Talent vs. effort

[pianowelsh]

I have met people who display really next to no talent atall for anything remotely musical, many average people and many above average talented people, Ive even had the privelidge to meet some exceptional toddlers who show amazing talent for music. I do not think it can be talent v effort ever.  Mozart and Mendelssohn would be two that would agree with me here. Both would conceed that they were born with more than a natural level of ability for music (and other subjects incidentally!) they acredited this to the benelovence of God. Which fits in with the concept of talent being 'given'. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept, this is simply the stance that many musicians of the passed and indeed even some today have.  Both Mozart and Mendelssohn would be the first however to show that they poured everything into developing their abilities. They in no way rested on their laurels. To quote from cinema classics they held to the principle with great power comes great responsibility. This is actually a much older philosophy which has its origins in religious texts and proverbs widely adhered to at the time...I will not go into them here as there is instant backlash for anything vaguely religious on this site however relevant so if you want to know more please as in PM.  They saw the measure of inborn talent (which includes genetic dispositions and inherited character traits) as something to be invested.  I think that we today benefit form their abundant outpourings because of this ethic that they held to.  One wonders what would have happened if they had been born into a typical european family today and had gone to a typical school and relied upon modern teaching straegies to furnish them with the requisite knowledge and just quite what we would have ended up with if instead of rising at 5 am to study french, latin, mathematics and practice intensively Mendelssohn had sat up on his playsation2 until 3 am and hoped to srcape by on GCSE music!  an interesting one to ponder.

[landru]

I have met people who display really next to no talent atall for anything remotely musical, many average people and many above average talented people, Ive even had the privelidge to meet some exceptional toddlers who show amazing talent for music. I do not think it can be talent v effort ever.

I have experience at both ends of the spectrum. I was a mathematical prodigy as a kid and ended up getting a astrophysics PhD. Mathematics was as easy as breathing, I did not have to work at it. Of course I did have to learn all the advanced concepts - it just took less time than a lot of people. It seems like a gift and a propensity that is part of me. And of course it was *really* hard to understand why it was difficult for people.

On the other end is my musical non-talent. I wasted 20 years at self-taught attempts to to learn the piano, oh the desire was there, but not any talent. I figured - hey, I taught myself the general theory of relativity, why not piano? Duh. I have been working for the past year with a teacher, but she would agree with me that I don't have any ability that I'm bringing to the piano - just the time I put into practice. And she has a hard time figuring out why some stuff is so difficult for me.

So I'm guessing my experience jibes with what a lot of people have said earlier. There is a certain innate "something" that some people have that makes certain things much easier for them - which is different than just applying your nose to the grindstone.

[opus10no2]

I have better octave technique than Sviatoslav Richter.

[pianowelsh]

Did you work at it or is it talent?? OR both - answer the question.

[rc]

Landru:

I was good at math too, not quite astrophysics good   But my teachers used to like me; I'd grasp the concepts immediately, write out the right answers then spend the rest of the class time helping my friends understand it.

Piano takes a different kind of thinking, the more athletically inclined mind might have an easier time navigating the keys.  With your strength in math, I'm guessing music theory is a breeze for you!

[leahcim]

I would just look at those same twins you mention as disproving the idea that "nature v nurture - nurture won"

Otherwise they would have stopped, because of lack of need, using identical twins for studies wouldn't they?

Of course, that there are plenty of other factors too, which is what the studies you mention may show, isn't in doubt.

That said, if there is something I can do that would make me good at piano I don't know what it is...I've done the more obvious things [i.e those that involve sitting at a piano or reading  / watching stuff about playing it] and they have failed.

I find it highly unlikely for you to suggest for 'nurture' that the things which may have triggered your musical interest are directly musical in that obvious way. It seems to me that lots of people go to piano lessons and hear music and have similar things like that happen to them, and their abilities and interests vary.

No, if nurture affects and the environment does it's job, then I would say that it must do so in a way that is infinitely more complex than something obvioius like the idea that my grandad farted in Bb a lot so I grew up to like a particular piece of music or to play the Saxophone well. It's too neat.

So it could be Where their pram was put? The weather? What they ate? The chemical composition of the water coming out the taps in their house? Illnesses they did / didn't get...and possibly a bazillion other seemingly unrelated things...stuff that to all intents and purposes would be chance or random.

The fact is, no matter how much I convince myself that I could have been the best pianist in the world if I'd wanted to be, it's not going to be true and it's not making me any better. Has 'nuture' stopped for me at 38? Why should it? I'm still existing in the environment, but what magic thing can I do to improve piano? It can't be 'play the piano' because like countless other people, all of whom are at different levels with different abilities, we're all doing those direct things, so what's the magic 'nuture' for outstanding tennis players, accountants or noble prize winning scientists?

From which I'd say that the 'nurture' argument, even if it were completely true, doesn't actually help you do anything, except perhaps some might feel better in themselves, moreso if they still fancy the idea that they can do something about it. At what point does that someone who isn't as good as Hamelin but carried on trying thinking that they could do something about it decide that 'nurture' has let them down too?

If you still can't create world class pianists or tennis players using 'nurture' more efficiently than currently, or if you can't create your kids so one is 5' 5", another is 6', the next 6' 5" and so on, so you can walk up them to reach the roof, then, imo, you've neither proven the nurture argument nor, more importantly, you haven't actually made it useful.

[pianowelsh]

Music really sorts people out! I have known phenominally talented people in other fields who have been completely stumped in music. It demands rigerous intellect, total creativity, physical coordination, dedication and perseverance.. It is a total art form.  It may be contreversial but I also believe their is a spiritual element in music which perhaps only a few take hold of.  Early civilisations recognised this although it has been down played in our current age.

[landru]

Landru:

I was good at math too, not quite astrophysics good   But my teachers used to like me; I'd grasp the concepts immediately, write out the right answers then spend the rest of the class time helping my friends understand it.

Piano takes a different kind of thinking, the more athletically inclined mind might have an easier time navigating the keys.  With your strength in math, I'm guessing music theory is a breeze for you!

Yes, piano is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I am athletically inclined as well, but it isn't the navigation or the dexterity that is most of the issue, I'm not clumsy - it's the putting the right fingers in the right place at the right time with the right touch. Which I guess is the whole point of music ain't it? I just ain't got it! Something innate that is hard for me to bridge between my brain and my fingers, as it is easy for other people. For instance, I can visualize how downward arpeggios with both hands (my current hell...) could be done easily, but I'm having a devil of a time...

Yes, music theory tends to be a cinch as it is just another system governed by numbers, rules and certain kinds of relationships.

[timothy42b]

For every piano student who becomes a virtuoso, there are a 1000 who practiced just as hard and didn't.

Doesn't that pretty much settle the argument? 

[counterpoint]

For every piano student who becomes a virtuoso, there are a 1000 who practiced just as hard and didn't.

Doesn't that pretty much settle the argument? 

That's another topic: "Effective practising methods vs endless hours of fruitless fingertraining"

[timothy42b]

That's another topic: "Effective practising methods vs endless hours of fruitless fingertraining"

I will grant you that a percentage of those thousand students likely practice inefficiently.  It may even be a large percentage.

However, if it were 90%, which I don't believe, we'd still have 100 students succeeding, and we don't. 

Nor is it a given that all the virtuoso's used the most efficient methods. 

[pianowelsh]

many of the virtuosos were hoplessly inefficient with their practice methods..some even dey practising atall. We really have no understanding of talent.  It is really inexplicable...for some people playing just seems to come more naturally than for others. That dosent mean the others are stupid in intellect or inefficient of clumsy.. in fact they can be extremely highly developed in all the above areas and still not display a profound talent for music.  I know at college there were some who would practice 10 hours a day to pass their exams and some who would practice 2 or 3 and learn pieces late in the term and get distinctions they werent cleverer than the rest, they werent athletically more able, they didnt even have more poetic sensibilities than the others...the only way you could define it would be a talent for learning music.  Now the interesting question is what we call musical talent because I would argue that everyone who got onto my college course had musical talent...yet some worked hard and some forund things a breeze..there are many different kinds of musical talent, learning notes, understanding musical intentions, being great analysts and decipheres of the scores, great technitions, you get some who have an amazing aural ability, others who are fanstasic improvisers and are very spontaneous, others who are highly methodical and can see clear progressions and order their learning very well.. there are many many more.  But we tend to prize only certain kinds of talent...mainly technical ability, profound aural skills, amazing depths of interpretation, and speed of learning notes!  but these are only certain types of talent...I think we miss so much potential in students by having blinkers on so we can only see the most obvious talents.  i really feel strongly that this needs addressing more in our teaching.

[shoenberg3]

If the virtuosos figured out the most effective practice methods, they ARE more talented. Further, since there is a discrepancy in that kind of talent, it is very likely that there is also difference in how talented people are with their fingers and interpretation.

[rc]

Yes, piano is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I am athletically inclined as well, but it isn't the navigation or the dexterity that is most of the issue, I'm not clumsy - it's the putting the right fingers in the right place at the right time with the right touch. Which I guess is the whole point of music ain't it? I just ain't got it! Something innate that is hard for me to bridge between my brain and my fingers, as it is easy for other people. For instance, I can visualize how downward arpeggios with both hands (my current hell...) could be done easily, but I'm having a devil of a time...

That sounds familiar, I can certainly relate to arpeggio frustrations!  I'm not sure how long I've been working on them, only recently do I feel that I'm beginning to get a handle on it.  Downwards used to give me a harder time as well (not just arpeggios but scales and nearly every figuration seemed harder descending).  It didn't make sense, since it was the same idea reversed.  I'm not sure if this will be useful to you as well, but it helped me when I realized I was looking at descending differently than ascending...  When I began to view descending as the mirror to ascending it became easier.  The difference is difficult to describe, but it was more like I approached it as 'ascending to the left' rather than descending, treating my LH as if it were my RH.

I've also heard it said that smaller hands have a harder time connecting the wider intervals of legato arpeggios, which makes sense, and is my case.

Anyways...

Looking back, I can see that I'm hopelessly stubborn on the issue and this discussion has no answer.  Just speaking for myself, in practice after a point the way I think of the playing is the main difference in the results, and is something that can be cultivated and controlled.  An example recently is when I focus on confidence I get better results more consistantly.  Thinking about the upcoming notes: how it sounds and feels when I hit it just right.  The better I can capture this in my head and feel sure that it will happen, the more likely it will come out perfectly.  I think it's these subtle things that make the difference.  Maybe some, for whatever reason, came by the mindsets naturally, but I believe that the rest of us can develop it just as well.

[landru]

That sounds familiar, I can certainly relate to arpeggio frustrations!  ...  When I began to view descending as the mirror to ascending it became easier.  The difference is difficult to describe, but it was more like I approached it as 'ascending to the left' rather than descending, treating my LH as if it were my RH.

I like that! An attitude of "ascending to the left" might just work, thanks!

[rc]

Your welcome

(Don't thank me until it works )

[matraveo]

To me, there is no such thing as talent. Nobody can be born the th inate abitlity to play or do anything without practicing. I practice between 30 mins to two hours a day and each time, i get better and better at a song.

There was never a time a could pick up a new song and just play away like a piano player. Though there are savants out there who can play like robots, and are somehow "born with it" most of use work are way up to where we are now.

practice makes perfect

[brewtality]

To me, there is no such thing as talent.

practice makes perfect

you're kidding right? I think what you mean by 'talent' is wrong, it is not the ability to perform perfectly from the off. I would say its the ability to learn and develop quicker (and to a greater extent) than others. Compare how much an amateur can accomplish in 30 mins to two hours versus what Gieseking would achieve in the same time. The difference is talent.

[danny elfboy]

you're kidding right? I think what you mean by 'talent' is wrong, it is not the ability to perform perfectly from the off. I would say its the ability to learn and develop quicker (and to a greater extent) than others. Compare how much an amateur can accomplish in 30 mins to two hours versus what Gieseking would achieve in the same time. The difference is talent.

No it's not.
The difference is concentration, analitical skills, memory, focus ... all things that are influenced and shaped by our experiences, choices, activities and things we're exposed to.

[shoenberg3]

No it's not.
The difference is concentration, analitical skills, memory, focus ... all things that are influenced and shaped by our experiences, choices, activities and things we're exposed to.

Then they have a mental talent. I suspect that they also have a physical talent, just as I can never become Michael Phelps.

[sevencircles]

There is a rumour going on that Volodos is  really lazy and his talent is a one in a billion gift compareable to Saint-Saens for instance

Anybody know more about it?

[brewtality]

No it's not.
The difference is concentration, analitical skills, memory, focus ... all things that are influenced and shaped by our experiences, choices, activities and things we're exposed to.

This will probably descend into a discussion over semantics. I think that attributes like superior concentration, analytical skills, memory, focus etc are manifestations of his innate ability to learn quicker etc, his 'talent'. I agree that obviously a person will gain much from experiences. Although even here, I think a more talented person will get more out of them. Perhaps my example was a bit oversimplified. The point I was driving at is that the reason that some people are better than others isn't just a matter of effort or just working 'smarter'. There is something else; I call it talent. Btw Hotaik is right about mental and physical talent. I could practise 10 hours a day for 20 years and still not be half the pianist Hamelin is. He is much more talented that me 

As to Volodos, I agree he is a phenomenal talent. But he’ll have to sight-read Tristan perfectly from the orchestral score before I put him in Saint-Saens' league.

[sevencircles]

As to Volodos, I agree he is a phenomenal talent. But he’ll have to sight-read Tristan perfectly from the orchestral score before I put him in Saint-Saens' league.

I am mostly talking about learning things in general (by ear for instance) and not sightreading in particular.

[rc]

The point I was driving at is that the reason that some people are better than others isn't just a matter of effort or just working 'smarter'. There is something else; I call it talent.

This is where the discussion becomes impossible, how can we know what goes on in a persons head?  Innate talent is just as good an explaination as concentration, memory, etc...  There's no way to test either theory, neither perspective can be measured.

The effort explaination is a more useful attitude for learning though, it implies that talent is something we can control and develop.   This optimistic belief in the possibilities makes focused practice appealing -> results -> more optimistic belief, a positive feedback loop.

Based on that alone, I've pretty much made up my mind what to believe in.  So long as the discussion remains so speculative, my faith is stubbornly rooted in the more useful idea.

[jakev2.0]

I have calcul8d that i am approximately 72 years (practicing 17 hours a day / 6 days a week / 12 months a year) - allowing for the deduction of an arbitrary constant denoting technical depreciation on account of age -  away from being as good at the piano as Josef Hofmann.

YAY NOBODY NEEDS TALENT AFTER ALL!!

[rc]

heh, you're too confident.

[danny elfboy]

This will probably descend into a discussion over semantics. I think that attributes like superior concentration, analytical skills, memory, focus etc are manifestations of his innate ability to learn quicker etc, his 'talent'. I agree that obviously a person will gain much from experiences. Although even here, I think a more talented person will get more out of them. Perhaps my example was a bit oversimplified.

I agree with you.
What I meant to say is that there no real evidence that "skils and talents" are genetics or inbord. They instead the product of what we're exposed too, our environment and our choices. But with that I even mean being the child of a mother who used to listen to music while you're in the womb. I agree there are predispositions, talent keener skills but they're the products of experiences, things we've been exposed too and so on building coordinative, analitic and neuroconnective foundations.