Talent

[lilypiano]

What do you think  talent is?  I just asked a physics major that takes piano what she wanted to do.  She said she didn't know about physics in grad school, so i asked her about piano.  She said that you have to have talent to do well in music. You can't just work at it.  She said she didn't think she was good enough to keep doing it.  That made me worry about whether I have talent or not.  The head of the piano department said I was "very musical."  She said she imagined I would get very good in a few years, but still discouraged me from trying to make a career of piano.   Do you think she meant that  I'm talented?  Other people have said i have talent, but they're usually not pianists.  I haven't really performed enough for pianists. 

[tac-tics]

The idea that you have to be born with talent to get good at something is crap. It's a barrier elitists use to keep people from trying their hand at new things and an excuse for people with low confidence in themselves.

All you need to become good at anything is proper instruction and dedication.

When people comment on your "talent," they are judging you based on your current skill and personality. Don't let people discourage you by saying such things, because they have no valid basis for doing so. Everyone starts off with practically no skill, but practice, practice, practice, and you will surprise yourself.

Now whether or not to take a career in piano is a different story. A career implies you do it for a living. I am not in the field, but I've heard from friends of mine that it can be a difficult market. Musicians today have a "starving artist" image to them. Most large companies don't have too many slots for live musicians because of the prevalence of electronic music. The jobs you would probably be able to find would be with much smaller companies and most likely not on a permanent basis.

But don't take career advice solely from me  There are much better suited to do that on this forum.

[jas]

Other people have said i have talent, but they're usually not pianists.  I haven't really performed enough for pianists.

I usually take comments from non-musicians (and sometimes musicians who aren't pianists) with a grain of salt. It's hard to judge what's possible and what a pianist should be able to do at a certain level if you don't play the instrument yourself. For example, I have a friend who plays the violin and I can't decide if he's brilliant or if it's just a bit of fancy passage-work fooling me into thinking he is.

That's not to say that just because a non-musician said you have talent you shouldn't listen. They can tell, too! This girl probably tried to discourage you from piano because, realistically, very few of the people who set out for a career in music will get there. But if that's what you want to do then go for it. There's no reason why you shouldn't.

As for being born with talent, I partly agree with that, partly don't. I think musicianship is something that some people have a better affinity for than others. There are "natural musicians" (several of the great composers we know today had little/no tuition). We can all learn music theory, performance, history, etc., and we can all improve, but there will always be people who are just natural musicians who the rest of us either can't touch, or who we have to work extremely hard to equal (it's sickening, I know ). But they're quite few and far between - for most of us it's a mixture of work and musical talent, in varying ratios.

Jas

[lilypiano]

I don't know if she was trying to imply that i didn't have talent, but it's bothering me.  She only heard me play a Chopin prelude last year and an etude.  I played the prelude well.  and I learned a Nocturne she learned the semester before, and I only started lessons again that year. 
maybe i'm just being paranoid.  She might have just been talking about herself, but she did give me a weird look. 
 I should be happy  the Russian said I'm musical, though. 

[rc]

I really don't believe in such a thing as innate musical talent, if anything they might have a natural affinity to music... An introverted personality, more likely to dwell in their heads, and have an easier time with being alone and learning how to play an instrument.

I've often been called musical by musicians and non-musicians, but I can tell you it's not something that just came to me. I put in a lot of practice and critical listening... But it didn't feel like work because I thouroughly enjoy it.

I've recently come across a very interesting notion of being process oriented vs outcome oriented. When your physics major friend said she wasn't good enough to keep doing it, that's outcome orientation, where she became more focused on the distant idea of a career playing piano and how much 'talent' it would take to get there, she psyched herself out and dropped it altogether.

Process oriented is more about enjoying what you're doing, the journey. You may have the goal of making your living in music, but even if that fails you'll still play because you simply enjoy it. Because you're enjoying the process, practice is no longer 'work' and you can't psyche yourself out, you're much more likely to reach your goal with this attitude.

Validation from others is great, but you're better off getting your drive from the inside, so many people are doubtful and would rather play it safe. It's one thing to have your own critical doubts, but another to let others give you doubt.

[m1469]

Well, I have nearly driven myself bananas trying to figure out what exactly talent is, and whether or not I had it, and whether or not I needed it to do what I love to do.  To be honest, the most important thing that has come from that particular search has been finding more out about myself, regardless of whether I have talent or not.

Ultimately, I think talent is best defineable as the sense of freedom and ease a person experiences within one's endeavors (and whatever that means to each individual at each moment in one's life).  And, I believe we ultimately decide this for ourselves (and it can be learned, too, btw).  When we see/hear somebody perform in such a way that they make something seem easy, and they look so comfortable at the piano, don't we usually think of them as "gifted" or "talented" ?  Again, I think it's this very sense of freedom that we are calling "talent", but I do not believe it is limited to a select number of people, per se.   I also don't think it is any more mystical and myterious than life in general is.   

The questions I would recommend people asking themselves are something like this : How much am I going to let other people's opinions -- be it good or bad-- govern me ?  How much am I going to let fear, doubt, anger, and apathy guide my way ?  Are these things freeing me or binding me ?

These things seemingly effect us in ridiculously pertinent ways.  We as individuals bring our individuality -- including our thoughts -- into everything that we do.  We cannot actually separate out a "piano self" and then the rest of our self.  And, whatever attitude we practice in daily living, we will rehearse at the piano, too. 

In my own experience, I have found that if I am generally concerned about how much talent I may or may not have, even if only subconsciously, that is there when I am practicing the piano too.  Furthermore, those worries are not just sitting there, but I am actually practicing and maintaining that very attitude of doubt and worry about my abilities along with practicing the piano.  And at some point a person starts to link those feelings to one's very piano abilities. 

But, if I practice feeling comfortable (a quality I relate to "freedom") at the keyboard (and anybody can do this at any level, btw -- and preferrably right from where you are currently at) that becomes my actual experience as I play.  And if I do this consistently enough, I begin to relate those feelings of comfort at the piano, with my piano abilities.  But this attitude must be practiced, just like everything else.  And perhaps for some people, this attitude is more easily attainable than it is for others.  Ultimately though, I believe it is a mental state for everybody.

Just my thoughts on this matter.

m1469

[ted]

There is a danger here, as in all our discussions concerning words of ambivalent meaning, that we all argue around in circles about semantics while the original poster's worries are not addressed.

I roughly concur with the others here in that the best course is just to forget about "talent", whatever meaning you ascribe to it,  and whether or not you think you possess it, and just simply pursue the study you love the most . Nobody has the right to tell you what you should or should not do in your music, even less so based on a vague concept liable to misinterpretation.  Whether or not you pursue music as a profession depends on very many external factors beyond your control. There are amateur players who have astounding musical insight and professionals who - well, less said the better.

But to stop studying, playing and, most importantly, enjoying your music on the basis of a meaningless remark ? I should hope not !

[m1469]

I will say that I have been reflecting a little on my post in this thread and since I had the opportunity to type it out, and think about it differently as a result of doing so, I of course find loopholes still.  The most obvious is that a person who doesn't always experience freedom with their endeavors is not necessarily "untalented" .

I agree with Ted, and probably it is best not to worry over these matters, and instead simply follow one's heart.  But, I will say that having thought a bit on a number of Lily's recent posts and concerns, I have found my viewpoint on some issues changing.  I will say that it is seemingly very difficult (at least for me, at this point in my life, admittedly) to let the issue of "talent" drop.  I suppose my thoughts on it above were something that gave me some needed peace on the matter  (which she did indeed open with wondering what it was), but since I have expressed them, that peace has somewhat left me and some things have haunted me.

I suppose that ideally we may just choose the things that matter to us and not worry about a label to give them.  But it is difficult, outright, to listen to people we respect and who seem like they have some kind of pull in our lives while they sit there and say "you just don't have what it takes" -- more or less.  And based on other things Lily has posted, I think that Lily is not just concerned about talent, but about whether or not she can build a life around something she loves -- and part of building that life seems to involve, at times (at least) the support if not outright help of others.

I will say that in matters of most endeavors, it seems easy to need permission from others who seem to have "made it" in order to feel as though we have a right to continue walking down our own path  (Man is this frustrating (!!!) typing this out).  The word "talented" within a certain endeavor, being used to describe one who is striving in that endeavor, seems like a green light to continue on whatever path they may be on.  It seems like necessary reassurance that we are going to be successful (and wants to promise much more than that, too... even happiness, fulfillment and whatever else).

I am going to stop typing now as I apparently still have issues, myself, with this subject. 



m1469

[franzliszt2]

Talent is the most essential thing needed to become a pianist!!, without it ypu'll never be a pianist, or anything in fact unless you have talent.

For example, perfect pitch , that is a gift, you are born with it, and cannot be developed, it can be developed to a degree, but never ever to the degree of a natural.

Talent is an in born ability to do somethoing that most people cannot do, or spend years developing. Have you ever heard any pianists who have played since they were six, and can play huge pieces, but...... most sound crap, mechanical renditions with no interest. Then you hear pianists like Richter, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Kissin, Lang Lang etc... withj amazing freshness and views that are convincing. Why are these people so famous? TALENT is why

[pianistimo]

maybe it depends on if you look at talent as 'money making' related talent.  the reality for most musicians (majoring in piano performance) is that they just won't have the career they thought they might.  too much intense competition. 

but, there are many 'successful' and 'talented' people that combine interests of music with something else to make a living.  i'm not saying it would be anyone's first choice - but to be realistic about a person's future means being assessed as to where you fit int he scheme of concert pianists.  if your teacher isn't saying 'green light, green light' - it doesn't mean you should quit.  but, maybe it means you shouldn't focus soley on concertizing on a grand scale.

there are so many fun things to do with music.  no one should be discouraged from continuing in music for the pure love of it.  there is much money to be made in basic recordings (amateur cd's), soloing for receptions, parties, weddings, funerals, whatever (and these are 250 - 400 or 500 dollars per event), accompanying, teaching, arranging music...

there's so much to do in the field of music.  you could even get into music history, write music critiques, musicology - and study some interest such as folk music or certain music or composer you're interested in, study instruments (making of or selling).  there's no limit on hard working people.  and, some that are told they have no talent can actually make it in the music scene by staying connected to musical people.  connections help you get gigs, which helps you practice, which helps you get better, which also helps you make money, which gives you a name, and which makes you business-wise, which makes you successful - and yet, your not really making the focus MONEY - but just enjoying music and using it as the majority of your career so that you can practice the necessary time to continue your journey of getting better.

for college students, i think a double major is a necessity.  take a foreign language double, or mathematics, or something that you like.  then you have a fall-back position and often at schools they look for teachers that can double up on subjects.

[tac-tics]

Then you hear pianists like Richter, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Kissin, Lang Lang etc... withj amazing freshness and views that are convincing. Why are these people so famous? TALENT is why

If they're so famous, why have I never heard of them X-D
Try reading the posts above. This is exactly the kind of thinking that will cause people to artificially limit themselves.

And besides, fame is not synonamous with skillful. The laws of popularity depend on so many other factors. But despite this, people continue to belive silly thoughts like this. William Shakespeare was not the greatest playright in history -- only the most reknowned one.

[mike_lang]

I think that you must have some level of natural aptitude.  Good fingers, a good ear are the obvious, but also a knack for mathematics, even spelling is helpful.  But hard work can bring one far - there are plenty of great pianists who were not child prodigies.  I.E., Richter.  Richter worked extremely hard during his years at the Moscow Conservatory, reading scores and practicing, and brought himself to his eventual level.

[m1469]

Hi again, Lily,

Here is the thing... at some point, people must learn to treat their own expectations of themselves as thee expectations they aim to live up to.   For the moment, I want to put aside the concept of entertainment with the art.

I have just remembered what finally snapped me out of wondering whether or not I had talent and what it is, and I just thought I would share it.  I realized that for me anyway, it was as though I was waiting for the green light from somebody else, as though I did need permission to do what I love.  But I realized that if I could live up to my own expectations with my pianistic/musical endeavors, I would be a happy musician.  The big thing about that was the switch from trying to live up to other people's expectations that I presumed they *might* have, to my own (and actually, my own expectations are likely much higher than anybody else's are for me).  And, perhaps part of what I have learned over the years is more about what, exactly, my own expectations are, as well as how to set somewhat realistic goals for myself -- that is important, btw.

I realized that all I needed to do was follow that (basically what people have already said in "do what you want").  AND, if you can do it, what does it matter whether or not it is considered "talent" if you love what you are doing ?  And who cares if it's "natural" or learned... fu fu and poopity poop on all of that stuffy business --    you are doing it, and that's what matters !! (Maybe those thoughts do not transfer how I actually felt when realizing that, but it was certainly liberating).  And then you can rip through something playing it exactly as you want (your own expectations of course may include accuracey and educated thoughts on style and so on) whenever you want and say "there !!  take that you doubtors and opinionators on my behalf !!"  ...he he. 

Anyway, perhaps you are feeling a little bombarded by all of these responses.  I will try to keep my "mouth" closed now (but it might not work... he he).


m1469

[gruffalo]

im not wise enough to debate on this idea, but what i find really weird is that i play a crap performance with lots of mistakes. i have done this several times and 1 out of the three i got a standing ovation (i think thats because i sang an extract from the Majic Flute  with it) and the other two performances, people kept coming up and telling me that i was very talented and not giving two cents for the other performers who played almost note perfect.

and my teacher, when i had a consultation to see whether he would accept me, the same thing happened. i played the piece with mistakes,but he tells me im great.

i dont understand what talent is, how it is defined, i just notice that since a young age people have taken a liking to me as a performer. it cant be my character and charisma (unless after the performance) because i am a nervous wreck before and during until i play the last note.

[maxy]

Talent exists, but yes, it can be compensated by hard work.  There is some twisted justice: to have huge talent does create some sort of problems.

[lilypiano]

well, I think talent is very hard to define.  Maybe in some ways talent  is found in the "ear of the listener."   Last year, my music history teacher said the head of the piano dept. at my school was a "bombastic" pianist after she gave a performance.  I didn't think she was.  She played some  loud, show off pieces, but she also played very sensitively and beautifully.  I think she plays as well as anyone, and that's what he had to say.  I don't think she would get discouraged.

[plunkyplink]

Perhaps musical talent is like photgenic-ness. For some reason, some people take a great photo. One is drawn to their image and it's pleasant to look at. Maybe when you hear a "talented" performer they're sound-genic, for some inexplicable reason they're pleasant to listen to.

[lilypiano]

I think a bad recording would be more analogous to a bad photo than the real sound of someone's playing.  I've gotten discouraged after listening to myself recorded on a cheap recorder.