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

[dima_76557]

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

Is admitting that this child has talent, aptitude, potential factually the same as personally discrediting him? How is that? For admission to certain musical institutions, it is a big plus. He was born "rich", and that is never a shame.

P.S.: He is the "product" of the Suzuki method, by the way, but not all Suzuki children, not even all children with the same kind of guidance as he receives get the same kind of results.

[outin]

I guess people with talent rarely recognize it in themselves, because they simply do not need to...It's just there, both helping in their smart work and letting them get results faster (not necessarily fast)  than someone who simply is not made well to play the piano. Of course there's no way to prove anything, because someone with very little talent would not keep on working until they reach higher levels, they just quit or stay where they are. A lot of people quit piano on various stages for various reasons. Lacking efficiency in some important mental/physial functions can be one of them. Even if possible, fixing something like this is not always realistic, considering that life requires more than just playing the piano. Could it be done if started early enough and be made a priority? To some level probably, but there might still be a disadvantage compared to those who did not need fixing to begin with. Science might find an answer one day, but it's really irrelevant at this point.

Is this a negative way of thinking? Not really, isn't it just great that one can play and enjoy the piano regardless of the level of talent? And if it happens to be there, more can happen. I don't think talent is something that is extremely rare. Talents can be easily wasted, but on the other hand, where would we be with all those virtuosos, if everyone with some talent would become one  
  

[dima_76557]

It's just there, both helping in their smart work and letting them get results faster (not necessarily fast)  than someone who simply is not made well to play the piano.

It is important to note that in the Suzuki method, the parents are very much involved as co-teachers. This factually means that the quality of the parents as teachers (how often do they happen to be really good teachers?) is partly responsible for both the quantity and the quality of the development. They learn together with the child, and of course, an adult has an other kind of perception than a child struggling on its own alone. They also don't have to move the keys themselves, so they are like the bystanders while others are playing a game of chess. If you are not involved yourself, you always see the best moves for somebody else.
P.S.: This is not meant to discredit Gavin, because I still think he is very talented.

[swagmaster420x]

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!

even assuming that every single person can achieve the same level of perceived intelligence, which seems highly impossible if u have any sense of awareness,

you still have to address the point that by virtue of genetic variation, every person is different. therefore, every person has different levels and kinds of talent.

[awesom_o]

P.S.: This is not meant to discredit Gavin, because I still think he is very talented.

I understand that you do not mean to discredit Gavin.

I'm saying you discredit him automatically, even if only slightly, by suggesting that his talent is what is responsible for his success.

It is his own deep understanding of the artistic methods, which is constantly changing and evolving as he grows. It is his own intelligence that enables him to play the piano so beautifully. His own ability to grow. He grew that ability to grow.

[dima_76557]

I'm saying you discredit him automatically, even if only slightly, by suggesting that his talent is what is responsible for his success.

I never said that talent alone is responsible for success. Ultimately, it's all about luck. That's what I said. There are many very gifted children who are not high achievers, not because they are lazy, but because the people surrounding them don't understand how gifted they really are and put them in standardized environments where they die spiritually. Their results on aptitude tests remain high forever, but the achievements at school and in society go down.

It is his own deep understanding of the artistic methods, which is constantly changing and evolving as he grows. It is his own intelligence that enables him to play the piano so beautifully. His own ability to grow. He grew that ability to grow.

Where does that "ABILITY" come from? Why are some born more "able" than others? We simply don't know. It just happens. We think that's unfair, that's why we try to justify it and credit ourselves for our own success with misguided theories. If you don't nurture talent properly, then it won't grow either. It's like the difference between investing money wisely or squandering it. The responsibility for that growth is on the ones who guide, never on the child. But the ones who guide may not have the means or the qualifications to guide the child as required. That is really a tragedy.

[outin]

His own ability to grow. He grew that ability to grow.

That is something you cannot know. You assume it because it is consistent with your belief system. It's not very rational because there's not much evidence supporting that assumption. But that's what people do so we end up with 8 pages of...this 

[j_menz]

There are many very gifted children who are not high achievers, not because they are lazy, but because the people surrounding them don't understand how gifted they really are and put them in standardized environments where they die spiritually. Their results on aptitude tests remain high forever, but the achievements at school and in society go down.

Of course, some of them go on to invent Relativity, tedium notwithstanding.

[dima_76557]

Of course, some of them go on to invent Relativity, tedium notwithstanding.

Some of them, yes. Others may become "successful" criminals too.

[j_menz]

Some of them, yes. Others may become "successful" criminals too.

How can we be sure, as surely a "successful" criminal is one that is not caught, and therefore not known as such. 

[outin]

How can we be sure, as surely a "successful" criminal is one that is not caught, and therefore not known as such. 

We might be one of them?

[dima_76557]

How can we be sure, as surely a "successful" criminal is one that is not caught, and therefore not known as such.  :-

I think hackers are a very good example of that type of criminals. Only few get caught. The ability you need to do what they do is more than the averagely intelligent programmer can chew. You can't learn that merely through hard/smart work. It is misguided/misused, but still enormous potential.
P.S.: Many of them are autistic too.

[awesom_o]

I think hackers are a very good example of that type of criminals. Only few get caught. The ability you need to do what they do is more than the averagely intelligent person can chew.

Not really... the basic premise of computer hacking isn't nearly as complicated as I thought it was. You don't have to be some weird math genius to do it. You just need to know your way around computers quite a bit better than the average person.

Anyone who studies computers will have a good understanding of how to do this. It's not exactly rocket science.

[dima_76557]

Not really... the basic premise of computer hacking isn't nearly as complicated as I thought it was. You don't have to be some weird math genius to do it. You just need to know your way around computers quite a bit better than the average person.

Anyone who studies computers will have a good understanding of how to do this. It's not exactly rocket science.

I think we are talking about different categories of hackers. Writing the most notorious viruses/worms/trojans/rootkits, for example, requires far more than average brains, really. It's the ones that use them that may be averagely stupid.

[faulty_damper]

A BBC Documentary about Intelligence: How Smart Are You? starring some famous names in their respective fields, including Susan Polgar, the world chess Grandmaster.  It also includes a part about IQ tests of children and then when they were in their 80's.  Some people of average IQ were able to gain significant points in their old age in part due to their occupation.  It concludes that what was thought about IQ is far more malleable than previously thought.  Various IQ measures are included, including EI, creativity, and kinesthetic, measures that are not part of traditional IQ tests.

There are some issues with some of the tests.  E.g. creativity is being confused with artistry.  Creativity is simply combining dislike things together.  Artistry is making things aesthetically pleasing, which may or may not be creative.

[pianodannn]

   Generally speaking IQ  has been shown to be fixed after the onset of adulthood.It is about 50% genetic in origin.The other half due to upbringing and other non genetic biological variations.By and large,individuals have little say over where their intellect ends up.Genetics are out of our control,nor do we choose our upbringing.So even though it's only 50% genetic, it still remains probably around 90% inherited one way or the other.As far as I am aware,no body has been able to reliably show an increase in IQ  for adults exposed to any kind of training regime.
   So can a less intelligent student learn piano as well as an intelligent one.Probably not.Intellect has been shown to be probably the best predictor of life outcomes in general.A less intelligent child is less likely to reach a whole range of milestones,and frankly hard work  often cannot  counter these inherited  disadvantages.It is entirely unrealistic to assume hard work is the main determiner of musical ability.Many of the hardest working students do very poorly compared to talented students with a much more lax attitude to their studies.The correlation between training hours and skill level is very loose at best.Also the effect of training technique I would say is exaggerated, and secondary to natural ability.

[outin]

   Generally speaking IQ  has been shown to be fixed after the onset of adulthood.It is about 50% genetic in origin.The other half due to upbringing and other non genetic biological variations.By and large,individuals have little say over where their intellect ends up.Genetics are out of our control,nor do we choose our upbringing.So even though it's only 50% genetic, it still remains probably around 90% inherited one way or the other.As far as I am aware,no body has been able to reliably show an increase in IQ  for adults exposed to any kind of training regime.
   So can a less intelligent student learn piano as well as an intelligent one.Probably not.Intellect has been shown to be probably the best predictor of life outcomes in general.A less intelligent child is less likely to reach a whole range of milestones,and frankly hard work  often cannot  counter these inherited  disadvantages.It is entirely unrealistic to assume hard work is the main determiner of musical ability.Many of the hardest working students do very poorly compared to talented students with a much more lax attitude to their studies.The correlation between training hours and skill level is very loose at best.Also the effect of training technique I would say is exaggerated, and secondary to natural ability.

Much of what you write above about IQ is 



And then you confuse talent with IQ, which do not necessarily coincide at all.

But I cannot disagree about your very last sentence!

[stevensk]

Much of what you write above about IQ is (bullshit) 

And then you confuse talent with IQ, which do not necessarily coincide at all.

But I cannot disagree about your very last sentence!

-No, not bullshit but it is questionable and under discuss

[outin]

-No, not bullshit but it is questionable and under discuss

I beg to disagree, some of it has absolutely no foundation at all. Especially the figures.

[stevensk]

I beg to disagree, some of it has absolutely no foundation at all. Especially the figures.

I agree to some extent, The statement "The correlation between training hours and skill level is very loose.." seems to be obvius false. -Otherwise we all should stop practise immediately.
On the other side, some students has extremely easy to learn playing and others (with the same motivation) has huge problems. That doesnt mean it has to do whith intelligence, rather some kind of mental ability.
Further, I have discovered that very skillful pianists and violinists often have other amazing abilitys (multilingualism etc). That suggests that it is something whith these pianists/violinists (yes, its an unscientific hypothesis, I know)

[outin]

I agree to some extent, The statement "The correlation between training hours and skill level is very loose.." seems to be obvius false. -Otherwise we all should stop practise immediately.
On the other side, some students has extremely easy to learn playing and others (with the same motivation) has huge problems. That doesnt mean it has to do whith intelligence, rather some kind of mental ability.
Further, I have discovered that very skillful pianists and violinists often have other amazing abilitys (multilingualism etc). That suggests that it is something whith these pianists/violinists (yes, its an unscientific hypothesis, I know)

It seems that we don't even disagree. If you read my post again, the button refers to IQ part of the quoted post

[bronnestam]

Well, interesting, this talent thing.

We have the traditional view: some are Talents, some are Big Talents, some are Lesser Talents and the rest are No Talents. (Bad luck if you happen to be one of those, ha ha ha.)
But we don't know what Talent is. It SEEMS to be the ability to learn a skill faster and with more ease than the average Jane Doe. Or ... maybe the ability to achieve better end results than the average Jane Doe? Maybe stamina, is that the same as Talent?

Obviously there is something we don't understand about ourselves. We don't understand where learning and mastery really come from, how it works, what kind of processes that are involved within ourselves. As we don't understand, we cannot define it, and so we helplessly shrug and say "well - it as about talent. Some have it, some don't have it."   

But you have of course heard the old saying by Henry Ford: "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right". These words of wisdom seem to prove themselves over and over, and still there are MANY who think this is rubbish. And still they prove this saying over and over again, by saying "I cannot" and look, they cannot ...

What if we imagine that "talent" really is an illusion, that there IS NOT SUCH THING AS TALENT. Period. Just in illusion, a model because we cannot explain the real mechanisms of learning. As we cannot explain them, learning tends to be a random activity. Some are lucky and push the right button quickly, then they learn quickly. Some are not that lucky. And we are lazy and explain it with "talent" and case closed. But if we say that there is no such thing as talent, we can start studying the mechanisms of learning instead, because we know THEY MUST BE THERE, as we don't have the magical explanation of "talent" to rely on.

It is also a well-known fact that once ONE person has achieved a certain goal, he or she will soon get followers. For many years it was said that is was not physically possible for any human being to run the English Mile faster than 4 minutes. No matter how hard everyone tried, they just could not break the "wall". It was like the speed of light, the final barrier.
1954 Roger Bannister managed to do it, after a long time of studies. Two months later the second guy did it too, John Landy who had claimed that the Dream Mile was a "Wall". And three years later, 16 other runners had done it too. The "final barrier" was just another psychological barrier. I believe most things in life are like that ... and that goes for piano playing as well.

I believe that if we tell piano students that there is no such thing as special talent, that it is perfectly normal to achieve this and that goal, most of them will make it. We are just too good in telling each other that "you don't have enough talent", or "you are too old" or "you are a bad sight reader" etcetera. And we believe what others tell us, we tell ourselves the same things. And the old saying by Henry Ford remains true: Whether you think you can or that you cannot, you are right.

(Personally I struggle with the idea "I am a bad sheet music memorizer" which I KNOW is rubbish as my memory in fact is very good. But still, it seems to be a conviction I have subconsciously.)

My mother, who is 76, does not like computers. She always curses them. She has got Online Bank now so that she can pay her bills online. And she struggles, struggles, struggles. Everything is hopeless with this #¤%& computer. She sits with her login procedures, she calls me and cries, because there is always something strange, some trouble, it is so HARD. She has been struggling with this thing for years by now. And she is a very sane and intelligent person, highly educated.

The other day my son, who now has turned 18, also got his Internet Bank. He has authism and he cannot cook a simple meal for his life, even though he has normal IQ and all that. I showed him the instructions, the login procedure IS in fact a bit complicated, and he got it in the fraction of a second and proceeded with his login like he had done it for years. I showed him an account excerpt, something he had never seen before, and explained how he should read it, and he instantly told me that I was reading it wrong. He was right ... 

My son is in no way smarter than my mother, and I don't think this is about age either, actually. It is about attitude, he belongs to the computer generation and nobody has ever told them that computer activities are difficult or strange. They don't have any psychological obstructions saying "this is so complicated, I am too old for this, I cannot learn this, my peers cannot do this either, you need special education to understand this" - on the contrary. But when it comes to cooking, then my mother is the master who can read and follow any complicated instruction, and my son is helpless. Suddenly he cannot read at all.

In the first case we like to explain this with the age thing, and in the second case we explain the opposite situation with the experience thing, and as you can see, this is illogical. It is all about mental attitude - whether you think you can or that you cannot.

So, if we take a certain skill, let's say piano playing, and claim that it is NOT difficult, that you do NOT need special "talents" to learn to do it well, that you do NOT have to be of a certain age - what will happen? Just speculating ... 
 

 

[stevensk]

OMG, Bronnestam! Where is the summary? 

[stevensk]

Ok Bronnestam, I think I agree whith you but, Whats the problem with the notion "Talent"? -That it varies between people? Or whithin a persons abilities? You have just stated that your son has a talent. For computors. That is not a criticism against the concept "Talent". -Its a justification.
Further, it is absolutely often negative to judge students as "talanted" and "less talanted" I agree completely!  But that does not undermine the concept.

[bronnestam]

OMG, Bronnestam! Where is the summary? 

I'm a novelist. Live with that.

[bronnestam]

Ok Bronnestam, I think I agree whith you but, Whats the problem with the notion "Talent"? -That it varies between people? Or whithin a persons abilities? You have just stated that your son has a talent. For computors. That is not a criticism against the concept "Talent". -Its a justification.
Further, it is absolutely often negative to judge students as "talanted" and "less talanted" I agree completely!  But that does not undermine the concept.

Well, I don't like the concept - or rather, I think we should question the existence of such a concept IF IT MEANS "level of ability that you are born with". To most people, "talent" seems to be a mysterious characteristic that you either have, or don't have, and that you cannot change.

I suggest that we should consider if talent is not an ability you can aquire, like other skills. How? Because "talent" might be just a lucky strike. You find the right button quickly, you push it, and you start to excel. Other people don't find the right button at once, they have to search for it and meanwhile they seem to struggle and learn slowly, and we say they don't have talent.

I don't say I know I'm right, but I want this to be considered as a possibility. If it is true, then we must study the talents carefully and see how they managed to get their fast and good results, because obviously they did something better than the rest of us. Something that we also can learn to do, and then we will also be talents.

The second part of my rambling above was about the fact that you often are just as talented as you think you are. Not as you SAY you are, because we all know these loud-mouthed guys who tell the world how good they are, even though we see that they are losers. But as you THINK you are.
Unfortunately you just cannot say "ok, then I will think I am a genious, see - am I a genious now, or what?"  This is about a very deep conviction which you probably got when you were very young, and it is quite hard to change it once it is established. But it is not impossible.

[stevensk]

Ok, so you accept the concept "talent" but reject the property people associate whith this concept. -You mentioned "Level of ability that you are born with". I agree completely whith that.
Besides, you say;  " you often are just as talented as you think you are". Im not sure about that. Talented people are (those I've met) often unaware of their talent. So, I query if talent has anything to do whith  self assessment or (what is it called?) self-awareness.
So, I doubt there are a positive correlation between an average persons talent and this persons estimated level of his/her talent. -There are sometimes a strong negative correlation but thats another discussion  

[pianodannn]

Much of what you write above about IQ is 



And then you confuse talent with IQ, which do not necessarily coincide at all.

But I cannot disagree about your very last sentence!

  I never mentioned talent in my post, so how did I confuse it with intelligence?
    And precisely what did I say about intellect that is "bullshit"? If you believe that, one can only conclude you have never studied the topic.

[pianodannn]

I beg to disagree, some of it has absolutely no foundation at all. Especially the figures.

 Precisely which figures are false?
   I only gave 2 figures.The 50% genetic heritability of intellect is now widely accepted.The 90% REAL heritability of intellect is a made up estimate, but lets face it.How much of your childhood did you really choose? I would hazard a guess and say probably none of it.So you don't get to choose your degree of nurture during the developing years that matter.After adulthood, nothing you do is going to greatly affect how smart you are.Sorry folks....

[pianodannn]

   Every one has their own idea of the definition of "Talent", and I don't see why it need be so complicated.If you're playing classical music to a professional standard within 6 months of touching a piano,your talented,end of discussion.And you'd be surprised just how many people have done this.Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that you need 10'000 hours to become good.his theories are now considered out the window.Frankly the guys a fool.There is no predictable amount of training required,deliberate or otherwise, to bring a randomly chosen person to some pre-determined skill level.It varies massively from one to the next,and training(both the type and amount)have been shown to account for no more than a third of factors influencing skill development.Some studies have estimated it as low as 10 or 15%.
  My employers 10 year old son started playing soccer last year.Prior to that,never had anything to do with a soccer ball.Within the first year of touching a soccer ball he is already getting eyed off by talent scouts because he plays better than 15 year olds who have been playing since they were 6.He's never had any special coaching, his father never even kicked a ball with him.It's just natural.You can't explain how these fast learners do it.It's just that x factor you can't explain.This is talent.And I don't see any point pretending it is some special strategy or attitude these people employ.It isn't.
  In my experience,pretty much all the people I have seen that were really good at any sport or instrument,developed very quickly.You will find most professional athletes or musicians were playing at a level defineable as "good" within 2 years of starting.Mastering may have taken years longer,but the idea that any of these pro's were battlers who struggled for years or decades is nonsense.

[pianodannn]

"Well, I don't like the concept - or rather, I think we should question the existence of such a concept IF IT MEANS "level of ability that you are born with". To most people, "talent" seems to be a mysterious characteristic that you either have, or don't have, and that you cannot change.

I suggest that we should consider if talent is not an ability you can aquire, like other skills. How? Because "talent" might be just a lucky strike. You find the right button quickly, you push it, and you start to excel. Other people don't find the right button at once, they have to search for it and meanwhile they seem to struggle and learn slowly, and we say they don't have talent."
   
    Realistically,you are not going to ever find or learn whatever talent is if you don't naturally have it.Whether inborn or not is irrelevant.It cannot be acquired through search.You either had it at birth or very early childhood,or your never going to have it.Study Talents as you might, you won't discover what makes them tick.There is very little about the human mind we actually know.Maybe in there somewhere is the answer,but finding it is like searching for a needle floating somewhere in the milky way galaxy.
    Through my own experience, I have more or less given up on the idea of chasing greatness in any pursuits via effort or persistence.It has become starkly clear to me that there are many factors outside of our control which determine outcomes for us.Whatever happens to me or anybody else in life,including our achievements, is as much due to luck,chance and circumstance as anything else.Even the degree to which we persist is ultimately determined by circumstance.It goes against what we are generally taught in the western world, but we are not actually in control of a great deal,and certainly not in control of whether we become fabulous at this or that.Ideally you should never gauge, judge or compare your abilities to those of others.Doing so is inviting tragedy.If you cant do something without considering how good you are at it, you are probably better off not doing it at all........

[stevensk]

"Realistically,you are not going to ever find or learn whatever talent is if you don't naturally have it."


-So no one can figure out if anyone have a talent?

-Or do you mean that no one can find out what the concept stands for?

[outin]

Precisely which figures are false?
   I only gave 2 figures.The 50% genetic heritability of intellect is now widely accepted.The 90% REAL heritability of intellect is a made up estimate, but lets face it.

Both. And there's no such widely accepted figure, because no-one who really understands genetics, biology and psychology would make such an estimate. Because depending on the individual the figure can be almost anything. Also the environments starts to affect the individual even before birth, so it's not even possible to precisely isolate the effects of genes.

[outin]

  I never mentioned talent in my post, so how did I confuse it with intelligence?

Here:
So can a less intelligent student learn piano as well as an intelligent one.Probably not.

   And precisely what did I say about intellect that is "bullshit"? If you believe that, one can only conclude you have never studied the topic.

It's not a matter of belief and actually I have studied it a lot.

All I am after is that if you state your opinions as facts, back them up on real science or even logic, not such figures with no foundation. I am not saying you're completely wrong in your assessment on what contributes to "talent".

[pianodannn]

Heritability

'When data across all studies are collapsed, genetic influences [on intelligence differences] account for around 50% of the variance'.11 Statements very similar to this may be found in many reviews, but the detail is more interesting.
 
   This quote was from Some Nature magazine.Wikipedia says there is a heritability of .7 or .8 for IQ.All studies comparing identical and non identical twins suggest a strong genetic contribution for IQ.Which ever way you look at it,the Heritability of IQ is very high.
  All I wanted to do is make the point that you cant just say "oh,I want to be smart, so ill go and work at such and such and become a brainiac", when in fact you can't really choose to be smart or dumb.You take the hand you are dealt in life and do the best you can.But as has already been mentioned by another contributor,life is not a level playing field.

[pianodannn]

"So can a less intelligent student learn piano as well as an intelligent one.Probably not."

   Even this statement does not refer to Talent.A person could be highly intelligent and still not be talented at some pursuit.Nonetheless they will usually be better at it than someone of lower intelligence.It is worth noting that very few concert pianists,and probably none of the great classical performers had average IQ level.All above average.Likewise, chances of succeeding at chess diminishes rapidly with falling IQ.An IQ of 80 equals no possibility of ever becoming grand Master.Even with an IQ of 100,you have very little chance of mastering it.Most masters around the 120 IQ mark.As unfair as it seems, less smart people just don't get as far in life.But that is natures way.That is natural selection.
 

[j_menz]

It is worth noting that very few concert pianists,and probably none of the great classical performers ....

... ever sat an IQ test. 

[outin]

   This quote was from Some Nature magazine.Wikipedia says ...

Do I need to say more? 

Anyway, the point is that high IQ (which I assume you mean with intelligence here) is only one factor contibuting to musical abilities. It's by no means necessary, since there are indeed people who don't have high IQ but can make music in a way that other people very much enjoy. There are countless of other human traits that are beneficial or necessary to success in that field. Those traits are affected by genes as well as environment. If you study genetics you will see that it's usually impossible to give even a very good estimate on what percentage, since very few such traits are governed by only one or two genes and as I said earlier, the environment starts it work almost immediately after fertilization. When a child is born it's genetic make-up has already been messed up by the environment.

So yes, genes are extremely important in our lives and IQ often affects one's success (the very best pianists are no doubt very intelligent as well), but neither are as straightforwardly important as you seem to think.

[pianodannn]

   Whatever the influence of genetics may be, and whatever the influence of environment may be, the key point is that some people have natural ability, and that natural ability is called talent.And I would say hard work and persistence are not sufficient to counter the advantage of natural ability, or talent.
   That fact that genetics have any influence at all means that one way or the other you are limited in what you can or can't do.You cannot get to some place without being in complete control of the vehicle which transports you.It's no good to have the accelerator and brake, if the steering wheel doesn't work.The steering wheel is analogous to your genes.It's no good controlling your environment,work ethic etc. when your genes are partly in control.Being in control of 2 out of 3 things still means your not going to get to where you intended to go............
   

[outin]

   Whatever the influence of genetics may be, and whatever the influence of environment may be, the key point is that some people have natural ability, and that natural ability is called talent.And I would say hard work and persistence are not sufficient to counter the advantage of natural ability, or talent.

   

And I completely agree with this.

But of course this does not mean it's not worth to try to some point, because it's not that easy to detect the axtual level of talent from the effect of other factors. It is not always presented in fast achievements, but sometimes it takes longer to unleash the talents. Also one may lack talent to become extremely good, but still become popular in what one does.

[perfect_playing]

A very interesting thread with lots of great thought-provoking responses. I haven't had time to wade through all these replies, but I look foward to doing so when I find the time.

I think someone is musically talented if their natural instincts, their gut instincts, on how a piece of music should be shaped/phrased coincide with a pretty good interpretation. Note the word "natural" and "gut". This is different to being "told" by someone that we should do "blahblahblah" to make it sound good, being able to come up with the idea ourselves is what's ultimately important. There's a lot more to the subject than this, but that's basically what I think.

[outin]

I think someone is musically talented if their natural instincts, their gut instincts, on how a piece of music should be shaped/phrased coincide with a pretty good interpretation. Note the word "natural" and "gut". This is different to being "told" by someone that we should do "blahblahblah" to make it sound good, being able to come up with the idea ourselves is what's ultimately important. 

My experience is that *musical* talent as decribed by you alone is not enough to be a good piano player. There's so much more to it...

[perfect_playing]

outin, I couldn't agree more. Having strong musical instincts is so important to playing the piano well (or really any musical instrument), but of course there's a lot more to it than that. It's just hard to describe and put into words.

[brocklanders]

...
I think someone is musically talented if their natural instincts, their gut instincts, on how a piece of music should be shaped/phrased coincide with a pretty good interpretation. Note the word "natural" and "gut". This is different to being "told" by someone that we should do "blahblahblah" to make it sound good, being able to come up with the idea ourselves is what's ultimately important. There's a lot more to the subject than this, but that's basically what I think.

Do you think it is something you have from the beginning or something that can develop over time?

[perfect_playing]

A bit of both. There are things we need to be told e.g. we may try a romantic interpretation of a Mozart/early Beethoven sonata and our teacher comes along and says: stop! why are you doing rubato excessively! play with clearer articulation! But I think it is important that we naturally do some things ourselves e.g. we phrase off at the end of a section without having to be told: "don't bump the end of the phrase!"

Sometimes we have to be told HOW to create the muscial images we have in mind. In my opinion, that shouldn't take away from our musical talent. Say you're playing a romantic melody and can hear it really well in your head, have all the right instincts, but don't have sufficient technique to play it legato and shape it appropriately. That doesn't take away from our talent as we simply need someone to come along and say: do this with your wrist and arms and fingers to connect the notes and control the sound.