a car, if that car does not have wheels it wont be of much good for driving. The talent bit is'nt a percentage it's a vital element.We all have talent but some are more talented than others.

[term]

Yes, but then we must also define what is talent...
And whether one can "acquire" it (don't know if that's the right word...^^)

If you think you don't have talent and comply to it, you won't achieve anything.
What about the other way round? If someone thinks he/she has talent but actually hasn't...I think also these people accomplish something, they think they are talented and so it becomes true...maybe not tomorrow, not in a week, but someday.

[danny elfboy]

Still another semantics issue
Talent is effort to me
Being talented doesn't imply being born with talent
And the technique one needs to play the piano can be learned by anyone given the right amount of effort, interest, passion and consistence. This of course applies to everything there's to learn. Everyone can be a mathematician, a painter, a sculptor, a linguist and so on.

But this is just the technical aspect
What about the artistic aspect? (which is by itself a very ephemeral term)
Technique doesn't provide art and lack of technique doesn't art for being made

Art is a matter of sensitivity
And do all the people in these world have a "music making sensitivity" ?
I don't think so, in fact there are tons of people out there who hate music period

So no, it's not only a matter of effort, because the effort you put in learning technique is functional to the already existing artistic sensitivity. Without that the effort is pretty useless. That's also what I really object to contemporary avant-garde establishment
The idiotic concept that the mean is more important than the hand

Whatever technique or style you use, whatever tools you use, whatever knowledge you have of the tools and technique is not ART ... tools are lifeless unexpressive pieces of nothing. They have no value by themselves. We learn technique because we have something personal to express with music and we just need the tools to do it

The toold are just functional. Learning technique is like buying an hammer to build a tree-house. It says nothing about your eastethical sensitivity in architecture and skill as a builder. The hammer is just a tool and has no meaning without a "goal" without an "end" wich is founded on something the user of the tool already possessed before buying it. Technique is a tool. Being able to read music, to play fast, to bee coordinated has nothing to do with music sensitivity and musicality. It's just a tool. Without someone using it for a reason it is less meaningless

When they say "I could never do that" you should reply "you're right, I'm unique, my music sensitivity and feelings expression is unique and therefore you would not be able to do what I DID, never ... no one will except me"

Mozart literally hated being called a genius
Being called a genius (sematics again) implies that for one things are easy and he's born that way rather than having put lot of effort and consistence into something.
Geniusness is a myth. There's no proof that anyone is born a genius and there's no unbiased criteria to tell a genius from a non-genius.

[zheer]

Am ok with the fact that some are more talented than me  .

[pianistimo]

me too.  although, as we all practice more and more - the correlation between talent and effort becomes visible.  what we once might have thought was 'impossible' becomes very possible.  it might take longer - but entirely possible.

also, i think it's nice to have column A and column B lists of music that you know you can play and music you want to learn to play.  and just practice a bit of column B after you are finished with column A.  it's no fun if you never challenge yourself beyond what you think you are capable of - simply because others tell you you'll never be able to play it. 

be your own cheering team sometimes.  don't let negative words make you quit.  consider them a challenge.

[ted]

I am at a loss to assess the proportion of talent and work in myself, let alone in anybody else or in the musical population generally. It is not a question I tend to think about any more. It took me many years to discover where I wanted to go in music. Now I have found out, I work very hard at getting there, making full use of whatever abilities I have. While some of these, I suppose, might have been innate, my subjective feeling is that I have struggled very hard, through a slow evolution involving many wrong turnings, to understand the little I do in music. However, as other posters have remarked, there is definitely a tendency in other people to assume it all somehow arose "out of the blue". I never know whether I should be complimented or annoyed about this.

Do people really tell you that you cannot play things, Susan ? How rude; I hope you ignore them.

[shoenberg3]

To be good, you need both. You will be mediocre if you have only one. Simple as that.

[shoenberg3]

Still another semantics issue
Talent is effort to me
Being talented doesn't imply being born with talent
And the technique one needs to play the piano can be learned by anyone given the right amount of effort, interest, passion and consistence. This of course applies to everything there's to learn. Everyone can be a mathematician, a painter, a sculptor, a linguist and so on.

But this is just the technical aspect
What about the artistic aspect? (which is by itself a very ephemeral term)
Technique doesn't provide art and lack of technique doesn't art for being made

Art is a matter of sensitivity
And do all the people in these world have a "music making sensitivity" ?
I don't think so, in fact there are tons of people out there who hate music period

So no, it's not only a matter of effort, because the effort you put in learning technique is functional to the already existing artistic sensitivity. Without that the effort is pretty useless. That's also what I really object to contemporary avant-garde establishment
The idiotic concept that the mean is more important than the hand

Whatever technique or style you use, whatever tools you use, whatever knowledge you have of the tools and technique is not ART ... tools are lifeless unexpressive pieces of nothing. They have no value by themselves. We learn technique because we have something personal to express with music and we just need the tools to do it

The toold are just functional. Learning technique is like buying an hammer to build a tree-house. It says nothing about your eastethical sensitivity in architecture and skill as a builder. The hammer is just a tool and has no meaning without a "goal" without an "end" wich is founded on something the user of the tool already possessed before buying it. Technique is a tool. Being able to read music, to play fast, to bee coordinated has nothing to do with music sensitivity and musicality. It's just a tool. Without someone using it for a reason it is less meaningless

When they say "I could never do that" you should reply "you're right, I'm unique, my music sensitivity and feelings expression is unique and therefore you would not be able to do what I DID, never ... no one will except me"

Mozart literally hated being called a genius
Being called a genius (sematics again) implies that for one things are easy and he's born that way rather than having put lot of effort and consistence into something.
Geniusness is a myth. There's no proof that anyone is born a genius and there's no unbiased criteria to tell a genius from a non-genius.

Another disgustingly indulgent, quixotic post. Not everyone has the same amount of talent at the piano. For most, playing a certain piece at a certain technical proficiency is going to remain an impossibility. For most, playing a certain piece at a certain artistic maturity is also going to remain an impossibility. Accept it.

[rc]

Danny:  I would argue that musical sensitivity can also be learned and worked at.  Not everybody is going to be exploring classical music and learning to appreciate it, but hypothetically, I believe somebody who has no love of music could come to get over whatever biases they have if they wanted to.  I really can't concieve of somebody not liking the great masterpieces, taken for what they are (many people will dislike something because of what it's not).

Schoenberg3:  What do you mean, like how playing gigantic solid chords being an impossibility to somebody with small hands?  I really believe that if something is physically possible, it's achievable.

[shoenberg3]

Danny:  I would argue that musical sensitivity can also be learned and worked at.  Not everybody is going to be exploring classical music and learning to appreciate it, but hypothetically, I believe somebody who has no love of music could come to get over whatever biases they have if they wanted to.  I really can't concieve of somebody not liking the great masterpieces, taken for what they are (many people will dislike something because of what it's not).

Schoenberg3:  What do you mean, like how playing gigantic solid chords being an impossibility to somebody with small hands?  I really believe that if something is physically possible, it's achievable.

No. Most pianists simply don't have the technical ability (even if they worked day and night) to play very difficult works well simply because we lack inherent dexterity. Likewise, most of us lack the ability to interpret works in sublime ways such as Richter did. Some of more fortunate ones may have the slight possibility to achieve such levels, but even then, you would have to work much harder than Richter ever did.  Are you saying that all there is different between us mortals and Richter/Hamelin/Argerich is just "effort"?

[opus10no2]

Talent = Seed.

Effort = Water.

Too much water and you will drown, remember, so have some contentment with the seed you're given.

[rc]

No. Most pianists simply don't have the technical ability (even if they worked day and night) to play very difficult works well simply because we lack inherent dexterity. Likewise, most of us lack the ability to interpret works in sublime ways such as Richter did. Some of more fortunate ones may have the slight possibility to achieve such levels, but even then, you would have to work much harder than Richter ever did.  Are you saying that all there is different between us mortals and Richter/Hamelin/Argerich is just "effort"?

Yep, that's my theory.  They probably spent a lot of time practicing, spent a lot of thought on music.  Maybe it was always fun for them, or they were forced into it and somewhere along the way it became fun.  At some point they've given it top priority in order to be professionals.

I'm not sure how to prove it one way or the other.  We've all heard stories of the children who seemed to have a divine gift, but I've never seen such a thing for myself, and I wonder how much of this perception is due to people seeing the result and not the effort that goes on behind the scenes?  I tend to think the idiot savant at math must be doing math with nearly every waking breath.

In the end, it's a useful belief for me to hold...  Keeps me working

[shoenberg3]

Yep, that's my theory.  They probably spent a lot of time practicing, spent a lot of thought on music.  Maybe it was always fun for them, or they were forced into it and somewhere along the way it became fun.  At some point they've given it top priority in order to be professionals.

I'm not sure how to prove it one way or the other.  We've all heard stories of the children who seemed to have a divine gift, but I've never seen such a thing for myself, and I wonder how much of this perception is due to people seeing the result and not the effort that goes on behind the scenes?  I tend to think the idiot savant at math must be doing math with nearly every waking breath.

In the end, it's a useful belief for me to hold...  Keeps me working

It's certainly useful, but (unfortunately) incorrect.

[opus10no2]

Yes, there must be a balance, to retain sanity, between perfectionism, drive, and work, and the knoweldge of one's own limits.

[rc]

It's certainly useful, but (unfortunately) incorrect.

hahah, well I'm not so sure of that.  Really the only one I'm concerned about with this little experiment is myself, and the only way to find out if I'm correct or incorrect is to try.  Even if I'm wrong it isn't such a big deal, I'll have no regrets.  But I suspect I'm right.

I wonder if we're talking about the same thing here?  I'm referring to being a great musician, as in there's plenty of great musicians who simply aren't famous.

[shoenberg3]

hahah, well I'm not so sure of that.  Really the only one I'm concerned about with this little experiment is myself, and the only way to find out if I'm correct or incorrect is to try.  Even if I'm wrong it isn't such a big deal, I'll have no regrets.  But I suspect I'm right.

I wonder if we're talking about the same thing here?  I'm referring to being a great musician, as in there's plenty of great musicians who simply aren't famous.

Yes, I was referring to both interpretation and technique, although I talked about the latter more since it's more concrete. But in interpretation, some pianists simply are born with better grasp of the music and able to communicate better naturally.

[jeremyjchilds]

I think talent is important, but Grit is what makes the difference.

true love of good music will take someone through the hard times.

[rc]

Schoenberg3:  Yes, it's definitely easier to tell who has a good grasp on their technique and who doesn't.  Then on another level technique and interpretation becomes the same thing, we all know this...  That it's definitely possible for somebody to have a much better interpretation in their head than their technique can actualize, maybe even commonplace.

Seperated from technique, interpretation is a tough thing to talk about.  Would you agree that interpretation originates in the imagination?  (whether or not one has the technical ability to bring it out in the open)

Because I believe it's also something that can be cultivated and developed.  Like in mental practice, or if you've ever tried improvising in your head - the mind is surprisingly adaptable.  It's a different kind of work, you can't see it but it's real.

It doesn't make sense that a child would be born with knowledge of music...  Throughout time it's been a constantly evolving style, the music being made today is very different than 100, 200, 300 years ago.  I don't see how a child could come into the world with knowledge of this ancient music, it must be learned.  If anything, some just have a headstart.

[shoenberg3]

It doesn't make sense that a child would be born with knowledge of music...  Throughout time it's been a constantly evolving style, the music being made today is very different than 100, 200, 300 years ago.  I don't see how a child could come into the world with knowledge of this ancient music, it must be learned.  If anything, some just have a headstart.

My point is that: we all have different starting points, but the legends get such a headstart that most of us have no chance of catching up.

[molto-marcato]

<My point is that: we all have different starting points, but the legends get such a headstart that most of us have no chance of catching up.>

Schoenberg, if you say it this way i could almost agree with that.

But still, we don't know what for example Richter did in his very early years. We know his father was a famous pianist and teacher (in Odessa and Vienna if i remember correctly). Richter himself often stated he didn't practice very much, which was falsified by witnesses like his wife who said he was working for the whole day most of the time. And even in his very early years, like 3-8, if there is such a "gifted" father, he might well have brought his son to the piano or music in general very early. I think Richter liked the image of him being something supernatural, so he probably didn't tell. And now imagine you, me, or any other person starts piano with a magnificient teacher at such an age. The seed you require is love for music and determination, the rest will follow, imo.

[teresa_b]

This is a subset of the old "nature vs nurture" argument that can be extended to almost any field of endeavor.  There is no definitive answer, but it's pretty obvious that it's a combination of both that leads to greatness in musical performance.

The brain is very complex, and some people are born with more natural ability to hear (and duplicate!) musical tones, feel phrasing, etc.  Just as I will never in a million years win the Boston marathon, even if I train for years beforehand, my nephew who cannot tell when he is playing a wrong note, will never play Beethoven in concert.  (He is a successful computer engineer.) 

That is not to say I couldn't develop fairly decent endurance in athletics if I worked hard at it, and my tone-deaf nephew couldn't learn to play "Fur Elise" (He did) without offending. 

Most people can learn to do something competently with hard work, but the spark of talent must be there for truly inspiring performance.

All the best,
Tereas

[rc]

My point is that: we all have different starting points, but the legends get such a headstart that most of us have no chance of catching up.

Awright, that's reasonable.

So if a kid starts when he's 5 and is awesome by 20...  Another 20 yr old in the audience is inspired by the playing, could work at it and reach that level by about 35.  Maybe we could say 40, to account for not being as spongy as a youngin'.  It comes down to the individuals choice.

[shoenberg3]

Awright, that's reasonable.

So if a kid starts when he's 5 and is awesome by 20...  Another 20 yr old in the audience is inspired by the playing, could work at it and reach that level by about 35.  Maybe we could say 40, to account for not being as spongy as a youngin'.  It comes down to the individuals choice.

It's not a choice. Development of one's pianistic level does not grow that ma