Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Training beats Talent

"If you knew how much work went into it, you wouldn't call it genius." - Michelangelo

How is that "clearly nonsense"? A general rule never implies "everyone". It simply means that if you take some reasonable sampling of individuals, that you would expect to see the results stated following some statistical distribution (e.g. a bell curve). Of course this can vary significantly by population chosen and ability being measured (5'8" folks will generally never be able to dunk a basketball as well as a population of 6'8" folks no matter how hard they practice/train, however their ability to make free throws will show different results)

It is clearly nonsense because in general, people will improve if they work hard, but in general people will ABSOLUTELY NOT converge to a similar level of ability.

As a Statistics graduate, I know all about sample populations and bell curves. Indeed, if I carefully select the right sample I can "prove" that storks bring babies!!

You unpick your own argument by refering to these very bell curves. If you have a group fo people with a similar level of ability and then they all put in the same level of hard work, you would expect to see differing levels of ability at the other end i.e. a bell curve, or normal distribution of results.

The same result would occur if you had a group of varying levels of ability and they put in varying levels of hard work. With a large enough sample size, you would again expect to see a normal distribution of ability at the end of the experiment.

Your "general rule" would result is a very long flat line section in the centre where most people's ability to perform has equalised.

Never said that there would be convergence, you're twisting my original point. It was about ones ability to overcome a lack of "talent" by hard work, and how this can allow someone of lesser talent to overcome/match someone of greater talent if the person of lesser talent works at a rate that is sufficiently more than the person of greater talent. AGAIN, there will ALWAYS be exceptions, but it is certainly possible and in a great many number of cases.


As a Statistics graduate, I know all about sample populations and bell curves. Indeed, if I carefully select the right sample I can "prove" that storks bring babies!!

Lies, damn lies ....


You unpick your own argument by refering to these very bell curves. If you have a group fo people with a similar level of ability and then they all put in the same level of hard work, you would expect to see differing levels of ability at the other end i.e. a bell curve, or normal distribution of results.


All you've proved is that they have differing levels of what, in this thread, is called talent. Different members of your population improve at a higher rate given the same amount of work resulting in your bell curve.


The same result would occur if you had a group of varying levels of ability and they put in varying levels of hard work. With a large enough sample size, you would again expect to see a normal distribution of ability at the end of the experiment.

Your "general rule" would result is a very long flat line section in the centre where most people's ability to perform has equalised.


But we're not discussing random abilities and random levels of work. We're talking specifically about a specific group ("talented") putting in a bound qty of work (less than) another specific group ("less talented") and seeing if and when the ability lines of the two groups intersect (at what pct does the less talented group have to work harder than the more talented to allow for the line to intersect in some reasonable time frame).

But beyond all the mumbo jumbo, yes, it certainly is _possible_ for one of "lesser" talent to surpass those of "greater" talent by simply working harder than those who have greater talent. That's been the point all along and so far I don't think anyone disagrees (other than to bring up outliers). Do we agree on this?

I wasn't trying to twist your original point. I was just interpretating what you wrote and disagreeing with it. The beauty of the written word - the same words mean different things to different people!!

Anyways, it's perfectly possible that someone who regarded as being less talented than another individual can, woth hard work end up a much more able performer. This is true in all walks of life, not just piano.

What I would still disagree with is that you can somehow put this in to an equation and most peole who are less talented and who work harder than more talented people can, as a rule catch up.

The reason I diagree with this general rule is that innate ability, talent or whatever you want to call it is so difficult to quantify in the first place, and there are so many other variables to take in to account that simply more hard work is not enough to bridge such a gap as a general rule.

Ah yes, we generally agree then (even if it's to agree to disagree on some points).

I'll tell you what would be interesting - to gather 2 groups of pianists that fall in to these 2 categories and give it a whirl. That would be fun.

Who knows, I might learn something!!

Ahh, but that would lead to endless discourse on how to place them in the proper bins

IMO, the truest statement regarding this topic :

“Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.”
-Mozart

Everyone who can work for something has talent.

Easy to say when you're a "genius"

hmmmm....this is one of those topics in which no real solution is present...but can be fun to indulge in.

Personally, I don't believe in "talent". Life is too nuanced and varied for generic, general titles to be applied in these types of arguments. Everything is the result of a combination of elements, not just one. I'm going to invent a scenario that will help support my statement:

A girl who has been playing piano since age seven. She is very good at many things. Lives a well - rounded, life. Get's straight A's. Does sports. Plays piano. Plays very well. Has a very quick memory, and nice sound.  Practices about 1-2 hrs every day. Leaves time her day for piano, studying, spending time with her boyfriend, etc. She is preparing a Mozart sonata for a recital.

A boy, who has been playing piano since age ten. Generally, someone who has had a hard time in school, both academically and socially. Girls tend not to like him, and despite his efforts in school, things are difficult for him.  But he really falls in love with music, and sees it as a sort of refuge from the troubles of life. Becomes a piano-nerd. Has initial trouble in the beginning reading music because he started late and his technique is bad and his sight reading could improve. But so deep is his love for his instrument and for music, that it becomes is life, and other things suffer from it, but he practices 6 hours a day out of sheer love and determiatnion to express himself musically. Goes go concerts, listen es to recordings, so these help develop his imagination and musical sense.

At age 18, many years later, this boy and this girl meet together at an audition. The girl, being very well rounded, and intelligent plays a delicate movement of a Haydn Sonata. Her playing is well balanced with a few slips, because she has been very busy and not had time to practice.  The boy then plays a technically perfect, passionate, brilliant account of Schumann's first sonata. Ideas are original, and the passage work is flawless.
This is because for the past years, music has been more than just another thing he did as an extracurricular activity, but it was why he lived, it was something that he loved so much that drove him to voluntarily practice six hours a day for all his teen years, and he choose his music at the sacrifice above all else.

Who would those in the audience consider more talented?? The boy  If we went back in time 6 years and both kids where given a test of sigh-reading and basic musical skills, given both their situations at that time, who do think would THEN be considered more talented? The girl.

So, everything is really subject to situation and perspective. It's about priorities and ambition. The girl, naturally being more suited toward doing things well in life - as so many people are - would probably be considered more "talented".  But what about passionate desire? If that is what really made the boy play well, than it's very important - but can we really say it's "talent"?

And that brings me back to the Mozart quote. Whatever one loves more than anything else in the world is going to manifest itself strongest in their life, weather it be love for music, another person, a stress-free life, animals,etc. Perhaps this love is not something you can acquire, but if you didn't have it, then you would not be so bothered by not being able to accomplish it. And if you have enough of it, there would be no reason not to accomplish it. As Pogorelich put it, if "You really really want something, you can't help yourself from having it, it just comes."

I know that this post is filled with cliches and my scenario was an extreme one, but I hope if gets across.

Akira said: "I wish I were talented, but I'm not. Hard work will just have to do."

You know I have a different take on how we make progress using any natural talent we have - not just musical talent - combined with "working easy" - NOT "working hard".

Working easy to me is getting ourselves out of the way as obstacles to ourselves, and learning to do "enough" when we play to build what we are learning, retrieve what we know, and polish what we have chosen to memorize or perform or bring to an accomplished state of our satisfaction.

With keenness of mind, decision making, management skills (time and task) it is achievable.

Make your musical activities pleasurable and you will make faster progress.

Just be and do at the piano. Be who you are as a musician at this present moment - this is you. At future moments, with "enough" you will be a better musician, and with diligence and perseverance, your efforts (let's replace that word!) INVESTMENT! (aha!) will pay off.

We are often victims of how we say things to ourselves, and our brain is quite literal in interpreting what we are saying.

What a mess. I thought bitwrangle's 'Firstly, the statement itself is so vague as to nearly be meaningless.' said it all. Then there's a big food fight! White coats splattered with ketchup. Help I'm writing like btb!

How do you know till your's is 'brought out' (the original Greek meaning of the word education)?

Isn't it strange, the assumption that only two qualities - hard work or talent - get you there. I can think of at least two other more important ones.

One that I can think of is competent guidance.

I've only read the Key Concepts so far, but the first and third points are pretty much exact reflections of my childhood. I was constantly praised by my parents and teachers for having talent or intelligence, and didn't have to work that hard alot of the time. Then, things would become overwhelming when I couldn't work them out with my "natural talent" or "intelligence."

Thank you very much for posting this =)

I can't resist an anecdote. When I was in high school everything came easy. I only ever attended 2 or 3 days week and still got high grades. I remember once having several weeks off for no particular reason. When I got to my first maths class they'd started a new topic and I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND! I sat there thinking - my god, this is the feeling so many others have EVERY maths class, how sad it must be for them. It was a real revelation.

I agree completely with the article. The bottom line is that the growth-mindset is useful because it's motivating, which leads to effort and we can all agree that effort = improvement.

I don't care to bother myself with quantifying anything, speculating about 'truth' or anything that's beyond control. If I'm born with 17 units of talent or 2 why would I care? All that matters is to improve.

The point is the article purports to be social science. If there is no quantifying or 'truth' then where is the science bit?