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

[drazh]

Are you trolling?  Please use punctuation, capitalization, and proper grammar.

The truth in what you say is the exact opposite.  I won't go further, until I know you're not trolling.

dear faulty_damper
sorry for my bad english, infact it is not my first language even not my second.
why do you think it is a troll?

[faulty_damper]

dear faulty_damper
sorry for my bad english, infact it is not my first language even not my second.
why do you think it is a troll?

It seems like you were trolling because there wasn't any capitalization or punctuation which makes it difficult to read, and it didn't seem like you read the thread before posting what hasn't already been posted before.

[drazh]

He just misunerstood me probably due to my poor english
Anyway that was my opinion .
I am not a troller.

[faulty_damper]

I am not a troller.

I apologize for accusing you of being a troll.

[faulty_damper]

Here's a documentary called "My Brilliant Brain: Make Me A Genius" about how training trumps inborn talent.  It follows Susan Polgar, the first female chess grandmaster, from her early training to her later domination of chess.  Considering that chess is often considered a man's sport, the fact that she is female strongly suggests that it isn't a sex difference, but a learned one.

One thing I'd like to update about the documentary is the part about the fusiform face area, an area of the brain that is used for face recognition.  This area of the brain isn't just used to process faces but any kind of visual patterns that a person commonly recognizes.  So a car enthusiast would also process the recognition of various cars through this portion of the brain.  It also doesn't have to be trained when young as the documentary states.  Any person who recognizes familiar patterns will use this area of the brain.

It's an interesting documentary and includes a short interview with Anders Ericsson, one of the world's leading psychologists in memory who gave us much of the knowledge we have on memory, something that without it, talent would be impossible.

https://documentaryheaven.com/my-brilliant-brain-make-me-a-genius/

[mikeowski]

Considering that chess is often considered a man's sport, the fact that she is female strongly suggests that it isn't a sex difference, but a learned one.

Statistical relevance = 0

[dima_76557]

training trumps inborn talent.

I've got bad news for you: her younger sister Judith, who is widely considered MORE TALENTED outdid her elder sister Susan with less of the same kind of training, which proves that two children with the same training but with different levels of inborn talent will get different results. All things being equal, the one with more inborn talent gets further, which is what this topic is about - TALENT. It gives a headstart to those who have it in comparison with those who don't.

[awesom_o]

The more hardcore I train myself everyday, the more talented everyone seems to think I was born!!!

 

[dima_76557]

The more hardcore I train myself everyday, the more talented everyone seems to think I was born!!!

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I happen to know the Polgar story. It was chess night and day for BOTH girls. How much harder can one work than 24/7 with nothing else on your hands? They were even woken up from their sleep to suggest a solution to a difficult chess problem the father couldn't do himself. Still, the younger one, who is recognized by the chess experts as "more talented" (I don't know the parameters they used to determine this, but it must be something in the way she plays the game itself, not in her brain), got further than her elder sister and did that much faster.

[awesom_o]

But you cannot simply surmise that because a younger sibling outperformed the older in chess studies that some special magic mind sauce called 'talent' exists!

In many situations, when two siblings are both exposed to the same highly enriched learning environment, the younger one seems to achieve even more than the elder sibling.

Example: Mozart and Mendelssohn. 

In my own family, my older brother is a professional violinist. But he doesn't play jazz, improvise classically, compose, or play a second or third instrument. He's just really good at playing the violin.

Me, I play four different instruments, I play many different musical styles including jazz, and have composed a significant number of new works.

I don't have special magic brain sauce from God that my brother doesn't have. I just have a wider range of interests that I devote a huge amount of time towards.

He is also a well-rounded fellow, don't get me wrong. But he can only juggle three balls. I can juggle five. Again, not talent. I've just practiced juggling for hundreds and hundreds of hours, while he was on tour playing with the world's most famous conductors.

Because I don't have a performing career at the moment, I have  time to work on my golf game and study medieval martial arts. 

That's how life works. You only have a certain amount of learning resources. You have to spend them wisely, and learn to love what you learn.

[faulty_damper]

I've got bad news for you: her younger sister Judith, who is widely considered MORE TALENTED outdid her elder sister Susan with less of the same kind of training, which proves that two children with the same training but with different levels of inborn talent will get different results. All things being equal, the one with more inborn talent gets further, which is what this topic is about - TALENT. It gives a headstart to those who have it in comparison with those who don't.

Do you know why younger siblings tend to be more "talented" in the way you described?  Because they learn from their older siblings.  Think pidgen and creole.

[dima_76557]

But you cannot simply surmise that because a younger sibling outperformed the older in chess studies that some special magic mind sauce called 'talent' exists!

If not, then how do YOU explain the difference? The training method of complete and constant exposure was one and the same for both, much like the tiger mamas breathing into young pianists' necks. Judith went a lot faster in her development than her elder sister and also got further in rank. Neither of them made it to the top though, because to get there, you need a lot more than formal training. All the documentary proves is that with parent pressure applied (especially if one or both parents are specialists in the field they are training their child in), you can get more than average results.
P.S.: Polgar never proved he could get the same results with children that were not his own, so we cannot exclude the genetics factor either (he was an excellent chess player himself).

[dima_76557]

Do you know why younger siblings tend to be more "talented" in the way you described?  Because they learn from their older siblings.  Think pidgen and creole.

This does not explain Judith's approach to the game, which was quite different from Susan's, while it shouldn't have been if we follow your logic. Experts say that Judith was the "most talented" of the Polgar sisters. There must be another reason behind this than formal training.

[awesom_o]

You keep suggesting there's a magic sauce.

What if Judith simply reflected upon her games better and committed to not making the same errors of judgement more than once?

What if the elder sister had a slightly different attitude towards the game? Worked very hard, but didn't reflect upon her work enough to better understand her mistakes instead of repeating them in different ways?

'Formal training' is not a static force. Two people can have the exact same 'formal training' and yet have vastly different experiences and thus achieve very differing results.

[dima_76557]

You keep suggesting there's a magic sauce.

What if Judith simply reflected upon her games better and committed to not making the same errors of judgement more than once?

What if the elder sister had a slightly different attitude towards the game? Worked very hard, but didn't reflect upon her work enough to better understand her mistakes instead of repeating them in different ways?

So: difference in character, temperament, good (or bad) taste, approach, mindset. Aren't those manifestations of talent? I thought we already decided early on that not all people are able to learn the same lessons from the same type of experiences. Isn't that a manifestation of talent?

[awesom_o]

I thought we already decided early on that not all people are able to learn the same lessons from the same type of experiences. Isn't that a manifestation of talent?

Not necessarily. It could be merely the manifestation of a large number of contributing external factors, many of which could difficult to even identify individually let alone isolate and quantify.




 

Talented musicians work hard and they work smart.

It's really really easy to say Coltrane (or Horowitz, etc) is more talented then me, and then proceed to NOT practice 1/10th as hard as either of those guys practiced.

It's MUCH harder to say 'Neither Coltrane or Horowitz was born with more than one brain or ten fingers, so it stands to reason that if I work with my 10 fingers and my one brain as hard as they worked, I might achieve just as much as they achieved.'

....and then actually practice like they practiced for as long as they practiced and as cleverly and hard as they practiced!

It's just soooo much easier to talk about special magic talent sauce!

[dima_76557]

@ awesom_o

You'd better let me know whether you are playing your role as advocate of the Devil or whether you are really serious about what you write here. It seems to me you are talking merely about what is required for craft, not for art, and that makes me sad actually.

[awesom_o]

The only difference between craft and art is usually just opinion. 

An amateur classical pianist might spend six months working to memorize one piece. They will then play it in a public performance as well as they possibly can. They  use all of their mind, body, and soul to render the music as well as they can possibly render it.

Is this art?  Well, to the person playing it, who worked hard on it, it certainly counted as art.

To a far more advanced musician, it might appear to be only craft-and potentially containing enough aspects of poor craftsmanship as to display the supposed 'artist' as more of a dilettante than anything else.

For example, a professional jazz pianist might look upon that amateur classical player as being a real piece of work-thinking his or her little performance of a Chopin Ballade as being good art, when they don't even know what a bebop scale is and can't even play a basic 12-bar-blues.

That same amateur classical player might not like jazz, and view that professional jazzer's musical work as being just annoying noodling with harsh tone and predictable 'solos' over banal chord substitutions.

You speak as though you have an official knowledge of what separates art from craft. You can't separate art from craftsmanship.
Bad art=bad artistic craftsmanship.
Good artistic craftsmanship= good art.

Great art shows the greatest artistic craftsmanship.

[j_menz]

It seems to me you are talking merely about what is required for craft, not for art, and that makes me sad actually.

Exceptional craft is the prerequisite of exceptional art.

[faulty_damper]

This does not explain Judith's approach to the game, which was quite different from Susan's, while it shouldn't have been if we follow your logic. Experts say that Judith was the "most talented" of the Polgar sisters. There must be another reason behind this than formal training.

The reason is simple: they played against each other.  Playing against a better player makes you better.

In chess, there's no real thinking involved during actual play, just pattern recognition.  It's primarily during practice that thinking is involved to calculate the best possible moves and counter moves.  These patterns are just remembered.  So on a technical side, Judith probably had a larger memory of moves than her older sister, which would make sense since she didn't have to do as much of the work; she just memorized what her older sister did which freed up cognition for other new possibilities.  So Judith didnt have to reinvent the wheel.  She just hitched a ride on it and made a new set of wheels that were slightly better.

[dima_76557]

The only difference between craft and art is usually just opinion.  

Craft comes from what you do in the practice room. It is one of the prerequisites of art, but never art itself, because it is material.
Art comes from who you are and what you do outside the practice room. It is the spiritual, the divine.
P.S.: Scientists tell us that the spiritual and the divine don't exist. That's also probably why in contemporary concert halls, as a rule, all one can witness is the result of "hard work" and "training". Utterly boring. Lol but not lol.

[dima_76557]

@ faulty_damper

When you analyze her games, you will see that this simply CANNOT be an explanation. Hard work and good training without the required inborn talent cannot bring you to Judith's level. All people who want to get to that level work extremely hard without exception and most have exceptionally good training too, but still fail to get there.

[awesom_o]

Craft comes from what you do in the practice room. It is one of the prerequisites of art, but never art itself, because it is material.
Art comes from who you are and what you do outside the practice room. It is the spiritual, the divine.

I'm sorry, but this, to me, is just a bunch of unscientific, cliched nonsense. 'Craft comes from the fingers. From the hours in the practice room. Art comes from the feelings. From the passion. From the soul. From the stuff outside the practice room'

Beethoven was NOT a nice, spiritually mature man. 'Outside of the practice room' he was a monster.   Inside the practice room, he was the Master of the symphonic craft, and could improvise circles around anyone.

So, pretty much everything 'outside of the practice room' in Beethoven's life was a river of scheisse, and yet his music is as close to perfection as anything out there.

You see, to me, this proves that Beethoven wasn't born with anything special. He worked bloody hard to be the master of his craft. The glory he left us was a result of his hard work. Hard work didn't just give him the chops and then go away for the X factor to come in and turn it all into art.

[awesom_o]

So Judith didnt have to reinvent the wheel.  She just hitched a ride on it and made a new set of wheels that were slightly better.

 

[dima_76557]

I'm sorry, but this, to me, is just a bunch of unscientific, cliched nonsense.

I sincerely hope life and time will teach you the lesson you have to learn, and that as a result, you will sound much, much better than all those "hard workers" I see (most are not even worth listening to) in contemporary concert life.

Beethoven was NOT a nice, spiritually mature man. 'Outside of the practice room' he was a monster.   Inside the practice room, he was the Master of the symphonic craft, and could improvise circles around anyone.

This is not about being a nice person. It is about the CULTURAL baggage you have. Without that, your craft is merely an empty vessel that sounds very loud but has no real content.

[awesom_o]

  "hard workers" I see (most are not even worth listening to) in contemporary concert life.

Hard work is not really what we do at the piano. Of all the piano students I've known, some of the hardest workers were some of the worst musicians!

If you want hard work, I would highly recommend construction, landscaping, or some other menial job.  
Piano playing is all about working SMART, not hard.

My brother's old violin teacher used to tell him 'people who've been at work all week don't go to a concert to see you working hard! Make it seem easy!'

And this is perhaps the crux of the very issue we're discussing here. Some musicians work smarter than others.  I suppose we could call these the 'talented ones'.

Some musicians work too hard but not smart enough. I suppose we could call these ones 'less talented'.

[dima_76557]

Some musicians work too hard but not smart enough. I suppose we could call these ones 'less talented'.

You are still missing the mark. It is about immersing oneself in the cultural stuff that has seemingly nothing to do with the craft of piano playing and/or music making, but that still has an enormous impact on who you are as a UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL and artist. Think of what many Asian pianists lack, for example. I see them every day. Most of those I know work very hard and very smartly, but that is clearly not enough to be able to really say something at the instrument, to communicate with an audience.

[awesom_o]

It is about immersing oneself in the cultural stuff that has seemingly nothing to do with the craft of piano playing and/or music making, but that still has an enormous impact on who you are as a UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL and artist. Think of what many Asian pianists lack, for example. I see them every day. Most of those I know work very hard and very smartly, but that is clearly not enough to be able to really say something at the instrument, to communicate with an audience.

On this we totally agree. There is obviously much more to music than just the wiggling of fingers

I think there is a significant lack of classical music culture in Asia. Their orchestras are terrible. They boast no great composers. It seems piano is considered to be a sport. Lang Lang is the biggest star, because he plays the most pieces in the most places with the most right notes and the fastest tempos.  Not because he has a particularly individual style.

I wouldn't go so far, however, to say that there is a particular quality that many Asian pianists lack. There are many qualities that many pianists lack. I don't like stereotyping  Asian pianists in particular.

For me, I believe 'working smart' as a musician involves a spiritual dimension as well.
 
All that spiritual stuff is going to have to come out as some sort of finger wiggling though. It all boils down to finger wiggling in the end.

Thinking, and moving. That's all music is!

[j_menz]

Thinking, and moving. That's all music is!

I seem to recall sound being involved somewhere along the line....

[dima_76557]

I wouldn't go so far, however, to say that there is a particular quality that many Asian pianists lack. There are many qualities that many pianists lack. I don't like stereotyping  Asian pianists in particular.

Me neither, so let's try it from a different angle. Let's take humor. People of all ages and cultures respond to humor, but have a foreigner tell a joke before an American, Canadian, etc. audience, and chances are that nobody will laugh. If they laugh, the joke has to be extremely trivial and maybe the accent will sound funny, but the content of the joke itself doesn't "work". Besides, of the many native speakers of a certain language who REACT to good jokes, only few are able to tell a good joke themselves and make others laugh, even after extensive training in the craft of doing it. All you have to do while telling a joke is move your lips, right?

[swagmaster420x]

talent is definitely real, and im pretty sure a willingness to work hard counts as a talent in itself
you can tell whether a song sounds inspired or not pretty easily

[dima_76557]

talent is definitely real, and im pretty sure a willingness to work hard counts as a talent in itself

Yes, and so does patience when results don't come right away.
P.S.: Being patient is something Asians are very good at, by the way. The martial arts systems, for example, initially had only three belts: white, brown and black. Yellow, orange, green, and blue belts were especially invented for Westerners, who don't have that kind of patience to stay a "beginner" for too long and do what the Master tells them to do for years on end, and want to check results all the time. Trying to reap fruits of one's toil prematurely is one of the enemies of true craft/art, because doing that too often throws you back into an ever deeper downward spiral.

[awesom_o]

im pretty sure a willingness to work hard counts as a talent in itself

This is the only talent that I possess, and indeed, the only talent I believe exists for certain.

[dima_76557]

This is the only talent that I possess, and indeed, the only talent I believe exists for certain.

You must be lacking the willingness to work hard, otherwise you would have understood by now (7 pages already) that that isn't so.

Your philosophy is one of people that were born rich - the self-attribution fallacy; they credit themselves with outcomes for which they weren't responsible, and all the ones that are not rich are to blame themselves because they are simply "lazy".
P.S.: If hard work were the ONLY key, then all people in Asia and most women in Africa would be millionaires right now.

EDIT: FYI: If a student has certain minor but undiagnosed vestibular disorders, then this may affect his motoric capabilities at the keyboard, and all his smart and hard work may go down the drain until those disorders are properly addressed. The ones who were lucky enough not to have had such disorders should count their blessings first, and only then determine the rules for others.

[senanserat]

I will close this argument (for myself) with something I have discovered recently, as I cannot really say that I know if I am talented at least in this point in time, there is still much work to be done.

Glory lies beyond the horizon, and I challenge it because I know that I can’t reach it.

[dima_76557]

Glory lies beyond the horizon, and I challenge it because I know that I can’t reach it.

This sounds like the extreme and rather helpless reverse of the "hard work" fallacy. You can't possibly know in advance. If one is determined, but things don't work out, the only reasonable thing to do is consult with people who are supposed to know what can be done, and hope for their qualified help. Hard work is rarely a solution in itself. You may need someone who can open doors into new directions.

[ranniks]

Dima, your negative karma isn't good for my health, so I'll refrain from responding to your posts.

So this is something I just remembered: hours DO count!

I have proof for this.

If 'genius' is something real, then it isn't something that is possible for a large amount of people in comparison to the general population.

Yet you see all these child 'prodigies' on television. Simply put: it shouldn't be possible for all those children to be 'geniuses' or 'talented'. I think that they practise a lot of hours and that results in their beautiful performances.

This should be correct.

Example:

So this 9 year old plays 5-9 hours a day apparently. Yeah. If I were his age and played that many hours you bet I'll be as good if not better than he is. His mother even says 'there aren't enough hours in the day for him to learn'. A genius should be able to do all this amount in a shorter time.

What do you guys think? I did say 'should', but excuse me, that's not entirely correct, it's me trying to find logic in it. So when I say 'should' it isn't absolute.

[dima_76557]

Dima, your negative karma isn't good for my health, so I'll refrain from responding to your posts.

My karma has been far from negative since I got qualified help. I am just sharing experience to give other people hope: "Hard work helps only if all other conditions are right. If they're not, use your brain or other people's qualified hints, and do something about underlying problems that keep your from succeeding before struggling on." Don't you think that is positive?

[dima_76557]

Simply put: it shouldn't be possible for all those children to be 'geniuses' or 'talented'. I think that they practise a lot of hours and that results in their beautiful performances.

They are merely labeled as "talented" and "geniuses" by the media. Time will tell who they really are. For now, I get confirmed in my opinion that parent pressure gives more than average results. If they have loving parents with great care and understanding, and enough money to sponsor them, then they are just "lucky". Any other conclusions about that clip are beside the point of what this thread is about.

[faulty_damper]

They are merely labeled as "talented" and "geniuses" by the media. Time will tell who they really are. For now, I get confirmed in my opinion that parent pressure gives more than average results. If they have loving parents with great care and understanding, and enough money to sponsor them, then they are just "lucky". Any other conclusions about that clip are beside the point of what this thread is about.

Okay, I've refrained from doing this but I've had enough of this bullshit.  If YOU posted the video, YOU would claim that he's "talented".  But because someone else posted it as an argument against talent, you dismiss it as just hard work.  Puh-lease!

[dima_76557]

Okay, I've refrained from doing this but I've had enough of this bullshit.  If YOU posted the video, YOU would claim that he's "talented".  But because someone else posted it as an argument against talent, you dismiss it as just hard work.  Puh-lease!

Wrong conclusion of what I was trying to say. If what I posted a few pages earlier was labeled BS by you and others, then this must also be BS, right? We are all born equal and talent does not exist. Only hard work exists.

[awesom_o]

We are all born equal and talent does not exist. Only hard work exists.

Obviously some people die within a few hours of being born, some people are born with disabilities, and some people are born perfectly healthy.
So clearly we are not all born equal.


You seem confused about the work itself.

We do not measure musical work on an instrument in terms of hard or soft.

We use hard and soft as a guideline on how to boil eggs, or as a way of categorizing species of tree.

With musical work, we always measure in terms of the quality of the work itself, and the quantity of things that have been accomplished.  

I hope this clears things up a bit.

[dima_76557]

You seem confused about the work itself.

I am not in the least confused about that. I am confused about the fact that people who say they are teachers, psychologists/researchers are unable to distinguish between POTENTIAL (talent) and actual ACHIEVEMENTS (the results of hard work). Hence the sarcastic tone of my last couple of posts.

Here are the requirements for Juilliard. Part of it is achievement, part of it is potential, also called "talent". I know how such institutions recognize what they call "talent", but it is basically useless to discuss the parameters with a bunch of people who don't even believe talent exists. My question to you: Suppose you are asked to guide a young person to that institution, what do you do with number 3? How do you define that if you don't believe in it?

1. A serious commitment to music training and a career in music performance.
2. A potential for meeting the technical standards of Juilliard’s professional training program in the major field.
3. Exceptional talent and potential as a performer.
4. Broad and thoughtful interest in the world of music, including its historical traditions and contemporary trends.
5. A clear dedication to artistic excellence and a desire to exercise artistic leadership.
6. A high level and quality of previous training and musicianship.
7. A capacity for sustained, disciplined practice.
8. Ability to sight-read music.
9. Personal maturity and a generosity of spirit essential to ensemble work.

[hfmadopter]

So this 9 year old plays 5-9 hours a day apparently. Yeah. If I were his age and played that many hours you bet I'll be as good if not better than he is. His mother even says 'there aren't enough hours in the day for him to learn'. A genius should be able to do all this amount in a shorter time.

What do you guys think? I did say 'should', but excuse me, that's not entirely correct, it's me trying to find logic in it. So when I say 'should' it isn't absolute.

The point of the mother is that Gavin learns so much in a day there aren't enough hours to learn more. He obviously absorbs music like a sponge but has to sleep at some point..

The kid can play the piano and naturally, relaxed in the process. If anyone thinks he isn't special, I just don't know how to address that. In fact it's not worth addressing.

[swagmaster420x]

talent, without a single shred of doubt in my mind, exists. it simply cannot possibly not exist.

if you are saying talent does not exist, then you are saying EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS THE SAME.

people are different; because they are different, inevitably they like different things, react to things in different ways, do things differently, etc. - some people are born leaders - talkative, good with words, mesh well with other people. this is a talent. all of this is talent.

if talent didnt exist, then everyone would have to be the same. but we know this to not be true - the only people with identical DNA are identical twins.

i also believe there is a special kind of talent that enables one to be good at whatever they do.
I guess you could call it a mindset, an instinct to do everything in the best way and an eye for what works. There are some people who are good at everything, because they always know what to do. It's an instinct that is not necessarily indicated by intelligence, but people with this instinct are definitely intelligent.

The bottom line is people are different. What good is hard work when someone's 10 hours of work cant achieve another person's 2 hours of work?

plus some people are just stupid

[dcstudio]

anyone who can truly answer that with any degree of non-biased response please let me know.  how do you know?  because you know.   

[drazh]

Have ever seen an idiot with talena?  no they  simply cant
Are all smart people have talent for music? no simply because they are not interested in music.

[awesom_o]

talent, without a single shred of doubt in my mind, exists. it simply cannot possibly not exist.


The bottom line is people are different. What good is hard work when someone's 10 hours of work cant achieve another person's 2 hours of work?

plus some people are just stupid

If I can achieve on the piano in two hours what it takes another person ten hours to achieve, then clearly my working methods are better. 

This proves only that I am smarter than that other person.

It does not prove that I was handed those methods on a silver platter.

In my experience, many 'less-talented' people waste their practice time by 'performing' their pieces over and over again, or by practicing the difficult spots with lots of mistakes, over and over again with a metronome.

The 'talented' people are those people who have figured out how to make their practice time really, really count. But so many would prefer to simply waste the time!

Ultimately, some people are just stupid. The piano hates stupid people. The piano can measure the quality of a person's thoughts. It can tell if your thoughts are bad and stupid! It'll sound horrible!

[dima_76557]

If I can achieve on the piano in two hours what it takes another person ten hours to achieve, then clearly my working methods are better.  

This proves only that I am smarter than that other person.

Can a 9-year old person (Gavin in this case) credit himself for his own "smartness", though? Is his "smartness" a deliberate decision he took when he was 5? The result of hard work, maybe? C'mon, awesom_o! You don't believe that yourself, do you?  

[awesom_o]

Can a 9-year old person (Gavin in this case) credit himself for his own "smartness", though? Is his "smartness" a deliberate decision? The result of hard work, maybe?? 

Again, hard and soft are both a type of boiled egg. The yolk is runny in a soft-boiled egg, and solid in a hard-boiled egg. I think it's 3 minutes for soft and 7 for hard, but I could be wrong, as I don't boil eggs often.

Gavin has clearly had an advantageous beginning, in the sense that he has a supportive family, a good teacher, and doesn't have to work in a sweatshop all day and therefore has time to devote to his studies.

By saying that his progress has come from an external source, e.g. 'talent' implies that he has had little involvement in the process, and therefore devalues his accomplishments.

This kid treats music in a very professional manner. He practices like it's his job, and most importantly, he has learned not to waste his practice time!

Anyone can practice for long hours, and anyone can learn how not to waste their practice time.  Most people are too busy living in their thoughts to play the piano.

This kid lives in the moment. But I guarantee he has learned all of the skills he has. He did not have them when he was 3 or 4 years old.

Let's not discredit this child any further by saying that his behaviour has no connection with his progress. It obviously does.