Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VIRTUOSO TECHNIQUE!!!

Then why weren't all of the other kids with the same situation becoming Mozart-level musicians? Mozart wasn't the only one in that situation...

You talk as if the "someone" I quoted is a random person on the street. I quoted one the major teachers on the planet who probably knew more about music when he was 12 then you or I will ever know. These are the type of people who I think really know if talent exists and what it means.

My view is that when one hears someone like Trifonov play it is so astounding that it is almost impossible to believe that this would be possible without some kind of gift that is innate. And I think an overwhelming percentage of people agree.

The dictionary definition of the word talent includes the fact that it is innate. You may not like this, but this is how most people use this word for a long time.

This has been repeated, but I suppose another iteration won't do any harm.

There are many variables that go into the making of a Mozart. One such variable is this: he wanted to. Obviously, someone who grows up inside a tuba, but wants to be a blacksmith, will never take to the tuba.

For those who wanted to, Mozart more-than-likely worked very differently than them.

As for the enduring fame he has enjoyed, there are multiple factors that go into that, but I don't want to side-track the thread with a discussion of fame or popularity. We've had those threads before, too.


Did I do any less? Some of the foremost thinkers in world history believed in geocentrism, and/or the idea of a "flat" Earth. (Same goes for the earlier example of "Zeus" that I used in reference to a thunderstorm.) Heck, for a third example, let's use Isaac Newton and gravity. His equation is also wrong (if you don't allow for tolerances, which you really shouldn't if you're trying to determine exactly what's going on).

I've been using physics, but we could also use religion. Those of us who do not believe in God fly in the face of the Pope's theory, who, arguably, knows the most about the subject. We can say the same for all monotheistic names for God, all polytheistic beliefs, all past mythologies that are no longer worshiped.

Point is, hearsay, conjecture and belief are not evidence.

I have absolutely no problem if you believe in the idea of talent. Believe me, I'm not that overbearing that I think "my way" is right. But if you want to prove it to me--and I would sincerely like us to keep trying, because I'm enjoying the discussion--it has to be real evidence. (And if you did somehow manage to prove it, I would openly change my own belief to match the new evidence available.)


Yep, I'm aware of both points. I have no problem with how other people view talent--I simply believe their position is untenable. And I wouldn't bring it up in passing conversation, either; we just happen to have the question posed, and hopefully for those of us partaking, have been enjoying the discussion and opposing viewpoints of the participants.

To your "popularism" suggestion: Geocentrism is also in the dictionary. Does that mean the Earth is the center of the universe? Or, perhaps an even better argument, when everyone believed it was true, did that necessarily make it true?

Arguing about the correct definition of a word is a very different thing from a discussion of the relative importance of different influences on a musician's development. Sometimes these semantic arguments arise simply because a word has so much baggage attached to it from being used so often by different people to mean so many different things, that it is not clear whether people are arguing about the meaning of the word or something else. But, when people don't agree on the meaning of terms, they often mix these very different issues.

So, why not just toss the word "talent." Pick a word such as "innate aptitude" to refer to whatever aptitude one is born with. Use another word, say "nurture" to describe the aptitude that comes from nurture and exposure at a very young age when one's synapses are still being developed and then you can discuss your opinions about the relative importance, or even existence, of any one of these elements without it being an argument about the correct definition of a word.

I personally think that would be a more interesting discussion than the correct definition of the word "talent." Others may disagree.

K.

We're not discussing the "correct definition" of the word "talent". We are, in fact, discussing whether it exists at all -- or at least, that has been the premise of my involvement in said discussion.

Derulux,

The variables you speak of are not sufficient by themselves for the making of a Mozart.

Anyone can sing, but only people with talent can sing well.

What's the difference between the winners of American Idol and the many thousands and thousands of people who don't even make it through the auditions? The winners have a lot of talent.

Do you honestly believe that those horrible singers that don't make it to Hollywood don't WANT to be great singers? You don't think they LOVE music?

You actually place American Idol and Talent in the same context? Shame!

Bowling for Dollars. Now there is Talent.

I have spoken of maybe five or six of five thousand or more variables. Every single moment of every day, a new variable may be added. And since Mozart died over 200 years ago, it is impossible to say for certain which variables impacted his life. I'm all for discussing the topic, but this is borderline ridiculous.

Your stance is what's ridiculous, to be blunt.

The thread is even more ridiculous...

I'm in favor of it being locked.

I don't mind bluntness.

My question, which has yet to be adequately explained, is why? No one who believes in "talent" has been able to provide any examples of concrete proof of the existence of "talent". Why, then, is my stance the one that seems ridiculous?

PS- if we're not going to add anything academic to the discussion, then for the sake of those who are putting in a little more effort, let's not respond. It sidetracks and derails an otherwise interesting conversation, and one that I am enjoying. If you find that you aren't enjoying it, you don't need the thread locked--simply stop reading it.

No use in saying it anymore...let the moderators come and decide for themselves.

I mentioned the human brain many posts back, to which you replied with something along the lines of "I think all of our brains are basically wired the same". That's like saying our genetic makeups are all the same. The brain is an incredibly complex thing with room for a lot of variation. Different personalities, different tastes, different interests, different TALENTS... for you to just write it off as nothing important is just willful ignorance.

We aren't all the same. Get used to that fact. Talent does exist and it lies in the wiring of the individual's brain. Everything about anyone lies in their brain.

I don't think your stance is ridiculous but the way talent is usually considered makes it almost impossible to provide concrete proof for it. OTOH I think so many people believe in that talent(as in "born with it")exists because the greatest pianists play so well at such a young age that even if they had every other advantage of the type you've mentioned it would not be enough to explain their greatness.

It is somewhat like asking for concrete evidence of "love" or "beauty". There may be none, but yet, many people mysteriously act as if those things exist.

Whether or not there is concrete "scientific" evidence for a concept that is intangible but which is still evident to a reasonably observant person who sees it (especially if it is a person who is trained in the area in which it appears) is probably not critical to its existence.

And too, if one could provide evidence that talent exists, what would that evidence look like? In previous threads here regarding talent, IIRC, some writings and studies on the subject that were cited seemed more controversial than satisfactory.

I'm very late to this party, but as another one of your many admirers, Derulux, I'm astounded by your statements. Yes, yes, exposure to music at home, nurturing parents, great teachers, slaving away at the piano for 25 hours a day, yada, yada, yada, is all important. But none of it means anything without native talent. It is not simply one of many components of great piano playing, it is the bedrock. It is foundational. It is the sine qua non. All of the other things you've mentioned are important, but without innate musical talent, these thousands of variables will never produce a great pianist, or even a very good pianist.

You seem to demand some sort of proof of its existence, but talent falls into the category of "I know it when I see it", and doesn't easily lend itself to measurement or simple proofs. But I think correlation works pretty well. How many of the world's great pianists were not prodigies? Can you point to an example of someone who struggled for 10, 15, 20 years, and through sheer determination, and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, finally reached the pinnacle of their art? A prodigy is one who displays exceptional ability or talent at a very young age, talent that is so extraordinary as to be unexplainable by the factors you have cited. What four, five, or six-year old child could possibly practice the 4-8 hours a day that even many of the greatest pianists spend practicing? You'd be lucky to get 30-60 minutes from one so young. Yet such young pianists do exist, are quickly recognized as prodigies, and progress at a rate far beyond their peers, regardless of their practice regimen.

So how would you explain such prodigies? Do you really believe it's all environmental? If you do, I must strongly disagree.

It is a very old debate called nature vs. nurture.