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

Hi Monica,
well hopefully neither "side" is winning because it's the interaction of the two (aptitude AND hard work) that is probably the most important ingredient.

I'd even guess that hard work is probably the essential ingredient for developing into a competent player but the X factor of talent is needed to get to the very highest levels.

I've been reading about lives of famous pianists and it's hard not to think there is something intrinsically different about people like Freire (makes debut at age 4!!!) and de Larrocha (a relative late bloomer, making debut at age 5!) no matter how many hours their little hands may have logged at that point in their lives. And did they study and work incredibly hard to get where they are today? I'm sure.

Thank you, Sophia, for managing to capture in a few short sentences the essence (and dare I say resolution?) of the issue. I agree with you completely!

So, Sophia says you don't need talent and that's that?! And that's a discourse?

Thanks for the link Kreisler.

This is a very interesting article.

Sophia didn't say that. This is what she said: I don't see how one can argue with that.

I'm confused. Where did Sophia say you don't need talent?

I'll certainly agree that hard work will result in being a very competent player, as long as the definition of "competent" (by itself) doesn't imply playing the Chopin Etudes effortlessly and musically. That's where the "X" factor kicks in...

hard work is the essential ingredient (meaning the only ingredient that can't be left out)

talent is only essential for 'very highest levels.'

And Jason, WHY do you agree? That should be the object of this particular discourse.

p.s. We may also have different definitions of 'competent'.

Something I'm noticing about this discussion:

Many people seem to think it's an either/or and black/white proposition.

Talent OR Hard Work
Having OR Not Having Talent
Working Hard OR Not Working Hard

All of these come in shades of grey. Nobody has All or Zero Talent. Nobody is 100% Lazy or 100% industrious. People come in all different shades of grey and combinations.

Also, keep in mind that the research was a study in attitudes. Some of you are reading it as if there were an operational definition of "talent" and "work" used in the study. Read it again. Quibbling over definitions misses the point entirely. The point of the research was to figure out how people's attitudes affected outcomes. The result - attitude does affect outcome, and perception of intellect is key.

This is a very popular saying, but have read that it is just another example of someone putting words into a famous someone's mouth.

I broadly agree with Kreisler's assessment of these matters, but I would extend what he says to the nature of "success" itself, as well as to the subjective and external perceptions about ourselves.

I have verifiably meagre measurable musical talent. Were I to take tests of such, the sort of thing they probably give for admission to universities and music schools, I would completely fail; of this I am quite certain. Nonetheless I have produced many hundreds of compositions and improvisations over four decades and I am spending more and more time working at it and I am enjoying it with increasing fervour and purpose.

How can this be ? Either genuinely creative facility is more independent of measurable talent than is commonly thought, or I am simply a sort of William McGonagall or Louis Wain of piano music. Obviously I would prefer the former to be true but do not see the issue as life threatening.

Yet I am perceived by most people I know as a disgusting waste of musical talent and a grossly lazy under-achiever. Why don't I "do something" with my "talent". Why don't I become professional ? Why don't I sell CDs ? Why don't I perform ? Why don't I teach ? Why don't I do this, that or the other ? I have had all this since I was a kid. As far as work goes, depite my frequently cavalier opinions, I am slowly realising that, compared to many musicians, even professional ones, I have actually done a heck of a lot of work on my music, and seem to do more as I get older.

So, in addition to the valid issues raised by Kreisler (especially the "either/or" fallacy - that's a real killer of progress. Try substituting "both" - in any activity in life), there seems often to exist a gulf between actual work and talent and perceived work and talent.

This makes the whole subject so complicated I usually don't bother thinking about it. I just carry on and do what I feel I have to do musically, in the only ways I know how, before I peg out. That's all anybody can do, in the end, isn't it ?

I'd better clarify what I meant! I was trying to say that to achieve a reasonable level of competence, hard work in a person of average (not zero) ability will probably get you there. To achieve more than that, especially to get to the highest levels of pianism, the presence of talent becomes more important and is essential at the elite level. Let me reiterate that I think the interaction of innate ability ("talent") and focused hard work are what ultimately produces achievement. Does that help?

Sophia

Sophia, I don't disagree with you. Currently my concern is with Monica, who -by the tenor of her posts as I read them- feels that hard work is all there is to it, and that the "talent" card only really applies to the parnassus -Einstein's speed of light- of Horowitz or Argerich.

I just don't think it is that simple. Earlier it was pointed out that no one is either totally without talent or totally unable to muster hard work. Fair enough.

But I have seen pianists play much better with talent (and little inclination for hard work), than pianists with no talent (and a large inclination for hard work.) Too many instances for the multiple piano teachers on this board (of which I'm certainly not) to tell me that I'm full of it.

Sorry, I just call 'em as I see 'em. I may be relatively young, but I've been around the block complete with shattered dreams. I almost "made it", so don't give me any cr*p about not working hard enough.

Jason,
There is much merit to what you're saying. I think of hard work as a multiplier of talent but talent as an exponential (power)function. If either one is zero, you probably don't get anywhere. With slight talent, slow but noticeable progress occurs, and with "normal" talent,better progress, but in the presence of a high degree of talent, the progress explodes exponentially (i.e. the difference between raising something to a power of 10 compared to multiplying by 10).

Sophia

Folks, we are stuck in Social Science's fatal flaw, as bitwrangler began to elude to: You may not (I would say CANNOT) be able to convert qualitive to quantitive. Statements like: of average (not zero) ability, highest levels of pianism, meagre measurable musical talent, are likely to be nonsense statements. Posting about AMOUNTS of talent or hard work is a no-brainer.

Thanks Kreisler, for trying to bring us back in line:
But I must disagree. The conclusion is: the perception of a work ethic is the key in an environment which rewards work effort.

Can we PLEASE stay away from quantitive judgements? Please?

p.s. Good morning Jason, sorry about your career stalling. I'm sure concert pianizing was never much of a rose garden anyway. It's what YOU make of music that matters.

All of this lollygagging will produce absolutely no concensus. It makes for wonderful diatribes of academic insignificance. What I seem to see a REAL lack of though is any anecdotal evidence. Any of us that have spent countless hours in the hallowed halls are WELL AWARE of the differences in talent and the relationship between work and talent. There is no way to guarantee an outcome of a pianist of the first magnitude by sheer force of will along with a smathering of talent and long hours. Though conditioning plays a role here, it is painfully obvious to any of us that have spent time working around others doing the same thing, that innate talent plays an incredible role. Sorry folks, if I could have practiced 24 hours a day with great instruction and the talent I was born with, I still couldn't play like Horowitz. Goodness knows I tried...and still do. There is not one pianist that I know that doesn't believe that we are what we are out of the box. You can tinker around the edges, but we will all have certain limitations, getting back to my 1% versus .01 %. So once again I side with Sophia that says it most concisely in her most recent post. The bottom line is that you can't substitute work for "genius". I realize that this flies in the face of the egalitarian PC world that we presently find ourselves in, but that's just the way it is! It doesn't mean that our aspirations shouldn't keep us motivated however.

For that matter any of us that have raised children to adulthood can see that even with an incredible amount of "nurturing" going on "nature" in the form of genetics will supply us with some of our biggest battles as parents.

I am just now reading some Samuil Feinberg transcripts - a genius I had not heard of. He quotes Pushkin's 'Mozart and Salieri' (remember this is FICTION):

Feinberg: "But there is one thing Salieri cannot understand: the fact that as a person he is immeasurably inferior to Mozart. Mozart, though, is profoundly gifted - he is kindly and trusting, a man of radiant spirit, open to genuine inspiration.

is the final conclusion Salieri reaches.

This is the answer.

If you're an accountant.

The “talent/training” issue is ... IMHO not an EITHER/OR.

Training should culminate in a skill confidence ... once acquired, the dullness of hard work is alleviated ... liking what you are doing always makes things look easy ... the magic elixir of confidence.

And so, if proper training provides the catalyst skill to drudge-less progress ... it would appear that talent is the product of a furtherence of this progress ... and no more than an individual perception of “a natural aptitude or ability” (Collins) ... of a chappie happy in his work.

However, keyboard music has a major stumbling- block ... unresolved mastery of sight-reading is the secret bogey which blights the surefootedness of most ... if no amount of training can undo this weakness ... the question of talent is therefore not under consideration ... and a genetic aural skill should not misleadingly be seen as a talent ... merely a short-lived way of easing the tribulations of sight-reading.

kk:
If you're an accountant.

Not that there anything wrong in that of course. I often put a lot of personal interpretation and artistic feeling into monthly management reports, often in quite a talented fashion apparently

-Michael B.