Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What is talent and how do you measure it?

Sorry for the double post...

Roger: In education it's very much accepted that each student is a unique case, and each one respond differently to different inputs. Other people may be visual types, other aural, others learn by teachers mouth alone, etc... I'm not the reading type, I can tell you that! Under this idea, along with the fact that we all are different it seems that 'some inclination' to a field might be there. And although it may not be in our DNA, or inherited by some force beyond our personal beliefs, it may be that it was given to us in a moment that we were not aware (a moment when we were months old). It's impossible to know what shapes us into what we are today...

I continue to find your position highly intelligent, Nikolas.

Good points, but in reference to Billy Joel, I think your (or Joel's) choice of the word, galvanised, a good one, since he'd already been studying the piano for several years by the time The Beatles, made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show.

This is true, and then there is of course also physical treats that are in your DNA that might be of a great advantage in some certain sport (or perhaps even for some certain instrument).

But I would say that any inate capabilities are very general, not as specific as many seem to think when talking about "talent". In most cases I think it's about IQ, or whatever way you wish to use to measure intelligence.

If you for example take two seven years old beginners, one of which immediately understands the logic of the musical staff and how the position of the notes there relates to the position on the keyboard, the other student just doesn't get this. One year later, the first student will have learned a lot of pieces and received lots of instructions on technique, while the other will have spent a lot of time doing excercises that would help him eventually undestand the staff and he would have played a lot less pieces as he reads and learns much slower. It is also a lot more mentally demanding and less fun for him to learn new pieces, which might have a negative effect on his motivation.

At this point the first student will play much better and everybody will say that "oh, he's much more talented". More talented at what?? The only difference was that he understood some abstract symbol system. This has nothing to do with musical talent.

In teaching, of course I have seen that there is a lot of different learners. Some do learn faster than others. Those who learn faster are mostly those who immediately understand instructions and who can also apply this knowledge on their own. The fast learners are also very motivated, they want to learn. But most importantly, those who learn the fastest are those who practise the most. A very "talented" student is one who belongs to all three groups. He wants to learn to play the piano, he is smart enough to understand that this can only happen if he practises enough, therefore he does practise a lot and when he practises, he is also thinking about what he is doing, not just banging through the pieces.

So there's talent for you: "intelligence, motivation + hard work". Later in life, you will have to add "complete dedication" and "ability to withstand long sessions of mentally stressful hard work" to the equation. Early on you can progress fast with relatively little work, but to reach a certain level, the amount of practise required is just too much for some people to take.

Ooh, long post.. still had some points to make, but I think I really should go now and nurture my talent with a long mentally stressful practise session.

I agree fully with you Roger!

Talent for me means something inside our DNA, given by our parents, or by God (or whatever, so that I don't touch any religious issues here).

I don't like this idea.

Of course each of us is different and we appeal to different fields in a different way. But the very serious and important question is the following: Our inclination to certain field was acquired at some point in life (no matter if we do remember it or not), or as a sort of talent. If it's the latter, we seem to have no control over our lives, our children, etc. A child will be born a criminal no matter what!

On the contrary I find great joy in feeling that we all play a part, and what we do has great impact in our children, our learners, our students, our selves! And I strive at any moment to teach my kids (aged 6 and 4) what I find important, in hopes that some will cling later on in life, rather than hope it's there already!

Not so long a post, but still...

I do not consider the story a proof that talent exists, that one had the "gift" and the other didn't.

My interpretation is that one brother didn't become a virtuoso because the other one did. And vice versa.

It is something in the relationship between them, and between them and their father and their mother. In other words, a very deep psychological explanation, impossible to bring to light in detail because the secret is locked away in the unconscious of these two men.

There is another element that is certainly of great importance, but, again, impossible to measure.

The father was from Barcelona, he came to Andorra as a refugee after the Spanish civil war. He was a close friend of Pau Casals, Pablo Casals. He remained intimate with Casals until the latter died in the 70s.

The brother who learned cello studied at Barcelona with Casals' brother.

I think some things make up talent:

Desire and drive
Understanding
Knowing what to aim for
Knowing how to get there
Being able to synthesize it
Being willing to work hard for it.

Obviously there is talent, but nobody, no matter how talented, ever achieved any level of success without hard work. So, you may have God-given talent, but what use is it unless you work it?

Careers incidentally, are also based on luck. And not everyone wants a full time concert career. The pressure of that is hard to cope with and you have to be able to ride it like a wave almost.

No, I don't have a big concert career, but I've nothing but respect for those that do.

.... incidentally the other Andorran twin did have something special. He founded an orchestra. He brought the Bach double concerto to your sleepy village. That is special. Even if its not touring the world.

Agreed.

Well, justly, I disagree. It is not at all obvious that there is talent, if what you mean is something inborn. What appears as obvious often hides the true explanation of a phenomenon.

I don't fully understand your post, Roger.

This sort of intelligence comparaison is very shallow. But perhaps that was your point.

Yes, it can of course not be seen as some kind of complete reliable measurment of the two children's universal intelligence. It was only an example to show how an ability very remotely related to music can lead us to believe that one person has great "musical talent".

As such, I do believe that intelligence (or actually metacognition) do play an important part in how "talented" we are and how fast we learn. Without doubt, we all have different cognitive abilities. But since I'm no expert on cognitive science I'm not going to speculate in wether these differences are caused mainly by pre- or post birth events or if they are given to us by God or any other deity. I also believe that this intelligence is never specifically suitable for only one task (except in some very rare cases of autistic savants). A highly intelligent person has the potenital to be "talented" in many different fields, depending on where he focuses his efforts.

So to return to the somewhat silly statement on page one: "A genuine musician will spend his or her time play the musical instrument, only those who do not have enough talent will do other thing in music." I could just as well say that those with enough talent can do whatever they wish, those who do not have enough talent are stuck doing the only one thing they have learned. This of course can also be a problem for the gifted people. Quoting the paper posted by ChopinAddict on page two:


This was not a problem back in Leonardo da Vinci's days when relative expertise in most subjects could be reached with much lower effort and universal geniuses could flourish in several fields during their lifetime.

Composer and Musician are two different things! We are talking about performance talent not compositon talent. People start as a musician. In general, if they cannot make it as a performer, they go to composition. It does not mean if you are not a good musician, you are also not a good composer. Again, it is in general!

My point is that every human has his or her own specific talent, and it is normal to pursue the goal where he or she can do the best or the easiest for him/her.

Nikolas, why can you just acknowledge that your performance ability is not up to the par of real professional musicians. Wasn't it the reason that you chose composition instead of performance?

Wow, it's sure a shame that Liszt, Chopin and Paganini weren't good enough performers that they took to composing! From whom are you drawing these generalities? They don't make sense to me.

Wow!
And you, Ronald, why is it that I can't walk into Border's Music and find your latest release on Deutsche Grammophone? I seem to have trouble finding it.
Thank God, as Frozenicicles, above stated, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms and a host of others all sucked at performing, or we wouldn't have the great music from them that we have. I do wonder if any of the composers I've listed would feel there to be a difference between composer/musician.

Hi, I just zipped in here for a few mins and this post caught my eye and I'd like to comment on one specific thought being tossed around here.

RonaldSteinway, you said:

"In general, if they cannot make it as a performer, they go to composition. It does not mean if you are not a good musician, you are also not a good composer."

Are you saying pianists who can't make it as a performer just do a double take and turn to composing instead? The way you express this makes it sound as though composing is a second rate endeavor; which it most certainly is not. (not sure that was your intention). The implication is that every pianist has the ambition and desire and talent to compose?

I believe performing and composing are two very different things and not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of pianists who are excellent performers who just don't have the Spark, whatever you want to call it, to compose music; just as there are plenty of composers who are more interested in composing than performing.

RonaldSteinway, you also said:

"Nikolas, why can you just acknowledge that your performance ability is not up to the par of real professional musicians. Wasn't it the reason that you chose composition instead of performance?"

So the implication is there is no one who would rather compose than perform?!

Jeanne W

Honestly this is hillarious!

First of and very important: Quit making assumptions about me and personal comments, right? It's quite rude!

Second, who said we are talking about performance talent and not talent in general? Even athletics have been mentioned here (or was it the other thread talented vs professional artists?).

Thirdly your general comment couldn't be further from any common sense truth at all: "In general people go into composition because they can't make it as performers". So... by your idea, composers start at the age of 21 or so, after they are certain they cannot make it as performers. Also your idea seems to imply that because one didn't make it in math he went into chemistry! both are science. Sincerely your comments are absurd!

You are perfectly right: Every one is different for various reasons and various experiences, and all these together (throw a little magic dust into it), makes one person a composer, the other a performer, the third a builder and so on...

Finally, you've got to be kidding me here: You have read my mind, my life, my everything and have decided that the course of my life has been such only because I couldn't make it as a performer?!?!?! Why on earth does anyone care about this? And in addition I find it quite insulting to even insinuate that I just became a composer, because of a lost chance in performance.

Sorry mate, but you don't know me, you have no idea the struggles I've been through to become a composer, the problems, the chassing, the everything and the dedication I've shown, because... well this is what I've (almost) always wanted to be.

Do keep in mind that something I've said in the past like "I started composing because I prefered my own pieces rather than those given to me by a teacher" is not what we are talking about!

So get real, quit insulting me and quit bothering yourself with my life.

This thread has been reported, and I would like to remind everyone that it's forum policy not to make disparaging remarks about other members.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Thanks.

In that case someone's crying wolf.

I sincerely hope you think Rachmaninoff was an exception =)