TALENT: "Nature" or "Nurture"

[jhon]

I know both matters but where do we draw the line to determine which is the greater FACTOR?  Actually, "nature" (being so-called "gifted" or "prodigy") is something more debatable than "nurture" since the latter can apply to anyone. 

Personally, I consider "nature" for those who started (formally) piano at a VERY young age (say below 5) - especially those who learned to read notes before alphabets.  Studies have shown that children learn best during this period (about 4-7 years old).  Of course, this does NOT mean everything would be easy for them when they grow up; they still EXERT effort but, having an early age foundation, such effort is not really a "struggle" and is just as natural, usual, and ordinary for them.  They to experience difficulty but they solve it faster.     

On the other hand, "nurture" is more for those who learned the piano late already (say teenagehood).  I just don't know any famous pianist who began piano at 18 or 20. 

Sorry if I seemed to be bias on the former.  I myself began not that early (9) and I regret not having started earlier.  In a sense, I consider myself "self-taught."  I do have a teacher but teaching is not only technical.  For instance, I don't hail from a family of musicians so I must learn to discipline and encourage myself.  And speaking of family, I consider this a BIG factor for I believe it is only the PARENTS who can best encourage (or even force) their children to play the piano at a very young age where normally they  would just play around as common kids do.  Also, you'll notice most great and famous pianists are foremostly trained by their parents.

These views are just a humble opinion.  Please feel free to share yours.       

   

[Derek]

I have no qualms about having started at age 17. I had had lessons before that but I hated them. However I don't think starting late has hurt me at all. If I really wanted to, I'm certain I could become a concert pianist and be at least reasonably competitive in the classical music world.

But the bottom line is no part of piano playing is a struggle for me, or at least I do not percieve it that way. I have never experienced frustration at the piano. That suggests to me that there is no cut off line for what is too late to start piano.

To answer the topic though, in my case I really think it must have been nature. I was just POSESSED with a drive to teach myself to improvise and later to read and perform classical pieces. It was just...THERE. Nobody made me take lessons or anything, it all came from me.

[ako]

I had this discussion at my adolescent development class. The consensus among the class is both. Without nurture, no matter how talented your natural talent is, there is no way to develop it. However, even if you have all the nurturing in the world but you have no natural ability, you still won't become the greatest pianist in the world. So both are important.

[ludwig]

I learnt about this when I was doing a class in education, apparently, gifted is more "nature" and talented is the process (nuture)....

[Waldszenen]

In my opinion, it's both. Those born with the gift will succeed far beyond anyone else, even those who practise so hard and train what they have.


But they still need to work at it.

[greyrune]

Derek you started at 17? how old are you now? you don't look more that 20 from your pic.  I thought you had been playing for ages.  I was comforting myself that one day i'd be able to improv like that.  I've been playing almost 2 years, also started at 17, but i can't play like that.