|
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!
|
|
78 members (beeboss, brdwyguy, Burkhard, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, Animisha, 15 invisible),
2,151
guests, and
477
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 565
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 565 |
Originally posted by theJourney: [QUOTE]Originally posted by sotto voce: [qb] I certainly believe more in talent than in the Zodiac, but for it to be a useful pedagogical or human development concept, I would like to see more scientific underpinning applied than there is today. Good for you! Do you mean the scientific evidence that people differ in their level of talent, or how to teach people with various levels of talent? I don't know much about musical talent--I'm aware of books and articles on how to identify musical talent from a young age but haven't read them. On general intelligence there is a vast amount of research both on identification and teaching, done with both case studies and statistical analysis. How scientific these are, I'm sure people would make different judgments based on the yardstick that they hold. On the other hand, while it might help to categorize kids into ability groups in a regular classroom so that the teacher can give the kids different levels of challenge, the one-on-one nature of music lessons means that grouping/categorization might not be as important. Private teachers deal with one student as a time, no matter what level the student is at (because of either talent or hard work or both), the teacher will tailor the teaching to the student anyway. But of course if a teacher wants to "weed out" those who will not go very far that's a different matter...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946 |
Originally posted by Monica K.: Well, the Daniel Levitin book certainly talks at length about the 10,000 hours, and he cites other researchers in the chapter. The latest Malcolm Gladwell book ("Outliers") also talks about it. Outliers seems to be generating a lot of attention lately. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16brooks.html?em
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946 |
Originally posted by childofparadise2002: Good for you!
Do you mean the scientific evidence that people differ in their level of talent, or how to teach people with various levels of talent? I am particularly interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the confluence of circumstances that generates opportunities for people to exhibit behavior that we call talent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946 |
Whatever you want it to be? You might want to check out the last few pages kbk and see if you can bring us some clarity.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856 |
I have been loosely following it but getting on with more non-loser activities (as the young, recently departed (again) Danny used to say). You'll get nowhere until the 'What is talent?' question gets answered and how do you do that?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
I am particularly interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the confluence of circumstances that generates opportunities for people to exhibit behavior that we call talent. Leopold Auer, whose students included Jasha Heifetz, believed that two attributes that were important were poverty and possibly, coming from a large family. "But one thing they must be - they must be poor! And it is best that they come from a large family." "They should have known want; they should have known hunger. Zimbalist, Elman, Heifetz, Rosen, Seidel - they all came of poor people. There is something, I know not what, that is bred in the soul by poverty. It is something mystic. To feel this terrible need is the motive power that drives genius. It develops feeling; it makes both force and tenderness." The full article: http://www.web-helper.net/PDMusic/Articles/91919/article2.asp
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498 |
That's really the problem with "musical talent" - no one seems to know what it is.
I vaguely recall a story about a music student who came to a virtuoso on that instrument and asked if the virtuoso could listen to him and tell him if he had talent. The virtuoso did so, and told him that he had no talent and that he should not become a musician. The student went off, discouraged, and quit music.
Years later, he met the virtuoso again, and asked him how he could tell whether or not he had talent, and how he could be so certain. And what the virtuoso told him was that he always told people that they should not become musicians - because then, only those who really could not live without music would continue to play.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Larisa, your supply of anecdotes to support the idea that talent just doesn't matter seems endless. Why does it matter what it is? I'm reminded of when the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't define what pornography is, but acknowledged that it's something that one knows when one sees it. In response to your statement that no one knows what it is, I would say that everyone knows what it is. Talent isn't the only intangible in life that's hard to quantify. How about beauty, for instance? In any event, why doesn't a textbook (well, dictionary ) definition suffice? Steven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498 |
Steven, it matters because these definitions can be, and are, used to hurt, and that countless students are turned away from music because of such definitions. I think the world needs more music-makers, not fewer, and that the world needs fewer miserable people who realize, too late, that their childhood piano teacher was wrong and that they did have "talent" after all.
As for "everyone knows what it is" - only in obvious cases. Yeah, if you've got a kid who can play a piano arrangement of a symphony after hearing it once, it's easy to tell he's got talent. What about the example I cited earlier - my father? Is he "talented"? How would you tell? And what would you tell him if he asked you? What about a random 8-year-old who comes to you for lessons? How do you tell if he's talented, and does it matter? Would you teach him any differently if you knew he was "talented"?
Are you talented? How do you know? Who told you, and how did they know? How did that affect you, and how did that affect the instruction you received? As a grownup, do you think they were right?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Originally posted by Larisa: Steven, it matters because these definitions can be, and are, used to hurt, and that countless students are turned away from music because of such definitions. I think the world needs more music-makers, not fewer, and that the world needs fewer miserable people who realize, too late, that their childhood piano teacher was wrong and that they did have "talent" after all.
As for "everyone knows what it is" - only in obvious cases. Yeah, if you've got a kid who can play a piano arrangement of a symphony after hearing it once, it's easy to tell he's got talent. What about the example I cited earlier - my father? Is he "talented"? How would you tell? And what would you tell him if he asked you? What about a random 8-year-old who comes to you for lessons? How do you tell if he's talented, and does it matter? Would you teach him any differently if you knew he was "talented"?
Are you talented? How do you know? Who told you, and how did they know? How did that affect you, and how did that affect the instruction you received? As a grownup, do you think they were right? That people may allow themselves to be defined by the judgments of others would seem to be the problem, then, and I don't know how that can be changed; it seems like it's human nature to scrutinize and to judge. But if shielding people's egos from the ways in which we are all different were the criterion for what's considered appropriate and acceptable, there would be no beauty contests, no athletic competitions, no spelling bees, no academic scholarships, no game shows like Jeopardy!, and certainly no talent competitions. Steven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
there would be no beauty contests, no athletic competitions, no spelling bees, no academic scholarships, no game shows like Jeopardy!, and certainly no talent competitions.
One step closer to paradise! How wonderful if that could actually happen. Imagine if such folly could leave our planet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Originally posted by keystring: there would be no beauty contests, no athletic competitions, no spelling bees, no academic scholarships, no game shows like Jeopardy!, and certainly no talent competitions.
One step closer to paradise! How wonderful if that could actually happen. Imagine if such folly could leave our planet. Hey, not so fast! A new season of American Idol is revving up to begin next month! (Oh, and if it weren't for academic scholarships, I wouldn't have gotten my degree, either.) Steven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
I missed the scholarships - reminds me of "Five of these things belong together..." of Sesame Street. Haven't watched t.v. in about 3 years so I'll take word for it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498 |
Originally posted by sotto voce: That people may allow themselves to be defined by the judgments of others would seem to be the problem, then, and I don't know how that can be changed; it seems like it's human nature to scrutinize and to judge. But if shielding people's egos from the ways in which we are all different were the criterion for what's considered appropriate and acceptable, there would be no beauty contests, no athletic competitions, no spelling bees, no academic scholarships, no game shows like Jeopardy!, and certainly no talent competitions.
But would there still be piano instruction? Generally, one chooses to enter a competition, and one is free not to. For example, I know I am not especially beautiful, so I do not enter a beauty contest. But what if, every time I went to the store to buy makeup, the salesperson would yell at me "Why do you need makeup for that ugly mug of yours?!!!" Factually, it is true - I am a possessor of a singularly ugly mug. Factually, there is such a thing as beauty, and some folks have it to a greater degree than others do. But is it relevant to my purchase of makeup? And is the salesperson's insult "appropriate and acceptable," and what result is it likely to produce, other than make me even uglier? We're not talking about piano contests or other such things, where people voluntarily sign up. We're talking about people who want to play the piano. These are not necessarily people who want to compete with others - they are people who want to acquire a particular skill. Piano is not a competitive sport. Personally, when I sit at the piano, I am competing with myself. I want to play better today than I played yesterday. I know there are people around who are more talented than me, and people who are less talented - but so what? It doesn't change the fact that every day, I must sit down at the piano and practice. If someone told me tomorrow that I have no talent whatsoever, I'd still sit down and practice. If someone told me that I am the most brilliantly talented musician who ever lived - I'd still sit down and practice. In fact, it was competing with others, way back in music school, that made me lazy, which is a habit I'm overcoming now as an adult. Music was easy for me. I was easily at the top of every music class I took, and I didn't have to do very much. So I didn't do very much. Now that I am competing with myself rather than with others, I have to practice and work hard. Because my standards are now set by myself rather than by others, I set them high - high enough that I have to work hard to meet them. For the first time in my life, I'm encountering musical tasks that are hard, that I have to work to master (switching from classical to jazz is tricky...) And I am mastering them, and I am proud of mastering them. I don't care whether I am doing so faster or slower than other people, or whether anyone else thinks it's even possible for someone to do this. It's simply irrelevant. If someone told me "You're such a moron - jazz is much easier for everyone else!" - would I have to quit? Nope.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Meanspiritedness certainly isn't a part of the acknowledgment of talent, beauty or any other trait or propensity; nobody's talking about yelling at people that they are ugly or untalented or rubbing their noses in their deficiencies in any other manner.
Is it really so self-defeating just to be realistic and honest about our relative strengths and weaknesses? You know, like "I must have talent because this comes so easily to me, but I still have to work hard to be on top of my game" or "I'm not naturally any good at this, so I have to work harder and longer than some people to get results."
It can be hard to look oneself squarely in the mirror and face reality, but doesn't self-acceptance, and the avoidance of self-deception and self-delusion, require as much? Isn't that the kind of self-appraisal that's going on when you acknowledge that you're not considered beautiful and therefore won't be entering beauty contests? How would people choose courses of study, careers or make other important decisions without recognizing and assessing what they're good at and what they have no affinity for at all?
Steven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 498 |
Well, we aren't talking "I'm not naturally good at this so I have to work harder" - we're talking "I'm not naturally any good at this so I will never be as good as the 'talented ones', so I may as well not bother." That's different. And we are talking about telling someone they have no talent and that no matter how hard they work, they'll never get good, not about telling them they have to work harder.
And we aren't talking about self-appraisal either; we are talking about appraisal by others. Not an internal evaluation of strengths and weaknesses - an external (and binary) evaluation of "talent" or "no talent." I'd trust my own internal evaluation of my own strengths and weaknesses (though even that excludes the possibility of growth and change) - I don't think I'd trust an external one.
Here's an example, related to choosing a course of study. All my life, I've been told that I was no good at public speaking. And then I went to law school. We had to do an oral argument exercise our first year, and I was absolutely terrified because I knew I was no good at public speaking - everyone had told me that. I was shocked to find out that I loved the oral argument, that I was far better prepared than my opponent, and that I did very well. Sometimes, you never know until you try. Since that experience, I participated in a legal clinic and won both of the cases I had to handle, and loved the experience.
Incidentally, had I "looked myself squarely in the mirror and faced reality," I would never have gone to law school. I knew - everyone told me - that I was not very competitive, that I was no good at public speaking, that I didn't have the detail-oriented mind that one needs to be a lawyer. "Everyone" was wrong. Again. Generally, when people say "face reality," they mean "face my vision of reality, and my vision of you, which is that you can't do this."
This is wandering far afield of the original question, and I'll be happy to continue this in email; sorry to clog everyone's bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,521 |
Originally posted by Larisa: Well, we aren't talking "I'm not naturally good at this so I have to work harder" - we're talking "I'm not naturally any good at this so I will never be as good as the 'talented ones', so I may as well not bother." That's different.
Larisa, that would be terrible, but are you sure anyone is saying this? Or remotely advising ever saying that? Are you sure YOU are not sharing YOUR feelings here? I, for instance, am quite capable of torpedoing myself with that kind of negative thinking. I am literally my own worst enemy. But I would never do that to someone else. I don't think Steven would either. And we are talking about telling someone they have no talent and that no matter how hard they work, they'll never get good, not about telling them they have to work harder.
Again, I'm not sure who said that. As a teacher I am well aware that some people will have to work much harder to achieve what others get, far easier. You have already said that you yourself were such a person. But I will never tell anyone to stop playing or stop having goals because I don't see major talent. And of course I may always be wrong. After all, kbk said that we really should start off defining talent. This time I sort of agree with him, except that it is impossible. And we aren't talking about self-appraisal either; we are talking about appraisal by others. Not an internal evaluation of strengths and weaknesses - an external (and binary) evaluation of "talent" or "no talent." I'd trust my own internal evaluation of my own strengths and weaknesses (though even that excludes the possibility of growth and change) - I don't think I'd trust an external one.
That cuts two ways though. On one hand, I agree with you. There have been people who have tried to evaluate my strengths and weaknesses and have been horribly wrong. On the other hand, I've seen people encouraged to push on in something that ultimately they failed at because something was missing. There is much to be said for a dose of reality, now and then. That's why I say it cuts both ways. I err on the side of too much encouragement, perhaps, because I don't ever want to do anything to stop someone from succeeding because I make a negative evaluation that is wrong. But I can see that potentially back-firing too. I encouraged two students who did not make it, on the university level. To this day I'm not sure whether that was my fault, or the fault of negativity coming from the university. Both students were accepted and also encouraged, based on what they showed, but coming from my teaching. Then rejected because they could not learn fast enough, did not show enough independence. I personally thought both might have done well, with just a bit more patience, since both started late. One started with me just a year before college, and he did not read before working with me. I still think he DID have talent. But maybe not. I still am haunted by this one case, decades later. Here's an example, related to choosing a course of study. All my life, I've been told that I was no good at public speaking. And then I went to law school. We had to do an oral argument exercise our first year, and I was absolutely terrified because I knew I was no good at public speaking - everyone had told me that. I was shocked to find out that I loved the oral argument, that I was far better prepared than my opponent, and that I did very well. Sometimes, you never know until you try. Since that experience, I participated in a legal clinic and won both of the cases I had to handle, and loved the experience.
I've had similar experiences, but I'm still not sure where you are going with this. There are times when all sorts of lame brains make wrong assumptions about what we can or cannot do. Life is not fair. Part of life is learning how to take such punches and work through them. We won't always be encouraged, though it would be a very nice world if we were. Incidentally, had I "looked myself squarely in the mirror and faced reality," I would never have gone to law school. I knew - everyone told me - that I was not very competitive, that I was no good at public speaking, that I didn't have the detail-oriented mind that one needs to be a lawyer. "Everyone" was wrong. Again. Generally, when people say "face reality," they mean "face my vision of reality, and my vision of you, which is that you can't do this."
This is wandering far afield of the original question, and I'll be happy to continue this in email; sorry to clog everyone's bandwidth.
What are you saying but that you were right to trust yourself and not listen to other people? Again, that's part of life. This does not say that you have no talent for speaking in public, or no talent for any of the things you mentioned, only that people make very wrong assumptions. No one has talked about telling any beginner, "No, you have no talent, no matter what you do, you will never be good." No one has said that. But others have suggested that talent, even if we can't define it, does exist, and that right now it is rather PC to act as if anyone can accomplish anything, just with hard work, will-power, and organization. Or something to that effect. It's a Catch 22 thing. If we tell people they can't reach their goals, even if some goals are ridiculous, SOMEONE is going to be denied, and that's not good. But if we tell everyone they CAN reach their goals, some people are going to be very disappointed when they work their butts off only to be passed by others who do very little work but who most definitely are talented, gifted, or whatever you want to call it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,163 |
Larisa, I don't think there's anything to say that hasn't already been expressed. I guess it demonstrates the futility of trying to talk about talent, after all, as what you're saying and what I'm saying are dramatically different.
Several posts ago, I said that the real issue seems to be with people allowing themselves to be defined by the judgments of others. And indeed, some do, and they may be crushed by the experience. But I honestly think that most people are able to transcend that. We have to; it's a survival skill! Furthermore, because children can be especially cruel, I think most of us learn those lessons early in life.
The last time we agreed to disagree, you mentioned that you tend to be a bit of an optimist. I'm not usually accused of being an optimist, and yet I wonder if my expectations of people's unfettered ability to see and judge the world and themselves clearly aren't actually higher than yours appear to be.
Steven
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
And what the virtuoso told him was that he always told people that they should not become musicians - because then, only those who really could not live without music would continue to play. Everything is correct about that story -- I believe the *musician* (not merely a virtuoso) was Jasha Heifetz. "Living without music" was not the point at all. Attitude was. The answer was something like "If you even have to ask that question, you will not succeed in pursuing this career." The *question* was wrong. Going around asking other people if you will make it is wrong. Choosing that this is what you want to do, finding out how you go about learning how to do it, and then doing it, is where it's at. THAT was the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|