Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner musical talent vs hard work..

Great post Steve!

Agree - great post, Steve! I also agree ( probably more ?) with Reaper978. In my opinion, teaching at whatever level need contain no criticism at all. Telling someone how to do something better and coaching them in that process does not require any telling them of how bad they were. In fact why waste valuable time on a "critique" when you could just be getting on with fixing things and preparing the student for their next bouts of practising.


John

I think this is more a question of teaching style, and whether this is compatible with how one responds to the pedagogy used. Some teachers use tough love effectively, others like the soft and cuddly approach. Judging from Reaper978's other posts, Steve's wonderful post (go Steve!), and his current signature, he (Reaper) doesn't take to any type of criticism very well. He's so full of himself and his own subjective truths -- and he has a lot of growing up to do (but then so do we all). But really, without any kind of truly constructive criticism, no matter how kindly phrased, we cannot possibly improve and grow as pianists.

i remember that once at lesson, after playing a piece i was working on, my teacher looked at me and said, 'how do you want me to say it, honestly or politely?' so, i said, 'just tell me what it is.' so i got the honest critique i deserved.

the point is that you'd never learn anything if all a teacher could say to you is 'good job' all the time, even if you know you're not that good. a good teacher should tell his/her students the honest opinions or even criticize technical or musical mistakes students made without pouring harshness or sweetener into it at the same time. people learn from their mistakes if they know what they are.

Yeah, I personally respond best to this "straight talk" approach too. But others may not.

posted by hopinmad:
"With 11 hours of exposure to the piano, and music in general, I am sure the old bloke would progress, so long as it was 11 hours of hard work, and there would be no end to the progress."


Well, the progress line would start to level out and hit a limit at the point where that person has maxed out their potential and reached their "personal best" (this is probably more true of technical skills than musical interpretation). Again, the greater the innate potential, probably the longer to reach that point.

Monica, the chess family you describe is an interesting example but really doesn't suggest much more than that if you have parents who are very interested in chess (music) themselves,and likely have some aptitude for it (hence the intense interest) they probably have children who share some of that aptitude and can instill and nurture that interest early. We hear of course about the rare situation in which the kids became chess champions (or the Five Browns). We don't hear about the thousands of families who tried the same thing and their kids are playing recreationally (or worse, never want to see a piano or chess board again in their lives).

Best,
Sophia

Why should it stop; there is nothing to stop it!


Monica's post also implies this.

Especially as all three daugthers reached such standards.

for the same reason that runners don't continue to improve indefinitely-- or else we'd have people running one minute miles (or less). Think of it as an asymptotic function --as you close in on your physical and mental processing limit the rate of progress will probably slow. This may be more applicable to technical prowess (i.e. speed, virtuosity) as one hits one's physical and coordination limits than to musical interpretation which is probably more open ended and subjective.

I've been around many families who lived for chess teams, clubs, tournaments, etc. It's very much the same thing: There were kids who worked LONG hours, slaved away at it and did ok and others who worked just as hard (or sometimes less so) but had an extreme aptitude for "seeing the board" and left the other kids in the dust. (and when these kids are willing to put in the long hours and work very hard, look out-- that's how chess champions come about).

The fantasy that we are all able to be elite players if we work hard enough is a cherished one ( very American-- just work hard enough and nothing can stop you) but it's naive. Sorry, don't mean to sound harsh; maybe it's my version of the "tell it to me straight approach" discussed above.

Sophia

Of course then there's Handel - - -

I agree with a lot of what's been said here. Signa summed it up nicely with the critique. What good does it if all you get the praise and not what needs to get done. All of my teachers gave me the critique. and this pushed me to do better each lesson.

I heard someone say a very long time ago that anyone can be taught to press the keys on the piano, but it takes talent, passion, and dedication to make the music come out.

In thinking back about my career choice, I have some regrets about not persuing a music career, but in others I don't. Having chosen a technical career has afforded me some nice benefits as John Pels pointed out. I have a nice piano, my own home, and a decent salary with fully-paid medical benefits. If were a freelance teacher or musician, these things would be harder to achieve especially the medical benefits, which cost so much today.

John

originally posted by Sophial;
I think this is more or less what I've tried to express myself (except that I did not now it was very American... )

I would like to just accept that great talent is a God-given thing that I am not supposed to understand, just to acclaim.

Teachers and parents of these very talented children have a very difficult task to balance between critics and praise, pushing and holding back. Talent is no guarantee of success and I can do nothing but admire those who managed to become professional solo musicians.

Ragnhild

Good points. Yes, we all do live in the physical world where we come up to both the limits of physics and our general innately human physiological and psychological capabilities. The sky is not the limit.

As to those putting in long and arduous hours and getting marginal returns, or slipping early and asymptoticly into less than stellar plateaus: As the studies across a wide spectrum of human endeavor and Monica have pointed out, it is not the hours an sich that count but the deliberateness of the practice, the constant and relentless focus on working on the things you CANNOT do instead of repeating what you CAN do. It is about having an expert teacher and experienced coach make sure you know the difference, take meaningful steps and support you in constantly and steadily converting that what you CANNOT do into that what you now CAN do. Not only hard work is required but deliberate, guided practice.

For example, I don't deny that W.A. Mozart was "talented" but if Leopold had been a tavern owner or even a card-carrying music enthusiast instead of both an experienced musical pedagogue with his own published method and at the same time a pushy, junior-beauty-pageant, his-childhood-be-damned kind of parent, I doubt we would be enjoying Mozart's music today.

That is why the soft love, cuddle them silly, you can do no wrong kind of teacher may produce graduates who have "used their own talents in their own special way", but it won't make them great pianists. Nor will it give them the kind of life lessons they will need to work hard and smart enough to later be recognized as having "great talent" in another, more financially secure field of work.

According to my own experience, learning is a lot easier now for me than it was when I was younger. As observed with several years of studies aged 31-35 and as I am currently, aged 47, observing as I learn languages, my music scores and theory, plus whatever learning my job requires.

This 46 year old would echo your experiences. I have also found that learning can be improved by having access to all the associations and experiences we can bring to the process in our maturity compared to our youth.

While it is true that there is a physical brain development and pruning process that takes place in the puberty and post puberty years that reportedly makes learning languages and memorizing large pieces thereafter more difficult, current advances in neuroscience indicate that we remain very pliant and teachable as we age -- as long as we continue to learn or practice. The old adage "use it or lose it" appears to be scientifically accurate.

Everything I know about the distribution of intelligence leads me to agree with you here, sophia... but then this literature on expertise just has me scratching my head.

Maybe it all comes down to the definition of "expert" vs. "elite." I'd certainly be comfortable with a position that says anybody can become an "expert" at something with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, defined as "accomplished practitioner" or "professional level," but that additional factors (innate talent, right body, etc.) are required to hit that rarefied "elite" level.

p.s. I completely agree that there's absolutely nothing we can conclude from the Hungarian chess family example, and I hope I adequately stressed the nonscientific nature of that anecdote in my post.

Hi Monica
I think the problem with much of the expertise literature is that it is not dealing with randomly selected populations. If we think of it as how to best nurture and develop existing talent in people who are motivated to improve-- it makes sense. People who start out with some aptitude and interest, who are highly motivated to improve, and who stick with it (remember there is a strong attrition process as those not doing well drop out) will improve, and often greatly improve, to some level of expertise after many hours of focused concentrated practice (not just repetition, but focused on skill building).I have no argument with that and think the evidence is quite good for it.

It gets interpreted though by many people as meaning that if you select people randomly you can create Gary Kasparov, Vladimir Horowitz or Mozart by subjecting them to 10k hours of training. I just don't think there is good evidence to that effect and it flies in the face of what we see in the world.

If you did this with enough people, there would be some in the group with a high enough level of talent to emerge from the process having achieved elite status (especially because the process would winnow down the group),but it's the synergy of the innate talent subjected to great training that produces it, not just the training IMHO.
Training is no doubt necessary but not sufficient to achieve elite status.

Ragnhild,
no, I don't think Americans have a monopoly on this idea . I agree with you that talent is only one component of success in a professional career as a musician-- much hinges on temperament, luck, timing, good connections, drive and even these days-- how good looking one is!

Sophia

A person is going to do what he is going to do. Given all the influences on our lives we are a combination of our inner world and our outer world experiences. Our inner most world contributes a great deal to a persons ability to have musical successes. Musical is part desire to be musical, having something of importance to communicate about, being on the journey, having good resources for the informational parts of music, training, attention to detail, task orientation, motivation, aspiration, inspiration, all kinds of qualities make up the profile of a "musician" with potential. Being able to explore and develop our musical selves is the path we are on electively.

When there is opposition, obstacles, unfinished work, our music suffers.

The constant judgment of how am I doing? Concern for the time it is taking is the ego asking for ratings. We need to be able to give reality checks to ourselves, we know when we're doing well, likewise, we know when we're in a slump. The acceptance needs to come from ourselves. The opposition, obstacle, unfinished work is often ourselves doing battle with ourselves.

The more open minded we can be about our music, with awareness and reality, the more work we will be able to accomplish. When self-criticism and expectations enter in, it's a losing battle. We can't help ourselves if we are looking for "failure" all the time, and concentrating on the "problems" we think we are facing.

That is like walking down a street in your neighborhood trying not to step on the cracks - you've got your head down, looking for cracks, avoiding the cracks which makes for some strange walking gaits. Consumed by looking for cracks, you miss the trees in bloom, the kids playing, the sunny day, the walking freely with purpose.

So look for the things going well, recognize them, say gratitude for improvements, and be nice to you in all thoughts.

Why is it so hard to do that?

You are a wise woman, Betty!

Sophia

With runners it's a completely different situation, the physical sate of their bodies are going to effect it much more than it does so with piano, ultimately, it will mean they've reached their 'fastest lap'. I guess you could define talent with athletes therefore; simply as their physical bodies.
With piano-playing, great technique isn't dependant on physical ability as much (though of course it does to some considerable extent) as it does with running. There would be no reason why one couldn't attain the technique of Kissin, if it wasn't for the hard work (please note I've said in an earlier post that I mean for example, 11 hours of work to mean 11 hours of hard work, otherwise it's just 11 hours of playing) involved, and therefore that hard work maybe could be defined as Kissin's talent.
His musicality, however, is a different factor, but actually, the same process could be applied.
You say of lots of kids slaved away at something when they were younger, saying that is proof of [lack of] talent, but it doesn't so, it means they might, in fact, didn't practise effectively enough. Simple putting the hours in is not enough.
Chess is a different field though, mental ability, resulting in a good enough organized mind to see ahead, is going to play a major factor, but with piano playing, it isn't neccesary to be a genius. Some intellect is going to be required obviously, and probably the more more so the faster the progress, but if there is prgoress at all then there's potentially no end to it.
"Just work hard enough and nothing can stop you", isn't followed as much as it should, as for the reasons I said before, that hard work has to be complete concentrataion, of maximum efficency; deliberate practise.


On the contrary; a family who wants to challenge the belief that women were not good at chess, so they want their THREE daughters to become chess champions and so then obviously it would be clear that women were good at chess. They teach their kids from an early age, make sure their practise is carried out constructively, and all three become champions? Without this practise they would never have reached such a stage, and talent doesn't come into it so much; all of them have suceeded. One could argue that all three had talent, but isn't that already pushing the thought that talent is a rare thing? Maybe that talen they each had is the difference between their standards now.

The unfortunate reality of talent vs hard-work is
that the more talented ones usually get better
attention and usually get to study with and learn
from the best teachers! The less talented ones
usually won't even get in the line.

Think about it, who on earth would want to spend
ten times or more effort+time in coaching the less
talented and without even guarantee s/he will
achieve as much. There is simply no free charity
out there in this very competitive market.

It's almost very analogous to the argument of why
the rich get richer and the poor stay poor!