talent and motivation

[jeff]

just want to present some ideas about and discuss these two things.. i decided they both belong in the same thread because they're quite interrelated.


Firstly, how do you define talent?
to me it seems like most people think talent is some mysterious inexplicable force which you either have or don't have. i've heard people go a little further towards explaining it, pinning it down to "hard work", and i'd agree that hard work is part of it - in the sense that those "talented" people do really work to achieve what they do. but, i think this is far from the bottom line..
what motivates a talented person to work hard? interest. i think interest is the base of 'talent' (of course, we could try to firgure out what an interest in something actually is, why some people have a seemingly innate interest in and understanding of music, and why others have the same feelings for mathematics, writing, or whatever... but i'm too lazy to go that deep at the moment).

at this point, i want to make a point about the difference between an interest in something (for example, playing a certain passage of a piece with great evenness and clarity) as an idea in the intellect, and interest in something as an experience. i'll give a couple of examples to help explain what i mean...

to quote dangerousd from a thread he started recently:

"I very rarely master any pieces as I am bascally too lazy.  Rather then concentrate on say 3 / 4 pieces I tend to play bits of pretty much anything, very rarely that well.  I find myself sitting at the piano just sightreading random music rather than working on set pieces.  

I dont seem to have the motivation to finish the piece.

I also never memorise pieces and would strugle to memorise a short passage.  I always need music in front of me.

Ive been playing the piano for about 14 years...
 
I was just wondering if anyone else had similar problems, and could tell me how the overcame this....

I want to change!!!!!!!! "


obviously, dangerousd doesn't have a teacher, so he hasn't had someone to motivate him to do the neccessary work. he's just spent 14 years doing what he actually has the desire to do.
He says he wants "to change". what does he really mean by that? Why does he want to change? The way i see it, he is more interested in the idea of changing (possibly for the consequences that might result - e.g. fame/fortune, or whatever), rather than the actual experience of changing.


my second example:

i've always been the type of person who leaves things to the last minute (school work, general tasks, etc), and from time to time i've thought to myself "ok, from now on, i'll change, i'll get things done early and be organised". This has never happened. i have expressed the desire to change and be organised, but it's never happened. why? why? WHY??? because i don't really want to change. i like the experience of being lazy and leaving things until it's almost too late (except for the part where my parents get annoyed with me, and i perform more poorly than i could if was organised.. ).


Now an example of a person whom no-one would deny was very "talented": Richter. one quality of richter's playing is the extremely detailed "perfection" of it. In that documentary, Richter: The Enigma, he himself said that he was a perfectionist. He had a strong desire to make his playing "perfect", to experience that perfection.. not because that would impress his audiences or his teacher, or because that would make him a successful concert pianist. He wanted to achieve that perfection FOR HIMSELF. he just couldn't bear not to. he wasn't content with having things mediocre, or even just 'pretty good'.


On the other side of the coin: the 'untalented' don't have a constant desire for and focus on getting things really really good. so, they look for tricks they can use (slow practice, practising quietly, etc etc) to automatically improve their playing without having to think about it, or even really actually want it.
of course, you can be not really interested about the musical detail yourself, but be very disciplined and self-observant, and make sure that you do what you need to do to achieve the details that your teacher or audience wants, and end up being successful that way...
the difference between an 'untalented' person working in that way, and the way that a 'talented' person works, is that the talented person is more interested in the process, in the details, and is therefore more focussed on the right goals (because they are really interested in them), and so they don't have to make as much of a conscious effort to focus on these goals, and therefore don't have to work as "hard". However, the untalented person may (through the disciplined work/exploration/learning) develop an interest/appreciation for the details that they previously didn't really have a desire for.


so my final point is: should we firstly work on attaining a strong interest for the right things (e.g. achieving perfection in details, keeping your movements comfortable and efficient) rather than having to very consciously and logically figure out how to achieve those things? (not that that way of working is bad - i actually like that way of working) and can we actually develop the right kind of interest? can we make ourselves really be interested in perfecting every aspect of our music making, like the talented people such as richter?

[willcowskitz]

"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."
-- Thomas Edison

[bernhard]

I have just posted an answer to this problem (creating interest). Have a look here:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1087468817

Best wishes,
Bernhard.