|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
79 members (AaronSF, apianostudent, beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, 19 invisible),
2,241
guests, and
447
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,326
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,326 |
There is less room for those who don't want to work hard. (Although some still make it!) Have you seen the (relatively) large number of musically ignorant hacks who are making millions off of pop culture? I would say rather that playing the piano at a top level requires the guidance of an expert teacher to provide tough, often painful feedback complemented by effective and deliberate practice. I think that is nonsense. One doesn't need their emotions and self-esteem dragged through the mud and stomped on at every lesson to become a great musician. To be forcefully pressed into a mold, perhaps, but that is your choice. -Colin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,846
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,846 |
Originally posted by argerichfan: Originally posted by Max W: To get where you want to be, you basically just need to work hard to achieve it... Wow, Max! That in complete opposition to my post above yours! We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I said I posted blind didn't I! I'll settle it with this - I wouldn't deny that some people are more innately talented and possibly are even DESTINED to follow a certain walk of life, due to their biological makeup. I just think that it's also possible to develop a talent through hard work (perhaps not as great a talent). I was a late starter at piano (13-14) and now that I've almost left teenagerhood, I think I've done alright for myself purely through willing myself to work hard and develop my understanding of music. (having said that, I seem to have a natural gift for snooker, I just seem to get how the physics of it work easier than others so I don't need to think about it too hard, it's very natural. I also appear to have a natural gift for rambling..)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,921
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,921 |
Originally posted by STEAVEN PAIK: when I had to practice for 10hours. So did Liszt.
Slow down and do it right.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,921
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,921 |
Originally posted by argerichfan: Originally posted by hopinmad: I remain unconvinced about talent; it is too undefined I feel. But that's the mystery of it. The "talent" that makes one player great may be entirely different in another great player.
Yet all this "hard work" rubbish... of course it's part and parcel of attaining greatness as a pianist, but you can't just take any old bloke off the street, make him work 11 hours a day and produce another Martha Argerich. Maybe no Martha Argerich, setting aside the necessity for a sex change operation, but if the old bloke actually liked the piano you could probably make a good working musician out of him.
Slow down and do it right.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 806
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 806 |
One thing people are missing is that there is different types of talents within the tent of "piano performing" in my opinion. I also believe some are more valuable than others.
I know it sounds obvious, but there is interpretational talent, sheer musicality, the communication/interpersonal relations factor, the technical talent, etc.
Some are more valuable than others, the way I see it. At school I see people playing Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto and other massively difficult peices. They handle it flawlessley, but no one wants to listen to them.
The winner of the concerto competition this year won with a rendition of Beethoven's 4th that wasn't technically perfect and fluctuated in tempo very noticeably, but it didn't matter because of the depth of his understanding of the peice. It was mesmerizing, where as several other technically perfect performances were not. Call it stage presence, the ability to communicate, or whatever you will, but there are some cases where an extraordinary amount of talent in one of these less obvious areas can be the difference.
I'd rather listen to someone "good" technically and profund musically that incredible technically and average musically.
Shigeru Kawai SK7 Kawai NV10S Hallet & Davis 165
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546 |
I find it interesting that most people have little trouble accepting that you need to be born with a great vocal apparatus to become a world class singer but that somehow the same principle doesn't apply to the piano. Yes, much hard work, many hours of practice and a will to succeed are also necessary to have a professional career, but without the basic physical apparatus, all the work in the world will not produce a Renee Fleming or Joan Sutherland, nor will it produce a Horowitz, Argerich or Richter. Somehow it's easier to see the obviousness of this with the voice rather than the piano-playing apparatus but I think it's equally true of both. That's not to say hard work is not needed but it's not going anywhere without the basic underlying physical and mental abilities (including musicality as in the post above).
Sophia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,035
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,035 |
Originally posted by Arabesque: I don't believe in talent. But when a child is praised at a young age and discovers something, he or she will go back to it. All of us can harness musicality or other ability if we have the confidence. When we see some guy playing the piano and it is good, we remark he has talent. But he already built up his skills through constant practice and he has already got the attitude to succeed. Furthermore we consolidate that person's success by praising him.
I don't believe anyone sits down at a piano and plays instant performances. You want to justify your decision to drop classical piano because you were insecure. But it all in the mind. You have enough innate ability as anyone else but you yourself made the decision that you didn't have enough talent. And you now confirm your satisfaction with a normal career. That's also O.K. But you know it depends on your inner conviction about who you really are. Even though hard work plays a large role in allowing one to excel at the piano, I think that denying talent exists is implying that everyone is equal. There are plenty of pianists who work very, very hard at the piano, yet it is still rather uncommon to see a virtuoso like, say Martha Argerich, who has prodigious technique and employs it so effortlessly. If talent did not exist, seeing pianists with that level of skill would be common, but it isn't. Not everyone was created equal. I think talent determines a pianist's potential, and hard work is what determines how close they get to that potential. In my experience, I hear the remark that a pianist is talented when that pianist plays well just as often as when that pianist does not. It refers to what that pianist is capable of in the future and not necessarily what they are currently capable of. Although I think that hard work is the majority of what makes someone good at the piano, I think that talent does exist and definitely plays a significant enough roll to be mentioned.
Houston, Texas
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,392 |
This has been an interesting thread to read, and I thank everyone for their input. At least there are a fair amount us who agree that there must be something -whatever it is- to act as a catalyst for hard work. sophial's mention of singers is interesting. Having recently read Birgit Nilsson's ghosted autobiography (fascinating!), I was very impressed with how hard the lady worked. But no one would argue that there wasn't that "intangible" advantage she had. I know a bit about this: I've worked with many singers, both in and out of the Anglican communion. Originally posted by -Frycek: Maybe no Martha Argerich, setting aside the necessity for a sex change operation... LOL, after I posted, I figured someone would comment along those lines! Perhaps mentioning Ms. Argerich and a "bloke" was rather sloppy, but she seemed an obvious example because it is well known here that I consider her one of the most stupendous pianists in history. The list of pianists of her generation which match her is very slim. Start with Pollini... not many others, though. But my point stands: no amount of hard work from anyone is a guarantee that they will ever take on Argerich. No doubt she works hard, but not in the conventional sense. She learns music instantly (reportedly the slow movement of the Ravel concerto was learned and memorized after one read through), so thus the "hard work" is spent elsewhere.
Jason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117 |
Of course there are something called "talent". If you have once seen/heard a real talent at young age you will know instantly, it's so stunning and leaves you with no doubts at all. But talent is no guarantie for success, this is where the hard work comes in..... "Normal" people with limited talent (like myself) can achieve a lot of things by hard work, but we never become legends. But we can feel the joy when we se real talent and choose not to become envious like the "Salieri" character in Amadeus.... Ragnhild
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Steven Paik,
There's one thing you'll read about in the biographies of many most successful people: that there've been times when NOBODY except themselves believed in them and that they could do it and even laughed at them.
Whatever ingredient of talent may be needed - you must have some of that, otherwise you'd never made it to the point you did make! - above all it takes hard work, the right instruction, and it takes PERSISTENCE!
If you feel, there's a path you should follow, by all means do what you can to follow that path. If you are not sure what is right for you, pause for another while until you are sure, and when you have the answer, go ahead whatever it is. There are times when you need to take other people's advice, and there are times when you ignore it and follow your inner voice.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
Hmmm...
If I was to believe in talent (which I do in a sense) I'd say that it takes 1% of everything we do. The rest is hard work, try, society, family, schooling, etc...
Definition of talent (for me, personally, not officialy, right?): The tendency to do something better than something else.
Academicaly, education accepts that different people have different parts of their brain stimulated more. I've never had much chance with... basketball no matter how hard I tried. Never. But music? yup!
I'm a music minded person (math as well, but not linguistic or sports really).
But, what makes me wonder:
a. My father used to put me to sleep by playing the piano or the guitar. b. He taught us the recorder in the age of 3. c. He was listening to A LOT OF music in the house.
I can never be sure if this tendency that I have (Which I've practiced to the full extend of course) is a result of a gene, and my "talent", or before I was even born, when my mother was aching and my father would sing to her (and me, in her woomb) to calm ME down! (<-nice story, huh?)
In the end, one thing is for sure. Talent or not talent, without hard work you can't make it. If you don't have talent if you do try hard, you can go rather far, but with talent and no work you'll end up nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 156
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 156 |
Some small percentages you give for talent
I think it's more than 1%, more than 10, even more than 20% ... Talent is very important ..
Let's take a person with a magnificent talent and a person with very little talent. They both work very hard ... In the end, the person with the magnificent talent will be LOTS better than the other one. And the more time that passes, the more obvious the difference will be
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
I listened to an interview with Mr. Tiriak, who was Boris Becker's trainer for 10 years, and who trained him when Becker won at Wimbledon. One of the inevitable questions asked was "what is it that makes you successful, talent or work?" Tiriak's answer was a crystal-clear "work and the right instruction".
Which, although that's not part of the focus in this thread, tells me, a good teacher, in addition to the work of course, is by far more important than talent!
On the other hand, there sure are restrictions e.g. a person's body offers, look at the height of a typical baseball champ, and "talent" sure does play a role if you're keen on playing the piano but barely notice the difference between a minor third and an octave ...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,562 |
Originally posted by SideShow: Some small percentages you give for talent What? I can't have an opinion? Let's take a person with a magnificent talent and a person with very little talent. They both work very hard ... In the end, the person with the magnificent talent will be LOTS better than the other one. And the more time that passes, the more obvious the difference will be Lets. How will you differentiate talent from what the family provides? Take Bach (not Johann), for example, and stack him to a family with NO music inside. Would his "talent" be enough to make him what he was? Take Beethoven and stack him of piano lessons, or the early pressure that his father put on him. Would his talent show and make him what he is? Talent, as a word for me, is something that is natural, that's on the genes, that is god given if you will, but I simply don't buy that. I prefer to believe that I am mostly (<-read mostly, not completely) responsible to how my kids develope, and be left into the fate of this weird "talent" force which cannot be controlled...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Nikolas, recent research is all on your side, and so do I believe.
How can we say talent is a birth-given fact determining you until the end of times when research shows that even "minor" things such as a teacher's attention or unexpressed expectation make a huge difference?
Besides, how well can we trust those who say that you are talented or not, when they see talent and intelligence in most kids who come from a good social background and don't see it in a similar group from problematic social backgrounds and who recognize the talent again in a group which they are told is from a good social backgroud but actually comes to the problematic one?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117 |
I think people with different answers to this also have different definitions of what "talent" is. I would say "talent" is a combination af lot's of things, including physical abilities, intelligence, family background, psycological factors....etc
I am sure that there are a lot of young children that have the opportunity to become very good in music diciplines with a good teacher, cheerful environment and strong self dicipline. In 15 years you will find them as music teachers, organists, accompanists, in orchestras etc.
But the greatest of talents will stand out as child prodigies, I think there are hardly no exceptions.
Ragnhild
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Ok, maybe we should include what we understand talent to be. I understand talent to be some inherent ability that you are born with and which is there regardless of whether you use/cultivate it or not, just like the ability of ones eyes to see.
I would clearly separate between "talent" and family background or other social factors. Quite the contrary, I would strongly oppose mixing it, as that would mean the socially disadvantaged would clearly come out "less talented" which in society is another way of saying "you're not good enough, don't even bother to try".
Again and again there have been strong personalies from poor backgrounds, breaking out of the "average expected development" which must have taken a degree of skill, knowledge, intelligence, and energy I can only admire, and adding more stereotypes would cost these even more strenghs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117 |
You can like it or not, but since musical skills is so much easier to achieve at early age, family background will be an important factor. A 6 year old child of music teachers will probably have been surrounded by music for 2190 days of his life already and if he's interested he will already have skills that it will take newcomers years to achieve. He will also have the chance to develop absolute pitch and hand eye coordination skills that might be impossible to learn later on. In our responsibility of being parents we will have to remember that we are the ones to raise our children and that our limitations to some degree also will be our childrens. Of course school and kindergartens do a tremendous job helping and developing kids, but you will never see a tone deaf 12 year old evolve into a violin virtouso. But, money is not the important factor here, you can not buy musicality.... Ragnhild
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 356 |
Originally posted by Ragnhild: You can like it or not, but since musical skills is so much easier to achieve at early age, family background will be an important factor Ragnhild, I can fully agree to that - just not that talent depends on family background and else, except through the genes, of course, but no other than that. That there is a huge difference between fully supportive parents and careless ones, sure. Would never deny the responsibility that parents have. But I do know, unfortunately, there're quite a few parents do don't care or who are unable to give their kids the proper care because they are sick or because they died very early. And to add the stigma of being called "untalented" to the burden the children from there families have to bear anyways is not ok in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,117 |
It is an interesting discussion : originally posted by Piano&Violin : just not that talent depends on family background and else, except through the genes, of course, but no other than that. Ok, I'm with you in the definition of talent, lets say it is something that is "programmed" already at your birth. This means that none of us never achieve more than a tiny little part of what our born-with talent could have made us. Even a great violin virtouso has to live with the fact that he might have become a surgeon instead and saved many lives.... Ragnhild
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|