Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown.

............................

Do you really believe that? There is the desire no doubt. Perhaps you'll join the club of "geniuses" such as Richard Kastle...

In any case, even if talent has mainly to do with connections, that in itself is not common. No matter the explanation, the fact is not everyone is talented for everything, just finding one thing they're are talented at is in itself something.

I thought a genius might be more skilled at distinguishing between subject and object pronouns.

Steven

.........................

I fail to understand the hostility in this thread.

The nature of talent and learning in general has been greatly informed by recent brain research. The discovery of mirror neurons, research into hemispheric activity in logographic and alphabetic reading, semiotic theories, and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences have all changed the way we think about talent, learning, and the old arguments of nature vs. nurture.

Coyle's material looks interesting to me, and it seems odd to me that so many are dismissing his ideas without having read the entire book.

.............................

I agree, but haven't read the book. I am not against it, and am interested in reading it. However there is something about critics and in this case researchers, and that is the apparent lack of talent and calling or vocation. That is, what they are really passionate about, and how they are not taking active part in it.
Just like many critics of different things are not performers or students of said field, in this case I have not read where the talent is in someone who researched on talent, what they got into: writing, poetry, music, etc. I don't find satisfying the mere: "passion to research and just know about it". Some part of the author must want to achieve greatness in some field, either if he expresses and is conscious or not.
In any case, all the research should serve as inspiration to learn and get deeper into whatever it is one wants, no matter the age.

Steven, you cracked "The Code" !

Here's a guy with talent that didn't practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEh9Y68fGqI

..............................

.......................

...................

There may be something worth learning from this book, but I don't have my hopes up. The title alone is enough to put one off. Plus, the author is yet another jock sportswriter type, and my sense of it (without having read the book yet) is that he's probably making the typical mistake of thinking that what works in sports is applicable to everything else in life. Sorry, but I don't think giving a performance of LvB's op. 109 that moves people to tears is all that much like playing golf, or whatever.

Apparently someone's "genius" is still only available for a limited time. Thank the bloody gods!

Remember that special classmate in primary/secondary school who could draw very convincing, good looking figures and faces, while your own drawings were never much more than stick figures. That's because that kid got talent for drawing.

Of course, when it comes to piano playing everybody will need to practice (a lot) to get any kind of results. But I do believe talent still plays a role. It's just not as obvious as with drawing.
Some people are simply more naturally gifted to play the instrument and I'd say that is determined by genetics.

I don't understand why people are dismissing it out of hand, and then insulting those who are considering the author's point of view?

If someone has a problem with it, why not argue against the actual points that the book makes? The author seems to have spoken to a lot of researchers in both neurology and psychology, and what he says seems well-supported. Even if you don't like his assertion that one isn't born with talent, he still has a lot of wonderful suggestions for practice. Some of these suggestions I had already been utilizing, and can attest to their efficacy, but now I can use them more consciously and with more direction.

I don't see the need to get upset over the whole thing and resort to ad hominem attacks. It's a book worthy of consideration, and seems to me to be well-researched.

I have much less of an issue with Coyle's book than in the way his essential premise is used to give false hopes to people who lack talent and give cover to those who wish to believe that it doesn't exist. His thesis is hardly served by statements in this thread like the following one (and numerous others, some of which have since been deleted by the poster who made them):


Steven

You're not going to settle this one unless you can say, "what is life," and "what is consciousness." Anyway, I don't think it's a matter of having one talent that supports an ability in math, music, art, connivance and manipulation, sports, cooking, communication, engineering, politics, business, science, gardening or the acquiring of a fortune, but a constellation of them that can be used in concert.

Certainly the brain and nervous system support abilities, and the research is interesting. But there is a school of thought that says that the brain is not the generator of thought, but rather the organ that receives thought.

There's more to it than just ability. There are plenty of people who can play pretty advanced stuff note-perfect... but no one wants to listen to them because their performance doesn't make you feel anything.

I don't think this is really a matter that can be written down in a book or settled by a forum discussion... but good luck trying.

To speak somewhat to wr's comments, only about half of the author's examples are from sports. The book tells the authors experiences from visiting various talent "hotspots" around the world, reviewing information about historical talent "hotspots", and interviews with scientists studying myelin. Other examples he uses are from the arts - the Spetien Vocal Studio in Texas, the cello teacher Hans Jenson in Chicago, the example of the Bronte sisters, and the example of the Renaisance artists from Florence Italy (including Michelangeo, Donatello, and Da Vinci).

I found the book very interesting, but I wished that it had more scientific details or was written by someone with a scientific background.

Rich

My apologies to the OP for getting so hot headed. This issue really pushes my buttons, just like my left wing politics do on another forum.

All I can say is that during my uni years I saw so much evidence that merely hard practice -regardless of how diligent or efficient- simply doesn't guarantee the expected results.

One example: a good mate of mine was working on the same composition I was -the Beethoven Op. 53- he put more time on it than I, but I was the one who was able to bring it up to a performance standard (no Richard Goode of course), yet this other well meaning individual could never get either of the outer movements up to speed without things totally falling apart. I felt very badly for him, and anything I suggested didn't seem to work.