Intelligence vs. Talent

[opus10no2]

To me, it seems there are thinkers and there are doers, musicians who think and analyze alot, and those who just go with the flow.

Which pianists strike you as intelligent? (or less so) and how does it effect their playing..

[dr suchong]

Intelligence is also a talent. If you refer to "intelligence" as the logical factor in thinking, then yes, some people naturally may be more inclined towards it.

Since music is primarily a sensory activity, it doesn't utilize logic as much as intuition. Those relying more on logic in musical performance would tend to stay as close as possible to the score, and abhor deviation. Those on the other spectrum, the more intuitive, would tend to deviate from the score and produce "original" interpretation.

[don largo]

What shape more perfect than that of a pear?

Arguing definitions of intelligence would be futile to the point of lending the appearance of lacking it entirely.

The "thinkers" vs "doers" argument recalls Mr. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence.  If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

I'm definitely going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that listening to music is more inherently sensory by nature than performing is.  Music may well be more "logical" than it is given credit for.  We could argue the possibility that music is mathematical by nature or that it is a phenomenon of physics and this would be as true as any artistic description of music.  Approaching music "intelligently" is not necessarily synonymous with lack of musicality or originality.  Conversely, "going with the flow" doesn't appear to guaranty superior interpretation in any way.  I think that what we must ask ourselves is what makes a pear so perfect in form.

Do you really believe that Beethoven is Beethoven because he just pulled it out of his hat?  No!  He clearly had an acute understanding of mathematics and physics whether it were on a conscious level or not.  Or take Satie who was a very studied composer, and yet, to many his work appears lacking in "logic."

How do you think that the six-year-old Claudio Arrau identified composers by looking at their sheet music?  By just going with the flow?  I think not.  He understood the logic of their music which he could then identify on the page or in the air.

[opus10no2]

Intelligence is also a talent.

Yes, the talent to which I refer though is musical, and also 'natural' physical facility at an instrument.

A hardworking thoughtful student with naturally slower fingers and an inferior aural cortex may be a lesser pianist than one to whom everything comes naturally.

I suppose this is a variant of the old nature vs. nurture debate.

[michel dvorsky]

Talent = f(Intelligence). f'(Intelligence) > 0

Ceteris paribus, smarter pianists have more talent for the piano. 

But musicianship comes from elsewhere, like experience, musical culture, personality.

[go12_3]

Talent is an inborn ability or aptitude to interpret music and technique, whereas intelligence is the power of knowing and understanding through experience and application of the musician.  Indeed, so if a musician is born with talent, it won't manifest until he is older in order to comprehend the notes and the mechianics in learning the score in front of him.  There are many of us that struggle to perfect our technique and interpretation in learning a piece which requires several hours or several years to attain that goal to a satisfactory level.  And that depends upon the musician. Others may dictate what he needs to learn through method, theory and so forth, but the ability to understand is up to him.  There are those that music is inborn, that it is a natural phenomenon, like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.  They had the intelligence to perform and comprehend the music they learned, plus they learned to compose at an early age in their lives.

What about being gifted;  those that are endowed with unusual talent?  They are the ones that music comes easier than to those that has to work in becoming a virtuoso.  Some of my piano students show a natural ability to understand what I instruct them, and I feel they are intelligent and when they play, the notes come out naturally-----the music comes from within.  Now, I don't know how or why some of my students seem to stand out in their playing, but I do know that the more they practice and become more skilled in technique, and etc, would they realize the potential as a fine musician into adulthood?  Not everyone is endowed with talent though.  It has to be nurtured.  And hopefully, the intelligence will recongnize that this "this is what I can do." 

To me intelligence is needed in order to achieve a talent.  I don't feel talent handed to someone that never worked on a skill to play any instrument.  Some have the ability to learn several instruments with no problem.  I learned to play the violin 8 years ago----never before in my life touched a violin, but when I first held it and learned to play through a good instructor, I was able to play at a more rapid rate because of my "musical background" of playing piano, vocal and guitar.  As michel dvorsky indicated in his thread:  musicianship also comes from experience, musical culture and personality. 

best wishes,

go12_3

[rc]

My little thought is that someone who thinks without doing maybe hasn't quite breached the habit of thinking in circles.

I think you're right 10/2 - whenever we get on the topic of 'talent', it's probably going to become 'nature vs nurture'

[ted]

I suggest that nobody other than the player (or improviser or composer) can reliably assess the proportion of reasoned and intuitive content in his or her own music. Or perhaps I had better rephrase it to say that I know I would not be able to tell for sure and I cannot immediately see how anyone else could.

I am not a professional player and I hardly ever play for people but when I do, listeners are invariably "certain" about all sorts of weird and wonderful assumptions, most of which are false. Sometimes they insist a completely spontaneous piece was not improvised and that I was "fooling" them. On other occasions I have played pieces I had thought out in great depth only to have the shallowness of my "improvisation" pointed out. The same effect is apparent, in a slightly  more subtle form, with interpretation.

Therefore, although the question is a good one and obviously must have an answer in each specific instance, I do not think that answer is observable or determinable by listeners, who by and large, through the nature of music, allow their brains to wander into all manner of imaginative conjecture. 

[weissenberg2]

Intelligence would probably enhance your understanding of the music (finding countermelodies and all) while talent is your ability as a musician (interpretation). From listening to Glenn Gould play; I would think he has no common sense.

[michel dvorsky]

Intelligence would probably enhance your understanding of the music (finding countermelodies and all) while talent is your ability as a musician (interpretation). From listening to Glenn Gould play; I would think he has no common sense.

Glenn Gould had no common sense?

I'm glad he didn't have whatever you consider to be "common" sense.

[weissenberg2]

Glenn Gould had no common sense?

I'm glad he didn't have whatever you consider to be "common" sense.

not exactly, best words I can describe it.

[ramseytheii]

Talent = f(Intelligence). f'(Intelligence) > 0

Ceteris paribus, smarter pianists have more talent for the piano. 

But musicianship comes from elsewhere, like experience, musical culture, personality.

I have a feeling this is a wonderful post, but can you translate the formula and the Latin for us? 

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

Talent = f(Intelligence).  [Talent is a function of intelligence.]  f'(Intelligence) > 0 [Talent is increasing in intelligence.  Positive first derivative!]

Ceteris paribus, [Everything else equal] smarter pianists have more talent for the piano.

[boinky]

Talent is just the desire to practice 

[ramseytheii]

Talent = f(Intelligence).  [Talent is a function of intelligence.]  f'(Intelligence) > 0 [Talent is increasing in intelligence.  Positive first derivative!]

Ceteris paribus, [Everything else equal] smarter pianists have more talent for the piano.

I knew it was an excellent post!

Walter Ramsey

[m]

To me, it seems there are thinkers and there are doers, musicians who think and analyze alot, and those who just go with the flow.

I have to say, a lot of things tend to seem to you. Do you want to say that such "thinkers" as Schnabel, Richter, Gilels, Gould, etc. were not doers? Or do you want to say such "doers" as Hoffmann, Feinberg, Gieseking, etc. were not thinkers? Or you want to say, none of those had a talent?  Or else, do you want to say they were dummies with lotsa talent???
Out of curiosity, may I ask how in your mind intelligence and talent contradict each other?

M

[opus10no2]

They don't contradict, but they are seperate.

Ted gets it right with the reason/intuition thing.

Intelligence clearly has no major correlation with musical talent..but the point I was trying to bring up was the influence of intellect on the end result of a performer's art.

[theodore]

There is a passage,  in the Mozart opera  “Don Giovanni” ,  in which logical musical theorists were mulling over and concluding that the original copyists who wrote out these orchestral parts had made a series of sloppy mistakes.

Mozart wrote this orchestral progression of thematic figures and harmonies :  they  clashed with each other ,  were alarmingly dissonant,  and  also had no relation to any discernable key.  The libretto at this point was when Don Giovanni  had gone completely berserk.  Mozart knew exactly what he was doing but he didn’t tell anybody. 

Mozart readily abandoned logic and intelligence when there was reason for it not to be included in his compositions.  For instance,  he composed a cackling duet  in  “Magic Flute”  which is completely ridiculous but fits the situation brilliantly:

“ Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa  Papageno    etc…”

Theodore