\"\"
Piano Forum logo

Talent? (Read 5527 times)

Offline Tibor

  • PS Silver Member
  • Newbie
  • ***
  • Posts: 6
Talent?
« on: November 13, 2004, 08:47:44 AM »
When has someone talent for playing piano? When he can perform beautiful, he can play by ear, he can sight read very well, he has great technique... Can we say that someone has talent for piano and someone has not or everything can be learned? What do you think?

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5409
Re: Talent?
«Reply #1 on: November 13, 2004, 12:07:58 PM »
I think that most would agree that playing an instrument is much more disiplined work than talent. There of course are people who naturally can think musicially much more freely and efficiently than others, whether that is understanding tempo and volume control in all styles of playing or note/finger accuracy. But even they have to work at their music, if they didnt the talent would be nothing. Work has to be there no matter what.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.facebook.com/groups/348933611793249/

Offline Piazzo22

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Talent?
«Reply #2 on: November 13, 2004, 06:19:21 PM »
I think people descending from musicians are a little more talented than others.
Since talent is a "natural" facility to do something, it has to be hereditary.
But, really, I don´t think talent is a big facility, but only an insignificant push.
The real musician is not born. But it should have experiences since childhood.
August Förster (Löbau) owner.

Offline Brian Healey

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Talent?
«Reply #3 on: November 13, 2004, 08:51:57 PM »
Quote
I think people descending from musicians are a little more talented than others.
Since talent is a "natural" facility to do something, it has to be hereditary.
But, really, I don´t think talent is a big facility, but only an insignificant push.
The real musician is not born. But it should have experiences since childhood.

I think it has much to do with how early you are exposed to music, which you alluded to. If you've been around music all your life, you will have more of a tendency to think musically. I don't think the descendants of musicians are necessarily any more talented. If you have a parent that's a musician, you've probably been surrounded by music your entire life. Musicians will also naturally push their children toward music at an early age.

A child learns to speak not by getting lessons from a private teacher, but by hearing the parents use the language repeatedly as an infant. I think the same is true with music. Virtually all the great virtuoso musicians started playing an an incredibly young age. I think their skill is more a result of being exposed to the language of music for so long, and not necessarily anything technical. Just my opinion.

Offline hodi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 843
Re: Talent?
«Reply #4 on: November 13, 2004, 09:03:18 PM »
IMO to be a great pianist you need some very imporant things:

1. excellent coordination - i think that's something natural.. you either born with it or not

2. a good hearing

3. feeling of the right tempo

4. hands that can reach at least an octave (without making too much pressure on the hands)

5. creativity - for interpreting musical compsitions

6. a lot of hard work

7. some kind of talent. it's something abstract, i can't describe it.

8. and most of all, probably the most important one is to have a LOT of motivation

Offline monk

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: Talent?
«Reply #5 on: November 13, 2004, 11:02:54 PM »
Talent is INTEREST.

If you have real interest in playing beautifully, then you'll spend time with finding out how you can make tones sound beautiful.

If you have interest in playing by ear, you'll do that and eventually become proficient in it.

If you have interest in sightreading, you will do it every day and become a decent sightreader over time.

If you have interest in playing technically difficult things, you will find out how to do it and practice it.

If you don't do these things (or too little or too half-heartedly), then simply you have not enough interest in it. Probably you are admiring people and would like to be like them, but you don't have the energy to take the necessary steps to become like them. And you always have that excuse with "talent and no talent"! This is really only an excuse and a superstition.

There is a very good saying:

"If you want something, you try to find ways.
If you don't want something, you try to find reasons."

I really don't mean this personal! I don't want to call you "lazy" or so! But these are the facts. Anyone who's intelligent, who has real interest and who is willing to work (the will to work is caused by the interest) will become a decent musician.

Best Wishes,
Monk

Spatula

  • Guest
Re: Talent?
«Reply #6 on: November 13, 2004, 11:27:03 PM »
Read this interesting article on David Helfgott ... I'm not saying anything now.

http://www.denisdutton.com/helfgott.htm

Offline Sketchee

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Talent?
«Reply #7 on: November 14, 2004, 12:02:10 AM »
Say you had no natural ability to play the piano, but studied it all your life and became very good. People would probably hear your amazing playing and say you just "had talent" anyway.

Sometimes to me, it seems like a slap in the face to work hard and for people to just say all that hard work was just some effortless "talent".  I suppose the fun is to take that something hard and make it look easy and make the easy stuff look hard.  I suppose the thing that bugs me more about talent is when other people say they won't even try to be good at something because they don't have talent.  How do they know if they didn't try?

I think people confuse hard work, learning and talent, especially in the music field.  While one person is good at math and have a natural ability to learn it quickly, another would have studied much harder and had no talent for it.  We could be amazed by their brilliant math skills and both could be incredible career mathmeticians.  I don't think people would be as quick to assume it was just talent as they do with pianists.  We would know that they probably worked hard through many years of schooling and training.  In music and the arts, however, a natural gift is sometimes falsely assumed.

I once explained this to someone who came across my website.  They asked me "Who is Michaelangelo's teacher?  Who taught Mozart?  Who taught Liszt? No one because they just had the talent."  I told him that's not true and all studied with great professional teachers as did most all of the European greats.  (I looked up the names of teachers of many greats but I'm not going to do that now for this post :) )  Even those who had talent had to go through training and spent their lives perfecting their craft even further.
Sketchee
http://www.sketchee.com [Paintings. Music.]

Offline Sketchee

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Talent?
«Reply #8 on: November 14, 2004, 12:23:08 AM »
IMO to be a great pianist you need some very imporant things:

1. excellent coordination - i think that's something natural.. you either born with it or not

2. a good hearing

3. feeling of the right tempo

4. hands that can reach at least an octave (without making too much pressure on the hands)

5. creativity - for interpreting musical compsitions

6. a lot of hard work

7. some kind of talent. it's something abstract, i can't describe it.

8. and most of all, probably the most important one is to have a LOT of motivation

If you need all these things, most everyone on the forum might as well give up.  Most of us had coordination problems (In my case, I didn't even know how to walk when I was born. :( ). I'm not sure what you mean by good hearing but you certainly need to have some sense of hearing (it'd be very challenging if you're completely deaf, although you can become deaf later).  Learning to play in tempo can be learned with training, another use for the dreaded metronome.  If you can't reach an octave, there are pieces you can play.  They also make pianos with smaller keys.  I have a very old one that I've had since I was a child and it's keys are slightly less wide.  It's more common to see smaller versions of violins, cellos and other intstruments though.  Creativity is harder to define, but whatever sense of creativity you do have can be trained to apply to piano.

I'm not saying everyone can be Horowitz or the greatest pianist, but I think it's much harder to define who can and can't be with any simple criteria. If someone tries they're whole life to become a great concert pianist, has the greatest musical education with the masters of the time, studies the hardest and even then they aren't an incredible pianist then that person should definitely be studied. :D
Sketchee
http://www.sketchee.com [Paintings. Music.]

Offline hodi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 843
Re: Talent?
«Reply #9 on: November 14, 2004, 08:38:56 PM »
i didn't say you are naturally born with all the things i have mentioned... you can acquire most of them..

Offline Sketchee

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Talent?
«Reply #10 on: November 15, 2004, 03:26:31 AM »
True. Just clarifying that these are things that you need to GET not HAVE.  :)
Sketchee
http://www.sketchee.com [Paintings. Music.]

Offline rlefebvr

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: Talent?
«Reply #11 on: November 15, 2004, 03:46:15 AM »
I more or less disagree with a lot that is said here. You are going nowhere without talent. Period. I don't care how long and hard you practice.

HOWEVER, having talent does not make you a great pianist or anything else for that matter. Hard work, dedication and a lot of luck will determine the amount of success you have in any field.

Case in point. I play, my daughter plays.

I have no talent. My daughter reeks of it.
She catches on quickly. Her coordination, technique and anything else you can think of comes naturally and with little to no effort. I , on the other hand, have to work like a madman to get anywhere. It is never easy and it certainly is not natural.
Now comes the fun part. Who is the better and who is considered the better player?

I am. Not my daughter. Why? because I am dedicated and I simply love music and the piano. I spend hours trying to get better. The results are slow, but they are there and I can play ten times better then my daughter. My daughter plays for fun, but she is not dedicated and spends little time at the piano.

If she were to work as hard as I and be as dedicated however, she would surpass me to great lengths, because of her talent.

The question that is interesting is weather lack of talent should stop you from doing anything. What is more important in life. Doing something you hate, but have a certain degree of talent at or doing something you have no talent at, but simply enjoy. Society tells us to do the first, but is that really healthy. How may of us work at something we really do not enjoy or do not really love, but do it because the pay is great and we are good at it.

How many times have I heard people in this forum say " am I good enough to be a concert pianist." Even a pianist with little talent can play at churches and small gatherings, in malls, clubs. You name it. Do you stop yourself because you do not measure up to a "Monk" or do you say, the heck with it, I am going to play simply because this makes me happy. So a tomato is thrown at me from time to time. Does it really matter.

Sadly, real life, family and a need for comfort lead us to choose what is needed of us and most of us become closet performers, writers, mechanics, artists and we do what we enjoy when life permits us to do so. It is at those moments we are most content and we should cherish and value those moments as if they will never come again.

Another thing. There is no such thing as no talent only degrees of talent usually measured by the people we surround ourselves with. So really talent is very relative. If I have no daughter, I believe I have talent and hard work makes me good. It is only when I measure myself to my daughter that I realize my talent is lacking and I am not very good. Of course, being a proud parent I have no problem with the fact my daughter is better than I. I am very proud of the fact and when I am able to unleash her talent and dedication, I will be very proud papa indeed.

Take away Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. All of a sudden, pianist you thought were second tier become very good don't they.
Everything is relative.
Ron Lefebvre

 Ron Lefebvre © Copyright. Any reproduction of all or part of this post is sheer stupidity.

Offline m

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Talent?
«Reply #12 on: November 15, 2004, 03:51:25 AM »
In my understanding, talent is a desire and ability to express feelings and ideas.
If one has no burning desire, no feelings or ideas--not much could help here.
To have ability, besides hard work, one has to have great teachers, although here there are some exceptions. From top of my head I can name at least two great pianists, who did not get systematic formal education from childhood, and were mostly self taught--Sviatoslav Richter, and Arthur Rubinstein.

Offline MisterJekyl

  • PS Silver Member
  • Newbie
  • ***
  • Posts: 1
Re: Talent?
«Reply #13 on: November 18, 2004, 10:08:48 PM »
There's so much talk about right technique and having to start at the youngest age possible and all that.

I have musical experience since kindergarten, and I think all of the music I've been around for all these years are of importance, but I don't think it's all that vital to becoming a good musician, even though it's still been very usefull.

Personally I don't really agree with all these musical fascists, I'd say a lot of them try to put you down and say it's so much harder than it is to keep you from becoming another compeditor.

Of course a musical talent is necessary to becoming a musician, but it's not like you should be able to play all the notes of a concert on the piano after hearing it just one time like Mozart did.

Hard work is as said earlier of the greatest importance... along with what I think is also very important, great optimism, but at the same time an equal amount self criticism.

Offline Goldberg

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Talent?
«Reply #14 on: November 18, 2004, 11:59:08 PM »
Yeah, I must say I agree with MisterJekyl and reflebvr (and MariK has a great definition for what "talent" *really* is).  I'd also like to add a well-known quote that has always stuck in my mind from Thomas Edison (wording might be slightly off): "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #15 on: November 19, 2004, 01:10:07 AM »
Mozart hated it when people said that he was a genius and was able to compose without effort
he always replied that he had nothing more than other, but that he dedicated his life to music and all he achieved was tthrough hard work, love and motivation... not a gift from the sky
He also used to reply that it was a damn effort for him to compose like for any other composer and that he hated it when people rumored about his composing masterpieces in few minutes and that sort of thing
He used to say that he loved music but that he was not gifted, just in deep love with music and that studying music at young age was difficult for him and his early compositions where a mess always corrected by his father
He is not the only composer that complained about all the genius talking

I think we've overrated the gift of these composers and musicians while understimating their hard work and dedication
Few composers where child-geniuses (whatever this means) many of them were average in their youth or started serious music lessons only later
According to Czerny Liszt technique at 13 was terrible and the kid was just considered average
There are examples like Mussorgsky of composer not surrounded by music, not educated in school, starting taking music seriously late in their life after a different career and still becoming wonderful pianists and composers

It's not even true that all virtuoso piano concertists started at incredibly young age
I agree that it might be an advantage to feel surrounded by music at a young age (anyway, kids that are not surrounded by music on their youth never grow loving music so there's no problem in this instance) but since coordination only develop between 8 and 12 there's no advantage on starting a child on the piano before 8
The belief that it would even be better to start when you're 2 years old is just based on false anectodal misconception not on proven anatomy and physiology facts

I think the problem with adult beginners is that they may find hard to find the motivation to become concertists as they have already a life, a job and a career and they have too much responsabilities and thought to learn quickly
But other than that there's no physiological reason to believe that someone starting at 23 cannot become as good as a piano concertist that started at 2
But again this is false problem as if you want to study music it means that you have been surrounded by music all your life and if you want to become a piano concertist usually it's such a strong desire that is already present on your thoughts when you're very young

So, but there are musicians that wanted to become concertist when they're were 7 years old but they couldn't because of health or moneraty problems
Well, if they start at 17 instead of 7 with that same strong thought and the same dedication they would have put on music learning had they started at a younger age, they can become as good as they would have become if they had started earlier

I know of piano concertist that started late
We should remember that the world is full of piano concertists as one can be at Rome and at the same time at Oslo
So, among the most famous ones, there are hundreds of unknown piano concertists  that were once normal students with all their problems
Among this lesser known piano concertists there are people with health problem and late beginners
And just because one is famous it doesn't mean it is better than one that is less famous
If you can get the diploma you can become a piano concertist
You don't need to be a genius (whatever this means) to be a piano concertists and surely piano concertists are not extra-terrestrials with strange powers and supernatural skills
They worked hard, they never born as great performer or great musician

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline pianobabe56

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Talent?
«Reply #16 on: November 19, 2004, 06:13:44 AM »
Stale topic? Maybe, but I felt like I just had to put in my two cents, however naive it may be.

In my mind, musical "talent" has nothing to do with coordination or finger speed. Those are skills easily aquired by anyone. Musical talent is an affinity for the emotions that the musical composition is built upon, and the understanding of how to express them.

... two cents- small, simple, but it WILL buy you a stick of gum  ;)
A bird can soar because he takes himself lightly.

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #17 on: November 19, 2004, 11:24:24 AM »
playing piano requires a combination of talnts, musical of course, but also physically....lest we forget ;)

Offline chromatickler

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re: Talent?
«Reply #18 on: November 19, 2004, 02:06:31 PM »
coordination or finger speed. Those are skills easily aquired by anyone.
WRONG

 8)

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #19 on: November 19, 2004, 02:12:03 PM »
yes, that was a pretty stupid statement

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #20 on: November 19, 2004, 03:54:14 PM »
Stale topic? Maybe, but I felt like I just had to put in my two cents, however naive it may be.

In my mind, musical "talent" has nothing to do with coordination or finger speed. Those are skills easily aquired by anyone. Musical talent is an affinity for the emotions that the musical composition is built upon, and the understanding of how to express

I agree
You can teach anyone (who is willing to work hard and costantly) how to play at speed and coordinate his hand, but you can't teach music sensitivity and emotional playing and this is what talent in music is, not the physiscal aspect but the emotional one


Daniel





them.

... two cents- small, simple, but it WILL buy you a stick of gum  ;)
Quote
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #21 on: November 19, 2004, 04:10:17 PM »
not everyone has the innate ability to coordinate very well

and i know from experience that sped is a very difficult thing to aquire, and im talking about cziffra speed, not perahia etc.

but i do agree that technique is developed, while musicality is mostly innate.

but physical ability is also innate to SOME degree, and playing chopin's op10no4 etude in 1:40 is not within everyone's grasp.

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #22 on: November 19, 2004, 04:12:07 PM »
and the word 'easily' used by an oabove poster is very offensive - particularly to those who work VERY hard dat i  day out - on improving their dexterity.

Offline xvimbi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2439
Re: Talent?
«Reply #23 on: November 19, 2004, 04:28:27 PM »
and the word 'easily' used by an oabove poster is very offensive - particularly to those who work VERY hard dat i  day out - on improving their dexterity.

You are missing the point. This is not offensive at all, although I believe that "easy" might not be the most appropriate term here. Better would be "straightforward". The hypothesis is that technique can be acquired, although it may require a lot of hard work (i.e. there is no fundamental hurdle), but musicality cannot be acquired, no matter how hard you work (i.e. there is a fundamental hurdle). This is the distinction.

Does this hypothesis hold true, though? I doubt it, at least to some extent. Children who grew up in an environment that is full of music tend to be more "musical" than others, so a lot of it has to do with conditioning.

As always, succeeding in an artistic profession is mostly hard work, a lot of it is the environment in which one was braught up, and finally, there is that bit that has to do with the genius inside someone, something that defies any classification and understanding.

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #24 on: November 19, 2004, 04:51:48 PM »
not everyone has the innate ability to coordinate very well

and i know from experience that sped is a very difficult thing to aquire, and im talking about cziffra speed, not perahia etc.

but i do agree that technique is developed, while musicality is mostly innate.

but physical ability is also innate to SOME degree,

It's not INNATE in the literally sense
It's CONDINATIONED by the amount of experience you do
As someone growing surrounded by music will be more musical than someone living alone in a wood and listening only the the sound of wind, someone playing videogames, basketball, riding byclicle, swimming, studying martial art will have more coordination than someone living in his house just reading
So, although what eventually you have is a kid with more coordination and one with less, they're not INNATE by resulted from different experienced that developed coordination
We always born with the same IQ, the same coordination, the same feelings, the same abilities
What differentiate us is our experiences during our life that change our mental and physical abilities, but as 1st day infant we're all alike (a part from physionomical characteristics)

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #25 on: November 19, 2004, 04:52:53 PM »
i agree with some things

but easily was an offensive word to use

also some people are gifted with greater natural dexterity than others

for example - can anyone play chopin's 10/4 in 1:30 if they worked hard enough?

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #26 on: November 19, 2004, 06:25:15 PM »
i agree with some things

but easily was an offensive word to use

also some people are gifted with greater natural dexterity than others

The point is that they're not gifted
They was not born that way
If they have a greater natural dexterity is because they had experiences in their life that developes that dexterity
When I started playing piano I had no problem playing something with my right hand and something different with my left hand, while many of the young students found hard not to play the same thing with both hands
Before studying piano I had worked with clay sculpturing for years where I had to manipulate the clay with different motions with both hands
So, I was born with great dexterity for piano I simply had experiences that developed my dexterity before starting playing the piano
It's never a gift just something that you developed with your experiences

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline zemos

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Talent?
«Reply #27 on: November 19, 2004, 07:36:58 PM »
I think that it's really doesn't matter if a pianist has a good memorization or a good sight read, how long it takes him to learn a piece and if he learns and  plays it with the right fingers, the truly important thing is if it sounds good and if the people like it.
You also need something special of yours, something diffrent than others to attract people's attention.
I think Rubinstein (even though I don't like him as a pianist) once said- "play it even with your nose, but play it right."
Too bad schubert didn't write any piano concertos...

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #28 on: November 19, 2004, 10:03:49 PM »
i agree with some things

but easily was an offensive word to use

also some people are gifted with greater natural dexterity than others

The point is that they're not gifted
They was not born that way
If they have a greater natural dexterity is because they had experiences in their life that developes that dexterity
When I started playing piano I had no problem playing something with my right hand and something different with my left hand, while many of the young students found hard not to play the same thing with both hands
Before studying piano I had worked with clay sculpturing for years where I had to manipulate the clay with different motions with both hands
So, I was born with great dexterity for piano I simply had experiences that developed my dexterity before starting playing the piano
It's never a gift just something that you developed with your experiences

Daniel

indeed, the clay experience increased your dexterity, but i still believe that people are naturally gifted with different dextrous capacities.

Offline pianobabe56

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Talent?
«Reply #29 on: November 19, 2004, 11:11:06 PM »
julie391- I sincerely apologize if my improper and loose use of the term "easily" offended you. I hold in high regard people who have the maturity and self discipline to work hard on improving any area of their life. I meant to convey that developing those skills (speed and coordination) is a very real possibility for those willing to work at it. Apologies!  :-\
A bird can soar because he takes himself lightly.

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #30 on: November 19, 2004, 11:20:05 PM »
i wasnt offended that much, but it is offensive to say its EASY!

and i still disagree that ANYONE can develop a world-class technique - ala hamelin, cziffra etc.

i believe they have worked very hard at it their whole life, as have others - but ask yourself - why are there so few people with that extreme level of superhuman technique?

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #31 on: November 20, 2004, 12:08:44 AM »
but ask yourself - why are there so few people with that extreme level of superhuman technique?

Because there are few people that love music or concertist career so much to work so hard to learn technique so good
Come one, I've seen kids learning piano at conservatories
They're interested in the piano but they don't intend to invest their life and mental health in it
They play, go out, see friends, make parties
But technique is something that anyone with hard work, is nothing magical or in need of superpowers and particular gift, and having heard a lot of young diplomated pianist at their exam I believe that there's nothing superhuman on pianoconcertists, nothing more than what you find of a basoonist, cellist, piccolist, clarinetists concertist and many of the less known are even better than the famous ones

There's nothing special or genial in concert pianists technique, they have the same technique every pianist with a diploma has and many teachers have even better technique, but you can find something special in their musicality in their way to convey an emotion

Saying that talent is in technique is like saying that any more complicated than a Schubert impromptu piece is better than a Schubert impromptu
But we know that music can't be judged but how hard it is
Everyone studying composition can compose a Sonata in Mozart style, but the musicality, the fantasy, the immagination, the inventive and the emotions of what Mozart wrote can't be teached or simply emulated by technique knowledge alone and there is where you find the real talent not on technique
Originality is not a technical device, is not inventing for each piece a new way to express music theory, originality is in the ideas, the inventive, the emotions conveyed through a piece and that's way even today a piece written in baroque style can be original, because it's not the techniquel style that make it genial, great or original but the musical ideas and emotions behind it and the unique author style in which they're expressed

Technique can be learned even without talent

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #32 on: November 20, 2004, 12:32:35 AM »
i agree with alot of what youre saying, dont get me wrong

but certain pianists, like cziffra and hamelin - have techniques beyond 99% of all concert pianists that probably work just as hard

id say they are naturally more gifted technically

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #33 on: November 20, 2004, 12:40:06 AM »
i agree with alot of what youre saying, dont get me wrong

but certain pianists, like cziffra and hamelin - have techniques beyond 99% of all concert pianists that probably work just as hard

id say they are naturally more gifted technically

I don't know but it seems to me that it's musicality that enhance technique
I mean; technique can't go to far from what it is
Yet, musicality and musical emotions can give the illusion that the technique in being improved, while it is always the same from piece to piece
My teacher always says that to be a good concertist you need not to put too technique in there or else the piece will sound too arid
In fact I've heard lot of people saying that they prefer a concert even technically imprefect but not musically arid
So, if these pianists can make their music emotional and musical while having a perfect technique I venture to say that ir's the musicaly that it's enhancing the technique and not the technique that is any better than other pianists's
of course IMHO; I respect your point of you

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #34 on: November 20, 2004, 12:45:19 AM »
i am talking about music and technique spereately, by technique i mean the physical motions employed in piano playing

i am simply staying that i feel some musicians are more physically gifted with dexterity than others - and this is the reason why -  if you give 2 people of equal passion the same course in teaching - and they practice the same amount - they will NATURALLY end up with different technical capacities(plus i am assuming they have both not played before)

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #35 on: November 20, 2004, 01:12:57 AM »
i am talking about music and technique spereately, by technique i mean the physical motions employed in piano playing

i am simply staying that i feel some musicians are more physically gifted with dexterity than others - and this is the reason why -  if you give 2 people of equal passion the same course in teaching - and they practice the same amount - they will NATURALLY end up with different technical capacities(plus i am assuming they have both not played before)

Okay, but while music content and emotions can only be judged subjectively there a way to judge obejectively technique
To get a piano diploma you need a perfect technique
Perfect technique means: more perfecr then this is imposibble
In fact, some of the pieces you play at your diploma exam are so technically perfect that they're rarely played even by the best and gifted pianists
So, from a subjective point of view everyone that get a diploma has the same technique that every pianist getting a diploma has: perfect so perfect that there's nothing beyond that
So, we can argue if being physically gifted is necessary to get a diploma but as long as you get a diploma you know your technique is the state of the art and there can't be anything beyond that, only musicality can go beyond that

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #36 on: November 20, 2004, 01:19:45 AM »
well, a 'perfect' technique is impossible

a perfect technique would be able to play without any errors at any given tempo with any dynamic expression etc.

hamelin and cziffra have a greater degree of dexterity than almost all of these diploma students you mention, they can play faster and with greater musical control.

this is what i mean - think about 100m atheletes - all of them train VERY VERY hard - yet there is still one who comes out on top...this is due to genetic variation - i believe

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #37 on: November 20, 2004, 01:31:22 AM »
this is what i mean - think about 100m atheletes - all of them train VERY VERY hard - yet there is still one who comes out on top...this is due to genetic variation - i believe

I still believe it's not genetic but whatever they do in their lifestyle, training, diet, sleep pattern, mental motivation, positive thoughts and so on
I don't believe some was born to be better
We born all the same way, everything we have more is just aquired
And despite what people think even physical beauty is not born but aquired, in fact it is the results of our development influeced by our lifestyle
We was all born with equal beauty, intelligente, strength and potentials and what differentiate us is just our experiences and the social context in which we have lived
Genetic has very few to do even with diseases as genetic can only influence your incidence risk of getting a disease IF an external factor is present; meaning that you're more likely to becoming sick when this external factor is present
But without an external factor genetic as no power neither on athletic performance, musical performace or pathological conditions
It doesn't matter if people try very hard and follow a strict life style, their training and lifestyle will always be difference and this difference will result in one being better than another

And by the way, even genetics is the results of our experiences and action since the genetics of a child results from what lifestyle the mother had while she was pregnant
So, nothing is simply born that way everything from intelligence and talent is simply aquired through the course of your lifetime
IMO

Daniel


"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #38 on: November 20, 2004, 01:40:25 AM »
you make good points about the importance of development

but i still think some things are innate, and that genes play a bigger part than you say

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #39 on: November 20, 2004, 01:49:02 AM »
you make good points about the importance of development

but i still think some things are innate, and that genes play a bigger part than you say

Whatever point of view is the correct one (we don't have way to know 100% sure, do we?  ;)) I think that the important thing to remember is that what makes a piano concertists loved by his/her audience will not be ultimately his dexterity or technique but it's unique stylistical way to make music wonderful and personal
That's why imho innate dexterity won't be of great importance to the beauty of music
In fact, all the cds I have and that love most are those from less known concertists with normal technique but wonderful (to me) musicality
I won't change them for anyone else not even for a more technically correct concert pianist

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #40 on: November 20, 2004, 01:24:58 PM »
many people, including me sometimes - enjoy listening to musicians for their technique alone - this is an extra-musical pleasure rather akin to the enjoyment one gets from watching an athelete perform great physical feats.

and actually, the greater a musician's technique - the greater they can express their musical ideas - so in fact a greater technique creates the possibility of greater music.

Offline Tibor

  • PS Silver Member
  • Newbie
  • ***
  • Posts: 6
Re: Talent?
«Reply #41 on: November 20, 2004, 05:35:08 PM »
Daniel, does it all mean that famous pianists (like for example Liszt, Rach) just worked harder than others?

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #42 on: November 20, 2004, 08:54:31 PM »
Daniel, does it all mean that famous pianists (like for example Liszt, Rach) just worked harder than others?

In my opinon: yes
In fact Liszt was not a prodigy when he was young according to his teachers and there are more proofs pointing to the theory that you "become" great with time instead of borning that way
Whatever a good pianist do to be a good pianist is in his life, in his choices, in his experience, in his mind, in his faith, in his self-confidence, in his dedication not in the way he/she was born

Daniel
"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline maxy

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
Re: Talent?
«Reply #43 on: November 21, 2004, 03:10:02 AM »
Sad to say but we are not all equally gifted.  Some people just have natural abilities that just can't be explained.  It may seem unfair but there is usually some kind of balance. A great "gift" seems to come with an equivalent "problem" in other areas.

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #44 on: November 21, 2004, 03:13:47 AM »
it can be explained by science, and this is what it comes down to

danielpiano - i respect some of the things you say - but isnt it a bit ignorant to go against the conclusions scientists have worked decades to come up with.

Offline Daniel_piano

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Talent?
«Reply #45 on: November 21, 2004, 03:47:30 AM »
it can be explained by science, and this is what it comes down to

danielpiano - i respect some of the things you say - but isnt it a bit ignorant to go against the conclusions scientists have worked decades to come up with.

Sorry but.. people only hear about genetics in television and think that it's a simplistic explanation for everything
But actually scientists haven't proved anything about what you're trying to justify has scientific truth
It has been proved instead that a child can't be born with an higher IQ, so IQ is not genetics but conditioned from the environment and experience
It has been proven that genetic account for a 30% of higher incidence of cardiocirculatory and metabolic disease only if there an external factor to express the genes otherwise genes mean nothing
It has been proved that the genes for memory are all espressed later in life when certain nervous connection are activated or lost forever (this dependes on the amount of experiences you do before your brain starts aging)
There's no gene for dexterity, in fact as long as one have no dystrophia problem all movements possible with your hands and arms can be learned by any human being
It was actually thought years ago that some children where born with less frexibility than others, but it was genetics itself that proved that all children are born with teh same amount of flexibility that according to their physical activity patten and dietary pattern they lose it or potentiate it

I've have yet to see a study showing that genes on 1 day old infants impact their IQ and their coordination functions
I'm not going against anything scientists have said since scientists have never said or proved anything about dexterity being innate and alreayd programmed in the genetic code

Daniel

"Sometimes I lie awake at night and ask "Why me?" Then a voice answers "Nothing personal, your name just happened to come up.""

Offline maxy

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
Re: Talent?
«Reply #46 on: November 21, 2004, 03:59:13 AM »
Come on... IQ tests are BS.  We all know it is fairly easy to train for these. Why all the gene stuff...  There is so much we don't know about genes. 

Still, we do not have equal abilities in all.  I will never be able to execute a slam dunk unless the basket is lowered.  No amount of training will change that.

Offline Sketchee

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Talent?
«Reply #47 on: November 21, 2004, 04:05:51 AM »
We also know that a lot of our social and practical functions are developed by environmental factors.  How you play as a child and with other children has a lot of impact on a large number of your abilities from spatial reasoning to how you learn.  

The important thing to remember is that you can learn to improve; you don't know how great you can get if you don't work your hardest.  It's always the saddest cop out, IMHO, to see people who give up playing, because they believe they didn't have the talent.  I wasn't playing advanced repertoire ten years ago.  Between then and now I've improved a lot musically and technically.  While talent may or may not have been a factor, I take full personal responsibility over my level of skill because I worked and continue to work on learning as much as I can on the subject.

Science does not have any clear answer on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate.  Most probably there is a combination of both.  There's only one of these you can control.
Sketchee
http://www.sketchee.com [Paintings. Music.]

Offline julie391

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: Talent?
«Reply #48 on: November 21, 2004, 12:16:15 PM »
i still believe dexterity and musicality isnt distibuted equally in the genes of all people.

Offline pianodude

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Talent?
«Reply #49 on: February 14, 2005, 08:28:39 PM »
not everyone has the innate ability to coordinate very well

and i know from experience that sped is a very difficult thing to aquire, and im talking about cziffra speed, not perahia etc.

but i do agree that technique is developed, while musicality is mostly innate.

but physical ability is also innate to SOME degree, and playing chopin's op10no4 etude in 1:40 is not within everyone's grasp.

I agree one hundred percent. We can train our muscle only up to certain degree. Good taste is not trainable, but if one just wants to be a good pianist (above average), one can just copy those famous people's style, and one will be ok.