What is talent? How do you know you're musically talented?

[faulty_damper]

Yes, I shouldn't have introduced my own experience because that has a tendency to confuse the topic. Maybe you are willing to read this, coming from real, experienced, trainers?

Genes, innate ability and talent? Or practice makes perfect? Is it all in the training?

I read it and it's about the 10,000 hours topic and the criticism of it.  I actually agree with the criticism but I would have made the exact same criticism even before I read it.  However, the article doesn't actually support your point of view and it asks questions that we don't [yet] know the answers to.

[faulty_damper]

I am actually fed up a bit with all this "skills" and "evidence" talk and would like to give this thread another turn before we get to page 30 with our "yes-no - yes-no" game.

Here is my proposal: Talent is not just a bunch of skills; it is a state of mind that is not attainable for just anyone. ...

So now you want to change the definition of talent to avoid talking about it while still being under the guise of talking about talent?

[dima_76557]

I read it and it's about the 10,000 hours topic and the criticism of it.  I actually agree with the criticism but I would have made the exact same criticism even before I read it.  However, the article doesn't actually support your point of view and it asks questions that we don't [yet] know the answers to.

So now you want to change the definition of talent to avoid talking about it while still being under the guise of talking about talent?

To break out of this vicious circle, one simply has to admit that certain things exist.

In my previous post, I wrote about Instinct. There is no evidence that that exists either, but still: everybody knows from experience what we are talking about. Instinct is necessary to show "talent". But that alone is not enough. To show even more "talent", we need another 4 "i's": Imagination, Insight, Inspiration and Intuition. If you tell me how to develop those equally well in all people, I may give in. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of something does not mean that it doesn't exist.

[faulty_damper]

To break out of this vicious circle, one simply has to admit that certain things exist.

That's a really cheap cop out.  That's like the British columnist, Samantha Brick, who said "I know I'm beautiful because my daddy tells me so." Bwahaha! She's actually quite bland-looking and no amount of "daddy told me so" will make her beautiful.  https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/samantha-brick-know-m-beautiful-daddy-told-181029061.html

So while you're willing to admit that talent exists, I will wait until I see evidence of it that cannot be attributed to other variables (instruction, opportunities, environment, etc.)

In my previous post, I wrote about Instinct. There is no evidence that that exists either, but still: everybody knows from experience what we are talking about. Instinct is necessary to show "talent". But that alone is not enough. To show even more "talent", we need another 4 "i's": Imagination, Insight, Inspiration and Intuition. If you tell me how to develop those equally well in all people, I may give in. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of something does not mean that it doesn't exist

If by instinct you mean biologically ingrained behaviors, such as looking for food, sleep, sex, etc., then that is evidence.  However, no scientist would ever make a God argument; they would figure out a way to test it.

The only possible interpretation for talents' existence is in this idea: not everyone achieves the same things even if given the same circumstances and environment.  However, that doesn't mean that they were given the same circumstances and environment, it just means that the variables were far more specific than the researches could isolate.

[dima_76557]

If by instinct you mean biologically ingrained behaviors, such as looking for food, sleep, sex, etc., then that is evidence.  However, no scientist would ever make a God argument; they would figure out a way to test it.

By instinct I mean a person's ability to get rid of their EGO that often interferes in performance. To get to the state of the cat that falls from a height but always lands on its four. Most people have lost that and need to find it back to be able to perform successfully.

As a rule, most REAL child prodigies of all nations, of all races, of any cultural and/or economical environment (I am not talking about the many trained monkeys you can see on YouTube) don't have that problem. They just do what they do with a gut feeling and without thinking too much about distracting factors. Their focus is exactly right - on the subject only. This gives them an ENORMOUS headstart, and any competitors without that "instinct" have to struggle very, very hard and very, very long to even try and keep up with them, let alone surpass them. [Hard work by both on personal weaknesses is assumed, of course.]

The only tragedy here is that not all truly gifted people have equal chances to be recognized or to develop their gifts, which is a problem most "experts" prefer to close their eyes to. It is so much easier to say that talent doesn't exist and that everything is "hard work". The so-called "Hard work", though, is more often than not a matter of "Big Bucks" your parents have or don't have because you have to pay to get instructed really well, you will be required to travel a lot, which also costs money, you need a good instrument, study materials, balanced nutrition, etc. If you can't nurture your talent, you most likely won't "shine" later on either. In such an environment, it is indeed very likely that someone with more opportunities and less talent will eventually surpass someone with initially more talent but with fewer opportunities. "Talent" and "the path to success" are, unfortunately, not one and the same thing.

P.S.: You did not address the other 4 "i's" I wrote about and your writing merely expresses the wish to be right about your opinion. I did not introduce any God argument. Everybody knows that it's all about 99% hard work and 1% inspiration. That one percent is exactly what determines talent.

[karenvcruz]

in terms of talent, I do believe that when we were all kids - all of us had musical talent - we would all sing, dance, play an instrument or so.  We had the brain and hand coordination.  However, somewhere along the way, some situations either trigger us to continuously pursue developing our talent, or discourage us.

In my experience, I was labeled as a "gifted child" in terms of playing the piano since I could actully play a tune on the piano just by hearing them at 3.  My mom made me study piano lessons.  I see a musical instrument, I can actually play any of them... or so.  But there was one problem - I did not have the discipline and the focus ... I did not behave like other pianists who would be diligent and disciplined.  Hence, the gift got wasted.  Worse yet, I did not pursue music as a career, so eventually, the chances for displaying my talent or gift as a pianist faded.

One day, I witnessed a friend who others would have described as "having no talent in piano playing" and at 56 opted to suddenly study piano starting from the lowest grade level.  In 7 months time, I was startled to find her playing pieces which were considered intermediate such as a few Rachmaninoff preludes, and so on.  She had a spectacular gift though - being goal driven, being focused, and disciplined in practicing despite a heavy workload.

Inspired, and at 53, I decidd to go back to getting a professor who would help me see if I still had what it takes.  I am so glad at the results .... a great teacher who told me I still have it somehow made me go back to what the combination of talent, constant quality practice and discipline, extremely high interest to do it right and well, and listening to concert pianisits in youtube has tremendously helped. In 7 months, I have actually learned ten pieces - Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik piano version, Debussy three pieces from Suite Bergemasque, Beethoven Sonata Pathetique snd Moonlight Sonata, Chopin's Militaire Polonaise, Minute Waltz and .fantasie impromptu, Bach's Air in G and Siciliano, Beethoven Turkish March and Mozart Turkish March...

This is not meant to brag but to just reiterate that actually, talent may be overrated because while one has it, if it is not developed to its full potential - it would eventually fade ... in the other hand, if we combine this with the perseverance, passion and discipline, one can still find it at any age - young or old... and of course, finding the right teacher makes a world of a difference at least to ne in playing the piano.

[dima_76557]

@ karenvcruz

In what I write, I will assume for a moment that equal opportunities for everyone and in every respect really do exist.

Training a talent once it has been identified is not difficult; it's the correct labeling where most of the mistakes are made. Even if you label a child correctly, you still have one problem left: the child's openness to experience and to the PERSONAL learning and change that may follow. You CANNOT force that in any way, whatever you try. It's not necessarily discipline and focus as forms of will-power, you know. It helps a lot to just admit that people develop differently regardless of their training program. Intellectual, physical, and emotional development simply go at different rates in different people. They may also have certain limits in different people, however, and certain ratios of growth at certain ages simply work better than others. We have to keep that in mind, or the absolute workload will both kill the "talent" and hurt the child emotionally/psychologically.

The youngest chess-sister Judith Polgar, for example, was actually the most talented of the three as even her father now admits. Do you know why she was not as successful as she could have been at a certain age? It was certainly not a lack of discipline and the ability to focus; she worked night and day. She simply hated the analyzing that was involved (her father could not change that) and was always on the outlook for beauty in the game, which works against you on that level of playing (careless mistakes, etc.).

[awesom_o]

We'll never know 100% for sure, but I'm pretty convinced that 'talent' is a verb rather than a noun.

“The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity.”
                                                                             -Glenn Gould



It's that gradual, lifelong construction, the patience and dedication that it requires and brings. It's the old nature vs nurture debate. Only the most talented can really create that state of wonder and serenity.

They got there gradually, however.  By studying and practicing, and UNDERSTANDING what they were doing. No musician ever achieved anything great without ample amounts of both what we call 'talent' and 'hard work'.

Everyone tends to think about 'talent' as being a tangible, finite quality. In my two decades of musical study, I have yet to come upon what exactly that is. I've known many people in that time who I consider to be talented musicians, and many people who simply aren't.

In the cases of the talented, there were many different factors which all contributed to that person being a successful musician-often a highly musical family who valued a musical education for their children and kept it at the top of their priorities all throughout their children's lives.

I've seen many who I consider to be very talented indeed, but who simply came from families with little to no knowledge of music. As a result, said musical friend ended up with a poor teacher for too many years, started too late, didn't develop a fundamental positive attitude towards music or good practicing habits, had a bad set up (this matters so much on stringed instruments, which is my childhood background), etc. Didn't develop the confidence in their abilities at a young age. Weren't sufficiently exposed to music. Etc.

Likewise, though, I've seen many who I consider to be talented, who simply gave up. Quit way too early.


Ultimately though, can I really look back on any of these folks (other than the first category-the professional players) and say they had any real talent for music?

After all, the talented are the few who stick it out, never give up, persevere, through thick and thin, and emerge victoriously as masters of tone.


This has been an interesting thread. I'm concerned that the word talent tends to be used by lazy people who gave up and want an excuse to justify their lack of commitment. 'I was always pretty talented.... but blah blah blah blah' is something you often tend to hear.

Whereas if you hang with a lot of high-level professional players, they tend to just live the musical lifestyle and love it so much. They don't even talk about talent, or think about it. Good musicians know that music is all about cultivating good habits, dedicating time and energy to self-improvement, and that good results only come with years of sacrifice, good training, and ultimately experience.

My thoughts are conflicting on the matter, and I thank you all for bearing with me and reading my rambling.... Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc, were truly Genius, and had great and mysterious talent. Obviously not everyone can be as mighty as they were. But the problem with that is the second you start thinking you couldn't possibly be as talented as someone else, then you're probably right.......

[dima_76557]

@ awesom_o

After your inspired post, words are hard to find. I felt I had to give you this as an echo.

See how sincerely she enjoys it? You can't teach that to a child as a "skill". She has it, and let's hope she won't lose it.

[faulty_damper]

By instinct I mean a person's ability to get rid of their EGO that often interferes in performance.

By ego, you actually mean fear of judgement.

As a rule, most REAL child prodigies of all nations, of all races, of any cultural and/or economical environment... don't have that problem.

You have no evidence other than an assumption that they don't have a fear of judgement.

P.S.: You did not address the other 4 "i's" I wrote about and your writing merely expresses the wish to be right about your opinion. I did not introduce any God argument.

You can say the same thing about yourself.  However, my opinion is based on available evidence while yours is based on assumptions and biases.  FYI: I used to believe in talent, that some people are just more talented than others. But that's the culture I grew up in.  I no longer believe in this concept due to experiences that totally contradict it.

The God argument = just because there isn't any evidence for it's existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  In this context, there's no evidence of talent but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[faulty_damper]

Imagination, Insight, Inspiration and Intuition.

Imagination = forming mental pictures in your mind.
Insight = new understanding of a phenomenon
Inspiration = applying old new experiences to new ideas
Intuition = behavior that is learned from experiences

I'll address intuition since I've read some research on it.  Some research claimed that using intuition (gut feeling) leads to better decision-making.  Other research claimed that using it leads to poor decision-making.  How can it be both?  Recently, there was an experiment that attempted to solve this contradiction.  It turns out that experts make better decisions while laypersons make poor ones.  The difference between an expert and a layperson: knowledge, skill, and experience.  The higher the persons' expertise, the higher the probability that s/he will make correct decisions.  In another experiment, laypersons were trained in a task.  The result was that they increased the accuracy of their predictions.

In psychology, we call intuition "heuristic processing", the fast non-thinking behaviors that are shaped by experience.  Heuristic processing is a way to act without thinking because thinking takes too much time, energy, and effort.  Stereotypes and generalizations fall under this category.  If we did not generalize, we would spend an enormous amount of time acting like babies.

Now to complicate matters, there has been research about making generalizations.  Do you make better decisions by making generalizations or do you make better decisions by learning about each new thing?  The results, just like the research on intuition, was mixed.  And the research suggests that if the experiences that lead up to a generalization are accurate, then generalizations allow a person to make better decisions.  But if the experiences were inaccurate, the person will make poor decisions.

Now, apply all of this to piano playing.  Many teachers will make a general statement that adults are more difficult to teach than children.  I also agree with this based on my own experiences.  But why are adults more difficult to teach than children?  Probably due to the experiences that bias them into thinking that piano playing is something that it is not.  With children, they have limited experiences so are more open to filling their minds with new ones.

Now a person who grows up playing piano will think it is pretty easy.  But to others, it may seem like they are prodigies.  Just like some children in eastern european countries can speak five or more languages, but to monolinguals, that seems pretty astounding.

[dima_76557]

The God argument = just because there isn't any evidence for it's existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  In this context, there's no evidence of talent but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What choice do we have when we want to label something from our experience, but we have no other means to explain stuff that doesn't seem to pertain to the material world we know? Science is meant to explain and test things that *can* be tested. However, can it explain our perception through our SENSES? No, it can only guess, assume for things to be true to explain other things to be true. That's all we have to work with.

Can your "love" for your students, partner, etc. be tested and compared to the "love" of others for their students, partners, etc. in objective terms? Personally, I can only SENSE that what you do for them out of love/interest for them doesn't feel like a "sacrifice" for you, and I congratulate you on that trait, which far too few teachers seem to have. It is not objectively related to your skills or your student's skills, though. It is one of the most important manifestations of "talent".

Can "beauty" be tested and compared to other levels of "beauty"? Can "taste" be tested and proved to exist? If we start denying that there are things like "perception" that can also function as an explanation, then topics like this one are just meaningless. I think I have given a not too bad alternative context in which to explain talent, why SOME SUCCEED and MOST FAIL, and the "it's just skills" and "hard work" argument doesn't seem to cut it as an explanation.

[dima_76557]

The difference between an expert and a layperson: knowledge, skill, and experience.  

You completely bypass different intellectual, physical, and emotional development ratios in different people, as if that doesn't seem to exist. People are not robots that can simply be programmed in order to get X results. Not everybody is able to learn the right lessons from the same amount of experience. If they can't, then no amount of knowledge and skills is going to help them.

[faulty_damper]

Neuroscience has actually started answering the questions you posed.  Yes, we can measure the amount of input from the senses.  Yes, we can measure the amount of "love".  Yes, we can actually measure "beauty".

I think I have given a not too bad alternative context in which to explain talent, why SOME SUCCEED and MOST FAIL, and the "it's just skills" argument doesn't seem to cut it as an explanation.

You just wrote the title of a talent myth book:
Why Some People Succeed and Others Fail
https://www.amazon.com/Some-People-Succeed-Others-Fail/dp/0955578183

[dima_76557]

You just wrote the title of a talent myth book:
Why Some People Succeed and Others Fail

I am always ready to help, but in this case: I don't think so.
I wrote: why SOME succeed and MOST fail. If you can explain that, then I'll certainly buy your next book that confirms that talent may not be a myth after all.

[dima_76557]

FYI: I used to believe in talent, that some people are just more talented than others. But that's the culture I grew up in.  I no longer believe in this concept due to experiences that totally contradict it.

In that case, you may want to know that this attitude of nonrecognition can have certain unexpected consequences for a massive number of young and extraordinary people. Let's first define what a gifted child is. The generally accepted definition is as follows (the wording may vary):

a child or youth who performs at or shows the potential for performing at a remarkably high level of accomplishment when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment, and who
- exhibits high performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area;
- possesses an unusual capacity for leadership; or
- excels in a specific academic field.

Gifted People and their Problems - outline for a paper by the Belgian Phd Francis Heylighen. It's 2 web pages, and the research level seems more than adequate. If you deny they exist as a breed, then you are certainly not one who can help these people develop into the crème de la crème of your nation.

Commentary: Latin American schools are expelling gifted students
An unusual (talented people do not exist, right?) 16-year old with a psychology degree in his pocket and a medical degree upcoming relates his story about being expelled from school for simply challenging the stupid things the teachers in class were saying, for being underestimated by his own peers and by virtually everyone as a "troublemaker". Can you imagine what would have become of this person if the father hadn't been rich enough to educate him at home? That's what you get when educators relate everybody and everything to the standards of mediocrity.

I also found something about a girl being expelled from a school for highly gifted children because the "educators" labeled her as "too lazy". They simply couldn't even imagine that the girl's development ratio (balance between the intellectual, the physical, and the emotional) could have been "out of sync", enough to make her general rate of growth drop under that program. But that's exactly one of their most essential traits: the more gifted they are in certain fields, the more "out of sync" their development is likely to be.

EDIT: Instead of trying to find out who they really are, how much more convenient it is, though, to diagnose those "troublemakers" as "histrionic", "dysthymic", "cyclothymic", "borderline", "narcissistic", or to invent all sorts of more politically correct disorders for them like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) or ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).

[faulty_damper]

I wrote: why SOME succeed and MOST fail. If you can explain that, then I'll certainly buy your next book that confirms that talent may not be a myth after all.

Most fail?  Do you think most people think of themselves as failures?  In truth, very few people think of themselves that way; they are content at the level of achievement they attain.  Most people do not want to be the best at anything simply because most other people are not the best.  This is social learning.  Achieving well above or below the average is punished.  Alongside social policing, the average is what most people learn to be content with because they compare their performance in any field with others.  The people who do not make such comparisons are usually artists.  (I use this word loosely.)  These artists do things not primarily for the admiration of others but for their art.  They really couldn't care what others think as long as others have lower standards than their own.

If you want to raise the level of performance in any field, you must first support the factors that allow for this shift.  There are many factors that inhibit this shift (aka: maintaining the status quo) such as a culture of discrimination, lack of quality instruction, lack of resources, etc.  In America, as long as piano playing is considered a faggots instrument, very few boys will take it up.  Alongside this homophobic factor are economic ones such as the cost of a piano which is usually beyond the means of most families.  Add to these factors that music education is not a priority and usually gets cut during budget crises, the culture of music in America will continue to be a passive one fueled by consumerism instead of participation.  Art (music) is no longer being created by artists but manufactured by record companies.

[dima_76557]

Most fail?  Do you think most people think of themselves as failures?

That is not what I am saying. After the verb "fail" we can put certain verbs, for example: "to cause goosebumps in other people when they are on the stage performing". SOME can do that; MOST, however, fail. They may leave the audience indifferent, or will, as so often happens, just make many people's hair stand on end, which is an entirely different "skill".

If you want to raise the level of performance in any field, you must first support the factors that allow for this shift.

This is an approach that may work for the ones that need help to get up to average, to the standard. For example, you can test infants and make certain predictions about who is going to need help to develop up to the standard. That's all we have. The minute you set time frames and determine deadlines, though, you'll be in trouble with your scientific assumptions. We don't know what will happen to the infants that do really well on such tests. If we tell the parents the results, they may start influencing the development, which would spoil the experiment. The minute you set time frames and determine deadlines, though, you'll be in trouble anyway with your scientific assumptions.

What is necessary to get to a certain ABSOLUTE peak performance for anybody in any field is unknown. For example, even if you don't set time frames and/or deadlines, you cannot determine an absolute level of curiosity and neither can you determine an absolute level of commitment for everybody to get to the level of, say, Einstein. And even if you could (theoretically), can you impose that absolute level upon a person? Is it possible to tell a person they should "love" analyzing when they "hate" it? If they "hate" it, does that make them "lazy"?

[dima_76557]

Most people do not want to be the best at anything simply because most other people are not the best.  This is social learning.

I had to think a bit before replying to that post. In the context of the rest of your post, I would like to make the following comment. While I agree with most of what you say about circumstances, environment, etc., this does not actually pertain to the question of whether talent exists or not. We need to test that in the same environment and assume that the opportunities are equal for everybody, otherwise we will get nowhere.

If we assume for a moment that opportunities are equal, then we are left with the following problem:

There is a lot of "how-to" information available, but virtually none of it works. Why? Because people forget that in order to learn "skills", you FIRST need a certain foundation, i.e. your mindsets, philosophies that may either free you or block you. The positive guiding philosophies should be learned BEFORE we start practising "magic tricks", otherwise it may become impossible to go it all the way.

Isn't that actually why "talented" people usually hang out with each other? Isn't that why we should read as much as we can about great people we like to get an idea of how to become like them? It's not their skills that make them great, it's their attitude towards life and towards everything they do. Just a few examples to illustrate:

- Even if your teacher tells you that Czerny and finger exercises are "harmful" (preferably with "scientific" evidence) and you should avoid them like the plague, you can read that all the Greats (with the exception of some who simply don't want to admit they did them) went through them. Maybe they're worth a try anyway?

- Even if your teacher tells you that you should "listen to yourself", you may read about Adolf Henselt, Claudio Arrau, or about Georges Cziffra, who practised on silent keyboards. Maybe it's still worth a try if everything else fails and you know that you are already listening as hard as you can?

My personal conclusion: Part of "Talent" is mindsets, philosophies that may either free us or block us in our attempts at developing our potential.

EDIT. Thought I'd add this to make it all clear.

[karenvcruz]

"I'm concerned that the word talent tends to be used by lazy people who gave up and want an excuse to justify their lack of commitment. 'I was always pretty talented.... but blah blah blah blah' is something you often tend to hear. "

When I read this, the first reaction that came to my mind was "This is pretty much like me...". although in my case, I did not use talent as the excuse for lack of commitment.  I used it more as an excuse for justifiying why I didn't work hard as diligently as others.  I had the mistaken assumption, "With talent, I could just wing it and get away with it".  I guess when I was young at that time, As might be seen in other young people, "I thought discipline and practice were behaviors of rigid and old-fashioned people, and they needed more practice and more hours because they weren't as talented, and therefore, it did not apply to supposedly creative folks like me.  I realize this was plain youthful arrogance and didn't serve me well.

Now that I am much older, I realized the value of combining talent with perverance, quality practice,and passion ... and as one of you have mentioned here, also important is the stage of one's development in the skills or art.

[outin]

For me lack of talents (as perceived by me) never stopped me from working hard if I really WANTED to learn something...but I assume that lack of talents has often had an effect on my willingness to learn...

[dima_76557]

For me lack of talents (as perceived by me) never stopped me from working hard if I really WANTED to learn something...but I assume that lack of talents has often had an effect on my willingness to learn...

That is because "hard work" is merely a one-sided kind of fertilizer; it is not the plant itself with all its natural and unique features ("talents"?), and neither is it the soil you put the plant in. Before you start planting seeds, you need to make sure that the climate is right for the plant, that you prepare the soil adequately, and that you pick the right kind of fertilizer(s) for that sort of plant, or the results will be poor to very poor. If everything is just right, then you (as a parent, a Teacher, or a person responsible for his/her own development), need lots of attention and loving care too to help that "talent" grow, encourage the person when the going is tough, etc. The outcome, though, (in terms of size, beauty, harvest the plant will bring you, etc.) cannot be predicted adequately. Part of the unique features for that plant are determined by certain features of its ancestors.

[hfmadopter]

That is because "hard work" is merely a one-sided kind of fertilizer; it is not the plant itself with all its natural and unique features ("talents"?), and neither is it the soil you put the plant in. Before you start planting seeds, you need to make sure that the climate is right for the plant, that you prepare the soil adequately, and that you pick the right kind of fertilizer(s) for that sort of plant, or the results will be poor to very poor. If everything is just right, then you (as a parent, a Teacher, or a person responsible for his/her own development), need lots of attention and loving care too to help that "talent" grow, encourage the person when the going is tough, etc. The outcome, though, (in terms of size, beauty, harvest the plant will bring you, etc.) cannot be predicted adequately. Part of the unique features for that plant are determined by certain features of its ancestors.

My wife likes gardening too !!

[dima_76557]

My wife likes gardening too !!

Very happy to hear that!
P.S.: Maybe she likes horses too? In that case, I have another metaphor:
For hauling of heavy loads, plowing fields, and similar tasks, you pick a heavy, calm, patient, well-muscled draft horse, not a hot-blooded Arabian, which is more suitable for equestrian types of activities, endurance races, etc. How do you like that in the context of the talent issue?

[outin]

Very happy to hear that!
P.S.: Maybe she likes horses too? In that case, I have another metaphor:
For hauling of heavy loads, plowing fields, and similar tasks, you pick a heavy, calm, patient, well-muscled draft horse, not a hot-blooded Arabian, which is more suitable for equestrian types of activities, endurance races, etc. How do you like that in the context of the talent issue?

I kill all plants and I'm not that keen on horses either, would you have something about cats instead?

[dima_76557]

I kill all plants and I'm not that keen on horses either, would you have something about cats instead?

Oops. You got me! Can't think of anything right away (all cats are worthy of recognition), except that for a Black Cat Photo Contest, the cat should at least be... black.

[outin]

Oops. You got me! Can't think of anything right away (all cats are worthy of recognition), except that for a Black Cat Photo Contest, the cat should at least be... black.

Hmmm...I am struggling a bit to understand how that appeals to my talents...but I will try, thank you for offering us such deep wisdoms!

[dima_76557]

Hmmm...I am struggling a bit to understand how that appeals to my talents...but I will try, thank you for offering us such deep wisdoms!

If you need something that may apply to yourself, maybe you should have a look here:
https://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
Very nice site. A quote that is probably the most essential for training a cat:

The key to training a cat and understanding cat behavior is to make sure that whatever you want your cat to do is exceedingly rewarding and pleasurable. Whatever you don't want your cat to indulge in must never be rewarding or fun, in fact, it must be unpleasant.

By clicking the other links on that site, you will also learn that not all cats are equally trainable to do what you want them to do, which brings us back to the topic.

[maitea]

To deny that there is people who come to this world more "gifted" than others, is to be blind to the reality out there.

Whilst it is obvious that some sort of work has to be done to nurture any ability (predisposed in us or not), it is unquestionable that some kids have more natural capacity to absorb what is around them and show signs of what we then label as "talent".

From the very beginning in a child's development (before the age of 2), it is clear that some kids are able to distinguish colours, sounds, smells,as well as their motor skills earlier (time wise/according to age) than others and therefore some of them are able to develop cognitively much faster than others (language, memory, problem solving skills...)

Of course if this is not "enhanced" by the surrounding (parents, school etc) that initial predisposition for faster learning might not be further developed, or simply might be "latent" waiting for the children's/teenager's/adult's motivations to trigger their natural potential for a faster development and learning.

When someone speaks of talent for playing the piano, what is involved is a combination of  factors: hand-eye coordination, where some people are able to grasp very quickly, sometimes at the first try, the sequence of movements they need to achieve the task (playing a passage e.g.), a natural capacity to comprehend musical meaning (what is generally approached as being musical) and is basically having an empathy for the musical language as expressed in their respective culture. (We are as far as I'm concerned dealing at the moment with western tradition, and we have our "rules", minor key--> sad, dominat -->tension etc, this is and inherited tradition not a universal trait) and we could add the cognitive skills necessary to read and understand a score (in the case of the piano, even more complicated, with two clefs), which is a combination of other skills, but let's keep it simple.

Of course, one can come to the world with an excellent package of skills and never go to a piano lesson.. One can born with less good natural conditions, and be trained to be a very good pianist.. ! There is as many cases as people. One can overcome all hurdles or one can decide not to participate in the run.

Is there more than talent to play the piano? Of course. Work, which all can put on.

Can work alone create a good pianist? I would think that a competent one, yes. One that moves people, probably not. (Sensitivity and charisma- don't care weather labelled under talent or not, but are not achieved through work.)

I would love to live in a world where every child was born with equal facilities and social opportunities, but neither is true.

[dima_76557]

To deny that there is people who come to this world more "gifted" than others, is to be blind to the reality out there.

That's where science goes wrong every time: in making things so absolute and in using assumptions that cannot possibly hold, or in drawing conclusions that are simply not warranted. Although science is often a good tool against certain religious beliefs, the approach of some scientists is often very "religious" itself. Here is an example of science trying to "prove" that late starters most likely have fewer chances of becoming a virtuoso:
Can a late starter become a world class virtuoso? maybe not
Some experiments with white brain matter supposedly "prove" the case, but neuromotor potential as a given that is simply different in different people and is most probably the decisive factor in learning how to play an instrument really well, is simply ignored.

[outin]

If you need something that may apply to yourself, maybe you should have a look here:
https://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
Very nice site. A quote that is probably the most essential for training a cat:By clicking the other links on that site, you will also learn that not all cats are equally trainable to do what you want them to do, which brings us back to the topic.

So you think that will apply to me too?
I have trained a lot of cats (I have 8 at the moment) so maybe I should apply the same principles to myself?

[awesom_o]

Czerny had up to 8 cats living with him. Seems like he was the original crazy cat dude.

[outin]

Czerny had up to 8 cats living with him. Seems like he was the original crazy cat dude.

Really? Not that I know anything about him except his teaching...

Anyway, I've had up to 13... so I'm definitely the grazy cat woman 

[maitea]

I really want a cat!!! Moving to a new place, hopefully the landlord will let us have one..! Is good to know I can rely on pianostreet also for my future kitten-related-concerns

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Some experiments with white brain matter supposedly "prove" the case, but neuromotor potential as a given that is simply different in different people and is most probably the decisive factor in learning how to play an instrument really well, is simply ignored.

Both sides are science.

But anyways, if you're a late starter, let's say...  Around 20.  You probably do have a lower chance of becoming a world class virtuoso.  I mean, you probably have a job, or go to college, and hpyoure just don't have as much time to practice compared to a 5 year old where you have no responsibilities!  And also you have less time in terms of lifespan to become a virtuoso.  Given that you'll both die at the same age, that five year old has a solid 15 years of more life than you to get good!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

@ awesom_o

After your inspired post, words are hard to find. I felt I had to give you this as an echo.

See how sincerely she enjoys it? You can't teach that to a child as a "skill". She has it, and let's hope she won't lose it.

Lol I hope she loses it.  Less competition!

[maitea]

The five year old might turn into a wild teenager and stop playing altogether and the 20 year old might be very disciplined and catch up lost time and be a fantastic pianist.

In a way discipline is talent too

My only point is that I don't think we are all equal white canvases when we are born. But life can unfold in many ways, both good and bad to either talented or less talented people!

[dima_76557]

But anyways, if you're a late starter, let's say...  Around 20.  You probably do have a lower chance of becoming a world class virtuoso.  I mean, you probably have a job, or go to college, and hpyoure just don't have as much time to practice compared to a 5 year old where you have no responsibilities!  And also you have less time in terms of lifespan to become a virtuoso.  Given that you'll both die at the same age, that five year old has a solid 15 years of more life than you to get good!

Your arguments, although PARTLY valid, were not part of the scientific research.

In the report, it was simply assumed that ANY early-trained and ANY late-trained person can be compared in terms of what was NOT the focus of the research. This kind of flawed assumptions is something we should always be on the outlook for if we want to estimate the value of the research itself. If you negate that assumption, then you can undermine the conclusion.

[awesom_o]

Do you guys really think that particular Gnomenreigen is impressive?

What I see when I watch the video is a child trying to get around an extremely adult piece on an extremely adult piano! All kinds of difficulties are skimmed over, and there are many audible wrong notes. She struggles with the tempo in all manner of places. This really does sound sloppy to my ears. Maybe it's just me.

A talented child, undoubtedly.... but she would be better off playing music better suited to her age and abilities. What's next... Rachmaninoff Etudes?

If people want to spend money to hear this sort of playing, all the more power to them. There has always been a market for this sort of thing and there always will be.

It doesn't really tickle my pickle. Sadly there will soon be $$ for kindergartners and first graders singing Puccini and playing Rachmaninoff Concertos, even if it just isn't right.....

[dima_76557]

Do you guys really think that particular Gnomenreigen is impressive?

That was not my point.

A talented child, undoubtedly....

That was indeed my point. She is filled with PROMISE. Whether she will fulfil that promise depends on so many factors that it is impossible to predict what will happen to her.

[hfmadopter]

Very happy to hear that!
P.S.: Maybe she likes horses too? In that case, I have another metaphor:
For hauling of heavy loads, plowing fields, and similar tasks, you pick a heavy, calm, patient, well-muscled draft horse, not a hot-blooded Arabian, which is more suitable for equestrian types of activities, endurance races, etc. How do you like that in the context of the talent issue?

Oh, well I think,  or she thinks I'm that draft horse I think !

[hfmadopter]

So you think that will apply to me too?
I have trained a lot of cats (I have 8 at the moment) so maybe I should apply the same principles to myself?

No secret we have cats too ! At present we have 5 but have had up to 13 through litters etc. We raised Maine Coons for a while but now we have plain old Domestic Short Hair cats. I think my favorite cat of all my 63 years though was Sid. Sid was a Himalayan, super loving cat. Unfortunately had to be put down at 10 due to heart failure. Not that we don't love all our cats mind you !!

However, speaking of cats. It seems the streets of Philadelphia may not be very civil, where someone doused a 5 week old kitten in flammable liquid and set it loose ( on fire ) in the street. Rescued by a passer by who took it to a vet for treatment of 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The cat now is adopted. My wife just read this off the MSN homepage. There are sick sick people in this world. As disturbing as these stories are, they also are real. Sometimes there is a happy ending. https://now.msn.com/burned-kitten-is-recovering-well-in-philadelphia

[faulty_damper]

That was not my point.

That was indeed my point. She is filled with PROMISE. Whether she will fulfil that promise depends on so many factors that it is impossible to predict what will happen to her.

It was a pretty poor performance, I agree.  But to say that she has promise and then go back and say that other factors will likely affect her development is pretty much the point that I have been making.  I'm confident that most children in her situation would achieve the same thing.  She obviously comes from a money-capable family, a virtual requirement for such "talent" to shine considering the expense of lessons and the piano.  Add to this that she's cute which virtually guarantees social reinforcement so she'll feel motivated to continue.  The biggest downside I can foresee is when/if she will be in an environment where she'll start valuing the opinions of her peers who do not approve of such behavior.  But as long as other kids her age also do music lessons, she may receive that social reinforcement.

But that was a pretty crappy performance.  Someone is obviously telling her she's "great" when she's really crap.  This disconnect of performance and feedback will probably be her undoing.

[maitea]

"I'm  confident that most children in her situation would achieve the same thing".

I'm confident you have never been in a classroom (as a teacher) working with under 7 year olds.

[dima_76557]

It was a pretty poor performance, I agree.

I disagree. She was EIGHT in that clip, and I think she did much, much better than anyone who knows that piece might have expected at that age. She was even able to show some joy while performing and give at least something that went beyond mere key-pressing and note-playing. You cannot blame the child herself for the poor repertoire choice of those who guide her. Although the skills are not up to par (how could they be if even most adult players can't manage that piece?), she clearly showed she has talent.

But to say that she has promise and then go back and say that other factors will likely affect her development is pretty much the point that I have been making.

Those are not my words. I said she HAS talent, but that it is UNKNOWN what will become of her.

I'm confident that most children in her situation would achieve the same thing.

?

But that was a pretty crappy performance.  Someone is obviously telling her she's "great" when she's really crap.

 
That is an utterly unfair statement to make about an 8-year old child. You cannot measure children with the same parameters as you judge adults. By the way, she is now 12 already, and judging from her other YouTube video clips, she's doing not so badly as you suggest with better chosen repertoire. I deliberately used this clip to show that talent, promise, CAN be recognized, even if skills are not up to par, because one feature does not have as much to do with the other as you claim. Talented students in musical institutions are not chosen because of their "ready skills", but because they move the people in the jury somehow, or because they show a promise to be able to move them in the future.

This disconnect of performance and feedback will probably be her undoing.

Who knows? We'll see. I think many artists started as "crappy" prodigies, but some made it to the top. Would you rather she went through the same hell Lang Lang had gone through before he actually became somebody? To illustrate my words:

(Do or Die: Lang Lang's Story)

[faulty_damper]

So by your standards, cuteness or young age adds talent value/increases the perception of talent.  I don't agree with this but I know most people are fooled into thinking it.  By the same token, a 16yo is considered more talented than a 26yo?  What about a 56yo vs. a 66yo?  Is this related to why a blond is more talented than a brunette if both achieve the same thing?  Or a white kid is more talented than a Chinese kid?  Hmm... must be something about those Chinese genes or the brown hair genes that cause them to be talented, so anyone else must therefore be even more talented to achieve the same thing.

You make excuses to justify your idea of talent.  You even concede that the girl's skills are "not up to par" and then contradict yourself by praising her like she's some genius.  She isn't.  Being a child does not excuse poor behavior or poor performance.  "But she's just a child."

Play that recording without video and virtually all pianists will say that's a pretty poor performance.  But look, she's just a child!  Oh, WOW!  That was AMAZING! 

Talented students in musical institutions are not chosen because of their "ready skills", but because they move the people in the jury somehow, or because they show a promise to be able to move them in the future.

You've obviously never been to a music school.  That's why they hold auditions for admittance.  Professors don't choose students because they show "promise" but because they already possess the skills necessary to succeed. 

[dima_76557]

@ faulty_damper

- Exceptional time-effort-result ratio
- Ability to move, entertain an audience.

Those are the arguments I used because that's how they determine potential "winners", whether they're white, black, yellow, male, female, cute or not so cute, or whatever. Noteperfectedness is only a factor if an applicant has neither of the above.

EDIT: Another example to get away from cute little Chinese girls:
Within 2 and a half years, from scratch (he couldn't play the piano at all), Sam Rose already plays Chopin's ballade up to this level:

Even if it's not enough to win a competition with it, this is an exceptional achievement, and we can therefore say that this person has talent.

1) Had he been playing the piano for 20 years already, this wouldn't have impressed anyone (most probably the reverse)
2) Had he chosen to play Umi's piece and performed it at her level, it wouldn't have been forgiven because of his age. A certain age (say 12+) requires the person to take personal responsibility.

[faulty_damper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8C1f6Kzzo0
Even if it's not enough to win a competition with it, this is an exceptional achievement, and we can therefore say that this person has talent.

Now you're using two different definitions of talent: 1. something you're born with, 2. something you achieve. And then you mix the two like they are the same thing.  In this instance, you mean something that is achieved.

BTW, that's the amount of time it took for me to learn the piano at age 20 and then audition and be accepted at the music school at the local university.  I'm talented, I know!    Even if I was one of the worst pianists at the school, I eventually floored everyone.  I just needed really good instruction.

[dima_76557]

Now you're using two different definitions of talent: 1. something you're born with, 2. something you achieve. And then you mix the two like they are the same thing.  In this instance, you mean something that is achieved.

How is that? Who says Sam Rose was born without talent, disposition, aptitude for this kind of activity? The average person cannot achieve this from scratch and within two and a half years, even if he/she works 24/7 and has excellent guidance.

[faulty_damper]

How is that? Who says Sam Rose was born without talent, disposition, aptitude for this kind of activity? The average person cannot achieve this within two and a half years, even if he/she works 24/7 and has excellent guidance.

I beg to disagree.  The average person can achieve that, and more, if s/he had exceptional instruction.  This is why actors who have to play a role that requires playing piano take a crash course on it.  E.g. Saoirse Ronan in the film, Byzantium (2012), plays Beethoven's Op.2 No.3 Adagio movement on screen.  She plays it quite nicely.  It took her 12 weeks of lessons to do that.