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

After participating in this thread, I just realised that I dissagree with the title pretty much, although I do realise what the title means.

I can't see anything about "talent VS hard work". Both are needed, both do exist at some point and it would be foolish to dissagree, since there are scientific researches (VARK system for example), that show what learning prefernces a person has. It doesn't mean anything but preferences but I would draw a small personal conclusion that other people are better at writing, other at drawing, other at music, etc... (and other at sports, which is also some kind of intelligence). http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp

Just an idea! but I support total dedication and hard work, as well, personally. Just can't deny that there could be preferences. I also don't like the idea that these tendencies are pre made into us gene/nature/god wise. Prefer to think that our parents/school/society put them...

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.

Sophia replies:
Great technique is very much a physical ability as well as mental one (just as running is very much dependent on mental focus as well as physical ability). But in either case abilities like this are distributed according to a bell-shaped curve. Which is why training alone in the absence of physical gifts will not get one to the Olympics , but the absence of training will likewise keep one from getting there.

hopinmad:
There would be no reason why one couldn't attain the technique of Kissin, if it wasn't for the hard work

Sophia:
So why aren't there tons of Kissins out there?

hopinmad:
(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.

Sophia:
The capacity for hard work is indeed probably part of some versions of talent-- but if that's all it took there would be a lot more people at that level.

hopinmad: 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,

Sophia: No, I didn't say that was proof of lack of talent. I used that as an example of willingness to work hard and put in hours of concentrated hard work.

hopinmad: but it doesn't so, it means they might, in fact, didn't practise effectively enough. Simple putting the hours in is not enough.

Sophia:Agreed.

hopinmad: 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.

Sophia:
why should piano playing be any different than other activities requiring physical and mental skills such as running and chess? The skills might be different (fine motor control and coordination for example, or ability to shade and nuance playing and understand the deeper levels of a composition) but greater ability counts.

hopinmad: 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.

Sophia: uh, that's a lovely thought but.... in the end reality asserts itself.

hopinmad: "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.

Sophia: The only thing we can control is how much and how well we work. We can't go back and trade in our genetics or our very early learning experiences. So let's focus on high quality hard work and see how far it gets us. But it's also important to have some realistic expectations too. On a population basis, only a few people will make it to the top. However, it's difficult to predict for any individual where she/he will end up given the right kind of focused work-- which is why this should not be interpreted as discouraging people from working as hard and well as they can and seeing how far they can progress.

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,

Sophia: agree

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?

Sophia: It is not so hard to understand if you remember that these three girls were NOT CHOSEN AT RANDOM. They share their parents genes and their upbringing. So right off the bat there is a higher chance they might share "talent" endowments much more than three girls picked at random out of the phone book.

hopinmad: Maybe that talen they each had is the difference between their standards now.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Again, it's BOTH. And I do think that what we know from research tells us that experience and hard work changes biology, especially in the early years. We can control how much and how efficiently we practice-- and then see how far it takes us.

best wishes,

Sophia

Sophia:
Great technique is very much a physical ability as well as mental one (just as running is very much dependent on mental focus as well as physical ability). But in either case abilities like this are distributed according to a bell-shaped curve. Which is why training alone in the absence of physical gifts will not get one to the Olympics , but the absence of training will likewise keep one from getting there.

Hopinmad replies:
It isn't so much a factor as it is in running; not so much in fact that the majority of people will not reach a physical limit to what they can cope with.

Sophia:
So why aren't there tons of Kissins out there?

Hopinmad replies:
Because of the hard work involved! Loads of people put in the hours but it is a great minority that uses them properly!

Sophia:
The capacity for hard work is indeed probably part of some versions of talent-- but if that's all it took there would be a lot more people at that level.

Hopinmad replies:
I suppose this is similar to the previous reply, but I'll stress again the contrary, because for that to be "all it takes" is actually a great mountain to climb, and it isn't as easy as for a "lot more people" to be able to do that.

Sophia:
No, I didn't say that was proof of lack of talent. I used that as an example of willingness to work hard and put in hours of concentrated hard work.

Hopinmad replies:
"Slaving away" isn't exactly "willingness" to put in the hard work is it?
As I say again, putting the hours in isn't enough because that's just long, not hard, work/

Sophia:
why should piano playing be any different than other activities requiring physical and mental skills such as running and chess? The skills might be different (fine motor control and coordination for example, or ability to shade and nuance playing and understand the deeper levels of a composition) but greater ability counts.

Hopinmad replies:
To run miles is obviously going to take more physical ablility than it will to play any piece, that cannot be argued with, and understanding deeper levels of composition or ability to shade and nuance playing is an attaiable skill, much more so than to bear in mind all possible outcomes of several moves ahead. Please don't make this out as if I'm saying playing the piano is easy!

Sophia:
uh, that's a lovely thought but.... in the end reality asserts itself.

Hopinmad replies:
I've never actually heard of anyone who has put in the hours and not been rewarded, obviously I would not, but I cannot argue it therefore.


May I add, as I don't think I've done into a reply to one of your posts, that this is the way someone without talent would see it, isn't it?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, hopinmad. I think playing the piano is quite physical as well as mental, even if it's not aerobic! Progress is certainly going to occur if that focused hard work is put in ... the end result though is hard to predict in any individual case, which is why it's important to see where hard work and focused practice take all of us. Hopefully as far as we can go...

Best,
Sophia

Interesting tidbits rummaging about in Mozart's letters:

Remarking on Stein's daughter:

"...She may succeed, for she has great talent for music. But she will not make progress by this method (sitting wrongly, wild movements, not playing in time, playing heavy handedly)"

On an exchange with Dutch-born pianist Georg Frederich Richter:

"...when I played to him he stared all the time at my fingers and kept on saying 'Good God! How hard I work and sweat -- and win no applause -- and to you, my friend, it is child's play'. Yes, I replied, I too had to work hard, so as not to have to work hard any longer."

These tidbits are just as appropriate today as they were back then.

John

sophial, I also must admit that I find the sputterings about "yes, but they weren't chosen completely at random, so all bets are off" argument rather specious.

Even in the fictional Pygmalion the flower lady wasn't chosen completely at random from the world's population. The play would have been much less enjoyable if Professor Higgins had had a native from Papau New Guinea suddenly have to drop their head shrinking and drum beating for a bit of miraculous posh-English speaking and ballroom dancing....

Of course, we are talking about individuals within a relevant range of their culture and environment who, for whatever reasons -- whether personal interest, family prodding, or the relentless and uncontrollable pushing by one's predetermining genes -- choose or have chosen for them to study the piano and who by working harder, in a smart and deliberate way, under expert tutelage during a sustained period of time are able to exploit or rather create their 'talent'.

Sophial, we'll have to indeed!
But if I didn't believe what I said then you see there would be no reason for me to continue playing the piano!

agreed, but to think these three girls' attributes were somehow unrelated and they were picked totally independently from the "talent pool" as if they were strangers (even strangers from the same culture) would be inaccurate.

Sophia

wouldn't just one girl or 2/3 from the family have been every bit as compelling?

what would you have thought of a successful experiment in their family (assuming they had enough time and resources) to make one girl a chess grand champion, another a piano competition winner and first chair Tuba player while a third is groomed to graduate as a mechanical engineer in a man's world? Simply good "self development genes"? Or is the kneading more important than the dough?

I think you "knead" both !

I've been at this a year practicing on average of 2-3 hours a day everyday and I can see by listening to others and comparing myself to others that I do lack real talent. I was hoping my love of the sound of the piano and hard work would make me a real player, but alas it may not be possible. I told myself I would give it 100% for a couple of years and then re-evaluate and decide if I should continue. One year to go...

IMHO Training and talent are polar ends of the same issue.

The object of training is to acquire a skill ... which in turn provides a sense of confidence in an activity close to one’s heart.

Once acquired the issue of hard work takes a back seat ... there is no effort in doing something one likes doing ... my specialities are playing golf, sketching, architectural designs, watercolours, playing piano, reading to my grandchildren ... but the thing I dread
most is having to do the washing up ... now that’s what I call really hard work!!

Talent is what people like to attach to someone well practised in an enjoyable skill ... talent should not be misleadingly construed when some young sprog with apparent flair dashes off a Chopin Nocturne ... this is not talent ... merely a rare genetic aural skill which is exploited
(with self-aggrandising applause) ... having obviated the laboured requirement of endless sight-reading ... but ironically has to pay the
price of hard practice to sustain the aural memory.

Sadly the bogey of sight-reading stifles confidence ... and talent has to be substituted at the piano by hard work.

Why can’t the reading of music be as easy as reading a book?

"If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans." (From Desiderata.)

You play the piano because you love the sound. So long as you enjoy the sound you make, you should not worry about the "talent" of others or its assumed absence in yourself. Unless of course you plan a career as a concert pianist...

Mark,

Don't quit before the miracle!

Two to three hours of practice is dedication and very commendable.

Are you self-studying or preparing lessons for a piano teacher to collaborate with you.

There is so much in the archives here at PWF that you might consider searching on any keyword that you are wanting more information about, such as "practice". There are so many books available these day on practice ideas. Very, very valuable.

Google: PracticeSpot

Being proficient at the piano is going to take as long as it takes. Time and effort invested is what it takes. And....You are doing that!

Betty

Yes Betty I'm using a teacher. She is great too.

But my problem, that I speak of isn't about her or my practice, but my lack of natural talent. Specifically in the areas of rhythm, timing and musicality...

I knew I had this problem going in and was hoping I could beat it with solid hard work and education. And although I have made some progress, I still seems to lack that special something. When I started this I decided to dedicated 2 years of solid practice and see what happens. I don't expect to play like a pro, just when I do play my level pieces that they at least sound good. This thread topic kind of hit it on the head, talent vs hard work.

Mark...

"everyone knows that rock beats scissors, but then scissors beat paper, and paper beats rock, Kif we have a cunumdrum"
Zap Branigan

so
Rock=hard work
scissors= talent
paper=luck?? i guess

paper=imagination

Talent without hard work gets you nothing.

I talked to Stanislav Ioudenitch this weekend and this was basically what he was trying to get across to me. I have a technical talent and emotional soul/musical feeling that very very few people possess, and so far in my life I have squandered it. I'm extremely angry with myself for letting down all of my teachers/friends/family that have believed in me.

Much of the stuff he said to me is what I would consider to be personal and I don't feel right disclosing it, but I've never been so motivated and simultaneously ****ed at myself in my entire life. After hearing me play for 15 minutes, he completely picked me apart as a person and told me exactly what I needed to do to put myself atop the music world. It's time to practice.

Colin take note, this is a positive response to constructive criticism. Phonehome congratulations to you for finding a teacher who would be honest with you and for taking the criticism for exactly what it was meant to be, a motivational kick in the pants. Come back and tell us how your marathon practice session went.