Shall we resume saying how long we've been playing?

[Ro3b]

You don't think a person with more natural talent who works hard at learning will make more progress in a given amount of time than a person with less natural talent who works just as hard at learning would make in that same time? That's all I'm saying.

I couldn't tell you. I've never met anyone with "natural talent" as far as I can tell. The excellent musicians I know have all worked like hell at it, the musicians I know who are constantly improving also work hard at it, and the thoroughly lame ones don't. So the evidence would suggest that having the flute gods sprinkle you with fairy dust really doesn't matter.

And I can even think of a certain guy who borrows my flutes a lot who's definitely made more progress over just the past few years than I have in my entire playing career, even though I've probably spent many more hours in my time at working hard and learning than he has in his time. Why? Because he's more talented than I am.

Nope. That guy's a professional musician with loads of time and initiative, and he too has done a lot of work. Dude's hungry.

For the sake of (friendly!) argument, would you say a certain other guy who we've sarcastically named after a particular 19th-century violinist has talent?

[johnkerr]

For the sake of (friendly!) argument, would you say a certain other guy who we've sarcastically named after a particular 19th-century violinist has talent?

Actually I would. He's doing stuff that not just anyone can do, so by the dictionary definition (which I tend to go by) he has talent. I could work very very hard over many many years and never be able to do what he does. I don't have that talent. But just because he has talent, it doesn't mean he has taste, or that I have to <i>like</i> what he's doing with his talent.

From the way you talk about it, it almost seems that you are equating the concept of talent with the concept of skill. Would that be right?

[Ro3b]

I don't know. As I say, I've never met anyone who seemed to have "natural" ability. Mostly it seems to have to do with knowing how to learn, and having drive and enthusiasm and beginner's mind.

And time. Dayjobs really get in the way.

[Akiba]

I don't know. As I say, I've never met anyone who seemed to have "natural" ability. Mostly it seems to have to do with knowing how to learn, and having drive and enthusiasm and beginner's mind.

And time. Dayjobs really get in the way.

Denying that there is such a thing as "talent" or "particular aptitude" and that these play a major role in physical accomplishment (and I would list being a great musician as a physical accomplishment) is absurd. Examples abound of great talent combined with incredible work ethic making the greatest champions--Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice, ITM masters, great piano and violin virtuosi. The hard work must go in, but others will put in the same work and not be a Michael Jordan, a Matt Molloy, etc.

My uncle is a great musician. Played trombone in the Pittsburgh, PA Symphony for 30+ years, has perfect pitch and perfect time. During his BA, he had to be able to play instruments of all types; the one he could not get a sound out of no matter how hard he tried was the flute. I'm not the musician my uncle is, but playing flute for me came easily, naturally; just picked up my sister's Artley and progressed quickly from there. I play other instruments as well, but none as well as or with the ease of the flute.

[flutefry]

No one is arguing that hard work, persistence, and coaching don't matter. But the reality is that for any human attribute one can measure (reaction time, analytical ability, coordination, perfect pitch, height etc) there are differences in the population. Yes, that means that some people naturally have more of this skill (and less of that skill). As a professor of mine crudely said "There's always some basmati who is better that you are".

I wanted to make the Olympic team when I was young. I did pretty well in my event (cycling) for quite a few years because I trained more, and trained better, than the people I was competing with. All seemed good until I started competing with folks who were working just as hard, were getting coached by the same people, and who had more talent than I did (meaning they had higher aerobic capacity coupled to just the right ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscles). Anything I could do to change my limitations by hard work? Sorry, no.

Another physical example. I played goalkeeper for a while, and as part of an evaluation process, had my reaction time measured. The selectors looked at the results, and said "Hugh, forget it, you are competing with guys who have reaction times that are 5x faster than yours". Is it because I didn't work hard enough? Nope, it's because of natural limits in the way my nervous system interacts with my muscles.

I teach a subject that many students find difficult. I like to think I am an effective teacher. Nevertheless, my conclusion after many years of teaching is that some students get it, and some don't. Those who don't will never get it. Their brains just aren't set up in a way that allows them to get it. Same way I'll never get anything that requires spatial reasoning. I do have talents, including the talents for hard work, persistence, determination, and hating to look bad, but I'll never get beyond adequate performance in all kinds of things.

One can argue that persistence, hard work, teachability are themselves talents. And we've all seen folks with talent who went nowhere because they didn't work very hard, or were overtaken by folks who worked harder. But some folks start off with more aptitude for any given task than others. That's what talent is.

Hugh

[johnkerr]

I don't know. As I say, I've never met anyone who seemed to have "natural" ability.

Sure you have. Pretty much everyone has some natural ability (aka a talent). If that wasn't true, we probably wouldn't be able to function as a society. It's just that the large majority of peoples' talents are in areas that we don't generally place value or significance on like we do music. For instance, being a snarkmeister is surely to have a talent. But how many snarkmeisters have really had to work hard at their snark?

Dayjobs really get in the way.

I hear you on that. And Chiff and Fipple really gets in the way of day jobs, doesn't it?

[talasiga]

Define talent.

A natural inherent ability to perform some activity. Those who are said to be "talented" typically perform a given activity better than the "average" person given that both have been given the same instruction/training.

KAC

Sounds good as a definition, in theory, however 25+ years of teaching people physical skills (professionally) has proven to me that in reality, that definition doesn't hold: The people who start off appearing to have the most "talent", that is to say those who initially pick things up quickly, often are not the one's who become the best over longer periods of time.

......

That could just mean that you are not an appropriate teacher for gifted people. That doesn't mean you can't be a great teacher for a lot of people. However one can't be a great teacher for all the people all the time.

As a teacher you may have a natural (or untutored) talent to teach people who have a talent for hard work and they respond well to a work hard, rote approach and you may be able to teach like this really well. Another type of student may languish with such an approach.

There is not one perfect way to teach and learn. However, an appreciation of differences in needs and talents and one's own limitations as a teacher will enable a fruitful relationship with all those you come across.

[pancelticpiper]

There's an influential art teacher named Betty Edwards (author of Drawing From The Right Side Of The Brain) who maintains that the ability to draw well is simply a skill, like driving a car, that is attainable by anyone of normal intelligence.
I'm trained as an art teacher and I was also in this camp.

But when I started teaching music I had to re-think my ideas.

I might introduce a technique to two students:
Student One grasps the idea AND IS ABLE TO PERFORM THE TECHNIQUE immediately, the first time they try. And, they can perform the technique with complete consistency ever after.
Student Two, though he grasps the idea, struggles with getting his fingers to perform, and at the end of a half-hour working on that technique alone still cannot do it correctly, even though it's slowed down by a factor of many times. This person, after a year of practicing this technique daily, still cannot perform it as well as Student One did the first time he tried it. And, even after a few years of practice, will not be able to perform the technique as well or as consistently as Student One did from the get-go.

At first I was dismayed by this, but now after over 25 years of teaching music I've had to accept that it's simply the way it is. Some people go from first picking up an instrument to playing it well in a couple years with little practice, others with rigorous daily practice make little progress in a decade.

[kennychaffin]

I don't know. As I say, I've never met anyone who seemed to have "natural" ability. Mostly it seems to have to do with knowing how to learn, and having drive and enthusiasm and beginner's mind.

And time. Dayjobs really get in the way.

If you base all your belief only on people you meet then you are going to have very limited knowledge.

By what you've said so far, my understanding is that you are saying that people like Mozart, Beethoven etc. simply worked harder than others, right?

KAC

[Ro3b]

Go and find me a musician who hasn't had the benefit of good teachers, encouraging parenting, and a good work ethic, but who nonetheless is a master at his or her art, and I'll start to believe you that "talent" is some mystical inborn property that some musicians have and others don't.

Mozart's father was himself a great musician and composer, and he groomed little Wolfgang to be the same from the moment he was born. Beethoven's father kind of did the same albeit in a more ghastly and cruel way. These people had training, encouragement, initiative, time, and opportunity. If "natural talent" played a role in their greatness, it was a small one compared to these other factors.

[Ro3b]

But how many snarkmeisters have really had to work hard at their snark?

Dude, you think ths comes naturally? I'll have you know I put a hell of a lot of time and effort into this crusty attitude.

[kennychaffin]

Go and find me a musician who hasn't had the benefit of good teachers, encouraging parenting, and a good work ethic, but who nonetheless is a master at his or her art, and I'll start to believe you that "talent" is some mystical inborn property that some musicians have and others don't.

Mozart's father was himself a great musician and composer, and he groomed little Wolfgang to be the same from the moment he was born. Beethoven's father kind of did the same albeit in a more ghastly and cruel way. These people had training, encouragement, initiative, time, and opportunity. If "natural talent" played a role in their greatness, it was a small one compared to these other factors.

So bottom line from you is that neither Mozart or Beethoven had talent, just training?

KAC

[Cathy Wilde]

Now this is the kind of discussion I enjoy!

I think the word "talent" is very, very broad; encompassing a variety of things. For example, some people are just plain physically better suited to a certain activity. Others might be hardwired with a certain capacity for finding "faster" learning routes. Still others might be blessed with a good ear, a good sense of timing, or a good memory. And still others might be blessed with a quite-high pain threshold and thus the ability to just keep plodding through difficulties and setbacks.

Then there are the lucky ones who possess several, even most or all of these virtues. Would that be talent?

That's the definition I go by these days.

Meanwhile, I must aver that work and willingness to just put your head down and plod when necessary is a requirement; that's the one thing you can't NOT have to succeed.

In other words, you can have someone who starts out like a house afire, but if they don't practice there comes a point where they stop growing. And then a plodder catches up. Does that make one more "talented" than the other?

If you were bold, you could argue that the plodder is the more talented of the two ... at least at, well, plodding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The rest of this is personal-experience-type maundering so read on only if you're really really bored or like horsey metaphor)

I've owned and trained horses all my life; have probably ridden at least 500 horses in my time on this planet, including one at regional & national championship level (where she dumped me on my head at the third fence -- oh, hubris).

Anyway, what I think is one of the MOST important things in successful horsemanship (besides, of course, good basic care and establishing trust) is figuring out what job the horse is best suited for -- physically and mentally. When you find that job, and then figure out the best way to help that horse DO that job (you don't teach him; you let him discover it), he basically trains himself. That combination of 1) finding what works best for the horse so he's not pushed beyond his physical abilities and 2) finding the right "buttons" for the horse to go "AHA!" and learn can create a horse who will do well in the show ring.

Ironically, the horse who dumped me on my head? Mentally, she seemed wonderfully suited to being a show hunter and physically as well -- at least at first. But in my all-knowing hindsight , it really was tough for her. She lacked the musculature she needed to really jump with style so she got frustrated. In retrospect, pushing her down that path was a terrible mistake; she was so much happier on endurance-type rides and in the dressage ring. But I didn't see it. I thought she had "talent" for jumping because she was so good-natured and had enough ability to get to a certain point; she was winning, after all, and she even seemed to be enjoying herself. But when we pushed her toward the higher fences that national competition required, well, even her sweet "plodding" type soul wasn't enough to overcome her physical limitations.

Meanwhile, there were horses for whom the high fences came easily, and it was too hard for her, so ... that was her ceiling.

But put her on a long-distance ride and she'd trot all day, covering more ground than the average horse could at a slow gallop and she'd still want to keep going after the race was over. Then the next day she'd go to a dressage show and bring home a respectable number of ribbons (though only at the lower levels; there too her physical setup wasn't to her advantage).

At those things, you could say she was INCREDIBLY talented (pity her stupid owner wasn't more talented at figuring that out)!

So when I hear "horses for courses," you bet I believe it. Today I have a young horse who has all the physical abilities to jump in and out of the field, and I think he might have a mind for it, too ... so does that make him talented? Only time will tell.

I must admit his LACK of "plod" combine with his extreme physical ability are a whole new set of hurdles!

(I get the sense I'm going to hit the dirt again someday soon. Wish I was a more "talented" rider/trainer! )

[jim stone]

What your claim is predicting is that if Mozart had never been
conceived, but his father had adopted another infant,
Leopold or Winny or Christophe, and treated him the
same way, this would have produced the same prodigy.
Substitute most any child in this scenario and you
would generally get the same result. That's hard to
believe.

Talent isn't a mystical property. Some people are wired
to do certain things.

Also the claim that there are substantial differences in talent
is NOT the claim that hard work, teaching, support,
aren't essential to the development of talent.

We all agree that they are required.

Here is wiki on Mozart:

When Nannerl was seven, Leopold began giving her keyboard lessons. The three-year old Mozart looked on, evidently with fascination: his sister later recorded that at this age "he often spent much time at the clavier [keyboard], picking out thirds, ... and his pleasure showed it sounded good [to him]."[4] Nannerl continued: "in the fourth year of his age his father, for a game as it were, began to teach him a few minuets and pieces at the clavier. ... he could play it faultlessly and with the greatest delicacy, and keeping exactly in time. ... At the age of five he was already composing little pieces, which he played to his father who wrote them down."[5] Among them were the Andante (K. 1a) and Allegro in C (K. 1b).[6]

Biographer Maynard Solomon[7] notes that while Leopold was a very devoted teacher to his children, there is evidence that Wolfgang was motivated to make progress even beyond what his father was teaching him. His first independent (and ink-spattered) composition, and his initial ability to play the violin, were both his own doing and were a great surprise to Leopold. The father and son seem to have been close; both of the precocious episodes just mentioned brought tears to Leopold's eyes.[8]

[Rob Sharer]

I'll just jump in here with a "meta-response:"

It seems like few are willing to accede to Ro3b's notion of there being no such thing as talent, capital "T." To some extent, this is a semantic disussion. Ro3b seems to have a philosophical stance on this subject, but he's fighting against hundreds of years of English usage; for most of us, the notion of talent implies a predisposition towards a particular pursuit, having nothing to do with the work required to get there.

Sorry, Ro3b, but this may be the first time I've disagreed with you on C&F! Cheers,

rob