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 mathematically; it's heavily dependent on one's given talent, environment, and age. I don't think anyone who starts at 20 can ever catch up with the greats.. especially in technique.

[opus10no2]

I disagree with that last statement for the simple fact that prodigies reach a plateau of mechanical development after around 15 years of playing, after which they will barely ever exceed, and only decline with old age.
With late starters, a mental grasp is quicker, but physical development must be worked at harder, because young hands develop faster because theyre forced to exert and extend twice the amount that larger hands are.

Anyway, I agree mostly with teresa_b's post above, but would also like to note that with the piano - the odds of a great are even lesser due to the fact that being a pianist one must be both a musician and an athlete of sorts.

Just like 'jocks' and 'nerds' are divided and have the disparate qualities of brain and braun, great pianists have to have both of those kind of qualities.

[danny elfboy]

Anyway, I agree mostly with teresa_b's post above, but would also like to note that with the piano - the odds of a great are even lesser due to the fact that being a pianist one must be both a musician and an athlete of sorts.

Why don't you stop spamming all the threads with this something; only one person (maybe another account you registered) still believe you have some sort of credibility or knowledge

As Bernhard, xvimby and others have said before DECLINING WITH AGE is the most evident hint of poor technique and playing with tension. Proper skeletal alignment and efficient muscle use doesn't result in declined playing even in older age. Why you keep ignoring basic anatomical facts like that the piano playing piano (not matter how strong you bang on it) is a stimulus so irrelevantly small that could never produce a stimulus of growth or hypertrophy for the muscles?

[opus10no2]

Constipation is a terrible affliction, I never thought I'd see such a case where the sufferer is so full of shti that it comes out of their own mouth .

I say with GIRTHY confidence, that I am a greater pianist than you, xvimby, and bernhard.

[danny elfboy]

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"?

Hogwash
Dexterity is not inborn but aquired
The difference between us mortals and the "gods" is mostly effort
I think the difference it's also one of "music sensitivity" but music sensitivity is something personal. That means that the difference in interpretation is universal. No one will ever interpret something in the same way another person does. It's like fingerprints. They're unique. And as such there's no worse or better, just uniqueness
There's no inherent dexterety, dexterety for it's very nature it's no something that can be inherent. We are all born with the same levels of mobility (minus grave diseases) and it's all aquired. Also all the "gods" you worship would have hated you for considering them special

Geniusness doesn't exist, there's no formal way to define it except the awe of superstitious people like you. And what we call "geniuses" just hate being considered such as it seemed to imply they were lucky and things came easily to them
I bet that if you stop the worshipping and try to learn more about your idols you'll see their levels of effort exceed by severan hundreds percent your own

And please don't criticize my posts when all you can do is vomiting a couple of lines with rhethorical questions and unbiased limited thoughts you would like us to consider "facts"

P.S

I suggest anyone to read the book "The Myth of the First Three Years" by John Bruer
John explains with details why the popular concept of the "critical period" hypothesis is flawed. The Critical Period hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis according to which the the younger you are the better you learn and condition your body. Even though this hypothesis have never been proven and have been debunked by lot of counterevidences it is still considered popularly a "fact" so that we believe that actually you must learn something before age XX before learning it properly
Only that is just a pseudoscientific hogwash with no basis in neurophysiological evidence

Piano schools and teachers are especially in love with this theory as it gives such a strong magical aura to what they do with young people but they just ignore what they believe to be true is scientific nonsense. The IQ and IQ test are too, but that's another story.

("Based on neuroscience, what can we tell parents about choosing a preschool for their children?" "Based on neuroscience, absolutely nothing")

[danny elfboy]

Constipation is a terrible affliction, I never thought I'd see such a case where the sufferer is so full of shti that it comes out of their own mouth .

I say with GIRTHY confidence, that I am a greater pianist than you, xvimby, and bernhard.

Yeah
That's why you trigger competitions with others and then fail to provide any evidence that you can play at all other than jerking off fast. I say with GIRTHY confidence that you're not an individual but a software virus that pianostreet webmasters haven't been able to remove yet. I know I'm talking with a hall bullshit distributor without a conscience and no nervous system; but a masochistic desire to ridicule himself.

[shoenberg3]

Hogwash
Dexterity is not inborn but aquired
The difference between us mortals and the "gods" is mostly effort
I think the difference it's also one of "music sensitivity" but music sensitivity is something personal. That means that the difference in interpretation is universal. No one will ever interpret something in the same way another person does. It's like fingerprints. They're unique. And as such there's no worse or better, just uniqueness
There's no inherent dexterety, dexterety for it's very nature it's no something that can be inherent. We are all born with the same levels of mobility (minus grave diseases) and it's all aquired. Also all the "gods" you worship would have hated you for considering them special

Geniusness doesn't exist, there's no formal way to define it except the awe of superstitious people like you. And what we call "geniuses" just hate being considered such as it seemed to imply they were lucky and things came easily to them
I bet that if you stop the worshipping and try to learn more about your idols you'll see their levels of effort exceed by severan hundreds percent your own

And please don't criticize my posts when all you can do is vomiting a couple of lines with rhethorical questions and unbiased limited thoughts you would like us to consider "facts"

P.S

I suggest anyone to read the book "The Myth of the First Three Years" by John Bruer
John explains with details why the popular concept of the "critical period" hypothesis is flawed. The Critical Period hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis according to which the the younger you are the better you learn and condition your body. Even though this hypothesis have never been proven and have been debunked by lot of counterevidences it is still considered popularly a "fact" so that we believe that actually you must learn something before age XX before learning it properly
Only that is just a pseudoscientific hogwash with no basis in neurophysiological evidence

Piano schools and teachers are especially in love with this theory as it gives such a strong magical aura to what they do with young people but they just ignore what they believe to be true is scientific nonsense. The IQ and IQ test are too, but that's another story.

("Based on neuroscience, what can we tell parents about choosing a preschool for their children?" "Based on neuroscience, absolutely nothing")

You live in a very comfortable world in which the results completely and infallibly reflect the amount of work you put. But any realist knows that is far from true. For one, the legends are hardly known to practice even approximately same amount as each other; some were practice hogs and some practiced no more than 2 hours a day. This alone should be enough evidence disproving your ridiculous claim. I personally know many pianists who are far more committed to piano than I am but are, somewhat objectively, inferior pianists.

[shoenberg3]

Hogwash
Dexterity is not inborn but aquired
The difference between us mortals and the "gods" is mostly effort
I think the difference it's also one of "music sensitivity" but music sensitivity is something personal. That means that the difference in interpretation is universal. No one will ever interpret something in the same way another person does. It's like fingerprints. They're unique. And as such there's no worse or better, just uniqueness
There's no inherent dexterety, dexterety for it's very nature it's no something that can be inherent. We are all born with the same levels of mobility (minus grave diseases) and it's all aquired. Also all the "gods" you worship would have hated you for considering them special

Geniusness doesn't exist, there's no formal way to define it except the awe of superstitious people like you. And what we call "geniuses" just hate being considered such as it seemed to imply they were lucky and things came easily to them
I bet that if you stop the worshipping and try to learn more about your idols you'll see their levels of effort exceed by severan hundreds percent your own

Damn man, the interpretations, sure, may be unique for each person, but the interpretations are not born equal. The young kid's "unique" interpretation is just as valid as the seasoned pianist's? If there can't be a somewhat objective assessment of a better interpretation, why are we bothering by listening to the legendary pianists?

Second, technique is certainly an acquired trait, but some acquire certain level inherently faster. And to a very high level, not many can attain it at all. 

"Geniousness" does not exist? Are you suggesting all humans have same amount of inherent abilities? Good grief! You are so naive.

[danny elfboy]

You live in a very comfortable world in which the results completely and infallibly reflect the amount of work you put. But any realist knows that is far from true. For one, the legends are hardly known to practice even approximately same amount as each other; some were practice hogs and some practiced no more than 2 hours a day. This alone should be enough evidence disproving your ridiculous claim. I personally know many pianists who are far more committed to piano than I am but are, somewhat objectively, inferior pianists.

I expressed myself in the wrong way
I too don't believe it is just so proportional to the effort
But you're wrong too into stating the difference is due to inborn characteristics

There's so many factors at play and clearly the ability at the piano is multifactorial
I don't believe in inborn predispositions (and never seen any scientific proof of them) but  I believe there are lot of factors which are impossible to control and judge that make each piano playing/learning path unique

For example when I was 4 I saw Fantasia by Walt Disney and got absolutely enchanted by it and kept watching it and even recorded the soundtrack after asking my father to buy me a mic. It's a rather small event but maybe if it wasn't for that movie I would have never "awaken" my music sensitivity and would have never started taking piano lessons

Education means ex-ducere; literally drawing out
Therefore educating is not introducing notions and ideas in the brain box but finding that experience that draws out what you have inside, that triggers the growth of something that remains in the embronial stage for many. I even accept that a mother listening to lot of music while pregnant and the fetus perceiving it may condition again the musicality of a person. Then of course a lot of factors determine whether you can grasp better the whole concept of harmonical and melodical construction hence making it easier for you to  learn new pieces. For example it is well known that what makes learning pieces very easy is "mindful practicing" rather than just X amount repetiting X piece over and over
But again the level of mindfulness is influenced by some many factors
One can even make a case for analytical thinking propension or analogical thinking propension. But again it is well known that developing one over the other is just a matter of life circumstances, choices, experiences and billions of external factors but it's not a matter of inborn tendencies. Desterety too is influenced by billions of factor
For example certain activities or sport or drawing may create the basis for making piano playing easy. No one know and no one will ever known. But again desterity if not unborn

There's a very good book by the genetists and biologist Lewontin (The Triple Helix) that make a case against the belief that genetics and inborn tendencies influence in a predictable manner our life. He makes the point that humans without the environment don't exist. There would be no human though processing or consciousness without an environment, if we just were born in the blank. But he also makes a case that it will always be impossible for science or any other field to observe and known the factors at play
Each factor influences another factor wich influences another factor which goes back to influence the first factor with creates new influence paths all over it.
We're talking about millions of billions of new/changing/transforming/mixing impulses and imputs per second worldwide. Even grasping the 1% of this would be impossible

The issue of nature vs. nurture is an old one and nurture won
It won because all the studies attempting to prove that there's a natural pattern in behavior, choice, skills, attitue always failed. Instead people kept reacting and changing according to their circumstances. It won also because the advance is sociological and anthropological studies have showed how there's nothing culturally universal.
Everything is indeed relative because even things that we give for granted like being male or being female and what it entails is culturally constructed and not universal
The biggest evidence is how the people that have completely different habits, though processing, role consciousness, ethics ... share with us an identical physiology and neurology.

[danny elfboy]

"Geniousness" does not exist? Are you suggesting all humans have same amount of inherent abilities? Good grief! You are so naive.

First of all I meant to say that there's no universally and scientifically accepted definition of geniusness. What is considered geniusness and what is considered a simple skill depends mostly on cultural bias

And I'm suggesting that anyone have the same inherent POTENTIAL but that such potential doesn't always translate in the same ability because of so many factors first of all choice. So I'm not suggesting that given the same potential two people following the same school would reach the same level. Because there are billions of factors at play (take my Fantasia example and imagine hundreds of alternative similar situations) and school can at most control an irrelevant fraction of them

But once you're alive it's rather useless to discuss what influences and triggers what since the way we interact and change with the environment and the circumstances that it presents is impossible to grasp anyway

So yes I believe we're all born with neutral identical potential but I don't believe same potential means same outcome. Of the billions of millions of factor influencing this I will point out 1 of them: choice. Better yet where you choose to direct your potential and why. But that's just the microscopic molecule of the tip of the tip of the iceberg

[term]

So yes I believe we're all born with neutral identical potential

Well, unless scientists can 100% eliminate the possibility that there is some predisposition for certain abilitys...

I don't believe same potential means same outcome.

I agree.

[danny elfboy]

Well, unless scientists can 100% eliminate the possibility that there is some predisposition for certain abilitys...

That only applies to sport where the kind of body you have also predispose you to certain sport choices and facilitate certain activities. There are no evidences at all that artistic and moto-coordinatory skills depends on inborn natural tendencies. In fact there are no evidences that tendencies are inborn and that we are not all neutral at the birth.
Any attempt to find the so called "artist gene" have been failed miserably and the book I quoted makes very good example of how bad science kept making bad propaganda and leading people to believe they knew facts and had answers that they didn't knew and hadn't

Actually even as far as the body is concerned there are way less evidences that body shape is inherent rather than aquired. For example new researches on the action of IGF-1 and HGH and the billions of factors that everyday influence it suggest even height is very little genetically determined and mostly environment determined. Not only the twin studies suggest this but also the worldwide height changes graph showing how both the amount of cartilage to turn into bone and the lenght of the period bones keep growing in length is determined by external factors not inherent ones

[danny elfboy]

  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.

To find out that you have talent for something you have never done or tried before means that you're just finding out that unawarely something has been conditioning you
I have it happening a lot of times in sport for example.
A newby in tennis is asked to show how he or she hits the ball with the racket and sometimes those who are watching can just comment "wow, you sure have a talent, you seem born a tennist"
What really is going on there is that other activities (or whatever other stimulatory factor) have subonciously/sub-awarely conditioned the person to be aware of correct movements of the arms and body of the flow of the hitting of the coordination of the eye

If it were possible to make a person resistant and proofed to all kind of stimulus and factors (let's imagine someone who can speak, talk and reason but that lives in an immense blank of nothing) you would not be able to detect any kind of "predisposition" in him or her.

[term]

There are no evidences at all that artistic and moto-coordinatory skills depends on inborn natural tendencies. In fact there are no evidences that tendencies are inborn and that we are not all neutral at the birth.

Yes i know, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. But this still needs research and just because by now scientists haven't found out doesn't mean something like that doesn't exist. What we believe doesn't matter, genetics is a large field and science is just at the beginning.

[danny elfboy]

Yes i know, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. But this still needs research and just because by now scientists haven't found out doesn't mean something like that doesn't exist. What we believe doesn't matter, genetics is a large field and science is just at the beginning.

But usually it works the opposite way
You believe in something because it has been proven, before that you didn't even consider the possibility and NOT you believe in something and wait for it to be proven
For example we know about vitamin B12 because it has been discovered and not because everyone believed there was a vitamin B12 and were waiting for its discovery 

[term]

Well your point is definitely not proven. How much evidence there is or not is another question (which i can't answer). I'm just putting it in perspective.
It is fact that science doesn't know everything (the opposite actually) about the role of genes and what information they contain, also not much about how the brain works and what happens when we learn something or create something (like a piece of music, for example).
Until now, no scientist would tell you it's 100% sure that talent for something can't be inherited.

As i said, i'm not saying you're wrong. But don't be too sure, there's still a lot of research needed.

[rc]

That's sort of where I'm coming from, right now we can't know either way.  We can speculate, and draw conclusions based on our observations.  Conventional wisdom isn't beyond question, it often does a 180 as stubborn individuals show what can be done.  I like Neuhaus quote "we have to attempt the impossible to find out what's possible".

So given the nature of the arguement, I choose to err on the side of optimism.

But I don't mind the debate.  Maybe somebody knows something I don't.  Certainly others could have more experience than innocent me.

[rc]

Better yet where you choose to direct your potential and why. But that's just the microscopic molecule of the tip of the tip of the iceberg

It took me a bit to go back and read over (your posts are long and sometimes I'm lazy )...  I think a better analogy for choice would be the steering wheel on a massive ship.  For the size of the ship, all it's parts, the variety of individuals in the crew, the passengers, all playing their roles, amidst an endless sea - we can turn the rudder this way, or that.  That is choice.

Amidst the ocean of unpredictable events, I would rather focus my attention on the one thing I can control.  Choice.

Thanks for the book recommendations btw!