talent or work? Case closed!

[Bajazz]

a Note: Many seems to think that I say that talent doesn't exist at all.

 

It could be my language problem, and it wasn't excactly what I meant.

 

What I really mean is that the talent factor is very difficult to measure and observe objectively. Just like one believed that people with one muscle fiber types became one type of athlete, and that muscle fiber type was inborn. New research shows the opposite, that the fiber type change according to the training.

 

I think that this talent factor has very little to do with your result after thousands hours of work. Just like muscle fiber type as a child has to do with muscle fiber type thousands hours after being dedicated to a certain sport.

 

Then again I think that interest, focus, drive and motivation needs to be very strong to be able to invest those hours. Maybe someone defines those as talent. In that case I can agree, but I want to point out that these variables (and many others) can change if you are open to it. Just as I have been able to "program" my personality to be more dedicated to practice at the age of 35.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that there is no point for anyone to let negative thoughts or any other shortcomings slow your learning process down. You think you lack talent, so what? You can't go to Walmart and buy some. What you can do is practice. Don't forget to have fun!

[mcdowella]

I'm sure talent is required as well, but I thought I'd pass on an opinion you can see e.g. quoted in various places around the internet:

 

Bach’s life is an excellent example of hard work and frugality. When asked later in life how he had earned his success, he humbly replied, “I was obliged to work hard. Whoever is equally industrious will succeed just as well.” He was an unassuming, humble man who would undoubtedly be surprised by the large impact his music has made.

[MusicalSchizo]

 

At least, this troll links to studies and research....

 

 

One study. I take that back - one ARTICLE on a study that you didn't even really understand. I don't if that's because you're blinded by your "there's no such thing as talent" dogma or a language barrier or what. You're so rigorous!

 

It's pretty easy to find a ton of information in support of giftedness/talent. Saying it doesn't exist is what you've been doing. Studies have been done for decades on this topic. A casual search of the Google scholar (beta) section for "talent" gives you scholarly articles from 1970 to 2005 (perhaps more, I only went through a few pages because I was reading the articles) on the topic, almost all of them affirming the concept that talent/giftedness exists.

 

My little trollish diatribe was satire meant to echo the opposite point that you're making. This is how you're coming off in your posts.

 

But again, believe what you want. Some people think evolution never happened despite mountains of evidence in support of the scientific Theory of Evolution. (theory means something different to scientists that most laypeople don't understand)

 

There may be validity to their study for average people, but it doesn't explain genius at all.

 

Bottom line:

You called this thread "Case Closed" - it isn't. That's MY point.

 

Brian V.

 

P.S. I like that you ignore the fact that your daughter appears to have a natural talent for singing in the interest of maintaining your hardline stance that inborn talent does not exist. It's actually kind of cute.

[isaac42]

Maybe he didn't have the talent as a teacher....? Seriously, Not all teachers can teach anyone. I've had students that are seen as hard learners blossom up and developing as hell, when doing things in a way that cathces them.

 

Which just goes to support the position that abilities differ. It certainly wasn't because he hasn't had sufficient practice!

[strat2]

a Note: Many seems to think that I say that talent doesn't exist at all. It could be my language problem, and it wasn't excactly what I meant. What I really mean is that the talent factor is very difficult to measure and observe objectively. Just like one believed that people with one muscle fiber types became one type of athlete, and that muscle fiber type was inborn. New research shows the opposite, that the fiber type change according to the training. I think that this talent factor has very little to do with your result after thousands hours of work. Just like muscle fiber type as a child has to do with muscle fiber type thousands hours after being dedicated to a certain sport. Then again I think that interest, focus, drive and motivation needs to be very strong to be able to invest those hours. Maybe someone defines those as talent. In that case I can agree, but I want to point out that these variables (and many others) can change if you are open to it. Just as I have been able to "program" my personality to be more dedicated to practice at the age of 35. So I guess what I'm saying is that there is no point for anyone to let negative thoughts or any other shortcomings slow your learning process down. You think you lack talent, so what? You can't go to Walmart and buy some. What you can do is practice. Don't forget to have fun!

 

 

What are you trying to say ?

[Bajazz]

 

P.S. I like that you ignore the fact that your daughter appears to have a natural talent for singing in the interest of maintaining your hardline stance that inborn talent does not exist. It's actually kind of cute.

OK: I challenge you to find one ancestor to my daughter that have the genetics for singing. You won't find it at all. There is not a single musican in this family at all. There was no music in my family, or mothers family and fathers family or their parents. AT ALL!

When I started to play guitar at age 19 and sing at age 35, people in my family raised their brows to say. It's not that I started playing, but the fact that I told everyone I was gonna play gigs. Many of them laughed at that time. Not so a year later, thousand hours after.

Of course she has the talent for singing, she has received a piece of talent from everyone that have shared the joy of singing with her. But I won't accept any "singing genetics" to claim the honor for her gift!

[Bajazz]

 

Which just goes to support the position that abilities differ. It certainly wasn't because he hasn't had sufficient practice!

No, of course not. This is another thing I always had taken acount for in my own version of learning theory. The focus factor, or effecient factor.

 

I believe that if you are 50% focused, it takes twice the time. The focus level for us human beings can vary a lot, and sitting at the school bench there is often many times we are 20% or even 10% focused.

 

Of course, when you practice something you are motivated in, you will raise the focus. But if you have a teacher that don't find the right buttons to push for you, it can be a hard task to rase the effecient-grade.

 

BUT:

As you start to get a few thousands hours practice, you will start to be your own teacher, and your focus will be more and more optimized. Even if you take classes (which many pro's in fact do to keep the motivation), you are mostly your own teacher and knows how to work best to achieve results as fast as possible.

[GreenAsJade]

 

a Note: Many seems to think that I say that talent doesn't exist at all. It could be my language problem, and it wasn't excactly what I meant.

 

 

It's encouraging to see you on a less "extreme" platform.

 

You said "TALENT IS A MYTH".

 

I said "This is nonsense".

 

Now that you are saying "of course, talent exists, it's simply the measure of different people's speed in learning, but has very little to do with your skill after thousands of hours of training" ... well I can relate to that much more easily.

 

It just goes to show the danger of taking an extreme position to try to get your point across: you alienate people who think only a crazy person would take such an extreme position.

 

GaJ

[Bajazz]

It's encouraging to see you on a less "extreme" platform. You said "TALENT IS A MYTH".

It's sad to see me misquoted, it shows how much you pay attention to what I write. Please read my posts and try to find where I say that talent is a myth!! You won't find it!:poke:

 

I say there is a myth about talent. So please if you want to discuss with me, please sit down and read again what I have written here. It seems like many of you read the article, disagree with it and automatically thinks I must be crazy. And then without finding counter info just posting POW.

 

I don't believe I'm on a extreme platform. I'm maybe controversial in the way that I believe talent/skill/learning speed/whatever is NOT a mystical force, but something that can be explained and developed.

 

If you still think I have been extreme and crazy in any way, please link to that post....

[isaac42]

 

It simply means that the capacity comes from temperament. That is what I've always said: work = skill = talent. This means there is no talent to start with that you are born with. The talent, or skill is developed. The ability to put in the work is what is the real talent here. And that is one thing you can learn to do. That is if you don't believe in those talent myths which will put on the brakes for you.

 

 

"work=skill=talent" and "there is no talent to start with" certainly seem to take the position that what we think of as talent does not exist. However, you seem to have backed off from that position, to some extent.

[GreenAsJade]

 

That is if you don't believe in those talent myths which will put on the brakes for you.

 

 

I took this to mean you were saying talent is a myth.

 

If you were referring to myths _about_ talent, I don't think you said what they were.

 

GaJ

[Notes_Norton]

IMHO you need talent and technique to be a good musician (yes, singers are musicians).

 

Technique on any instrument can be developed with diligent practice. I've heard a lot of technical monsters who played/sang nothing but empty notes, but did those empty notes very well.

 

I've heard people with limited technique play/sing very good music that moved my spirit.

 

The people with both the talent and technique are the ones I want to listen to.

 

But of course, I am a musician/singer and not the general public.

 

The general public wants kitsch and they want whatever is currently being marketed to them. How else do you describe the success of Britney when there are singers in Holiday Inns all over the country with more talent in their big toe than Britney has in her entire body?

 

And I'm not just picking on Britney, every generation I am aware of has had their share of poor to mediocre singers attaining great stardom, Fred Astaire, Fabian, Dylan, and so on.

 

There is more to being a star than talent.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[rjbee]

I feel there is a difference in practicing because you need to to compete on whatever level of activity you choose and practicing because you just really love what you are doing. For those who are looking to mastering arts that are really judged on technical ability like opera, ballet etc, practice becomes an essential part of the progression.

 

For those of us who aren't necessarily in the that pool, our natural talents become refined as a result of just loving what we do, not to say that those I've cited don't love what they do, they just have entered a much more judgemental arena. Ours on the other hand is much more subjective as to appealing to the masses.

 

As a singer I have no formal training whatsoever and would never even dream of hanging with a technically proficient vocalist, but I love what I do and I do it with a passion that speaks to who I am.

[Bajazz]

I'd say that this post pretty much says that: "work=skill=talent" and "there is no talent to start with" certainly seem to take the position that what we think of as talent does not exist. However, you seem to have backed off from that position, to some extent.

Not at all. I still have the same view. To start with we all start from scratch, zero, nada. No one has ever sung a melody at day one. This one I will never back up from. That is until the day I see/hear it. And that day the world will presented to a a fantastic sensational miracle.

[Bajazz]

If you were referring to myths _about_ talent, I don't think you said what they were.

Again: read my posts. To put it shortly: The myth is that your talent level and future learning path/potential is genetic. Anyhow, who's to decide that you are talented or not? AFIK there is no measure scale for talent...

[strat2]

 

Not at all. I still have the same view. To start with we all start from scratch, zero, nada. No one has ever sung a melody at day one. This one I will never back up from. That is until the day I see/hear it. And that day the world will presented to a a fantastic sensational miracle.

 

 

Has anyone said melodies have been sung at day one ?

[Notes_Norton]

I feel there is a difference in practicing because you need to to compete on whatever level of activity you choose and practicing because you just really love what you are doing. For those who are looking to mastering arts that are really judged on technical ability like opera, ballet etc, practice becomes an essential part of the progression. <...>

 

I know a girl who has been lauded all through some of the finest opera programs in topnotch schools for having great voice and great technique. However she cannot get into graduate school because she doesn't pass the auditions. Why? Not enough talent. She simply doesn't emote, the notes are perfect, but empty.

 

I hope she doesn't read this

 

Notes

[isaac42]

 

Has anyone said melodies have been sung at day one ?

 

 

That's a myth!

[strat2]

That's a myth!

 

.........

[Consume]

Okay Bajazz,

 

So let us put your theory to work in a non-musical field:

 

You are essentially saying is that through continuous work, and practice, that a 40" tall man will be able to dunk a basketball in a standard height basketball hoop, which is like 120" high.

 

[Consume]

An extreme example: A dwarf cannot dunk a basketball without physical or mechanical assistance. Ever. They can never develop that skill, no matter how hard or long they practice. No one's claimed any magic...just biology... Brian V.

 

 

 

Oh man, you totally beat me to it - that is the very first thing that came to my mind.

 

[Consume]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.... Still baffled why people won't accept that differences in learning speed CAN be explained. And still frustrated how people are obsessed of focusing on the difference in learning speed for the few first hours. A cross country runner doesn't care if he was a bit slow to learn to walk...

 

 

 

You're right they can be explained.

 

One has a natural talent for it so they get better at an accelerated rate, while the other group has no natural ability or talent whatsoever and has to struggle to achieve a third of what the first group attains; many in this second group end up quitting their attempt to play music because they see no progress at all.

 

 

I'll give you an example. I know a guy who is, for all intents and purposes, one of the least intelligent guys I have ever met. I like the guy, he's really nice, but he is just... he has a low mental capacity. One of his most famous quotes with us is,"Why you want to read them books for? Those are just other peoples thoughts!"

 

 

God forbid you might actually LEARN something!

 

But - that guy is the best guitarist I have ever met in my life. I mean he plays rings around everybody else in this town. How come? Because he has a natural ability for it. The Gods reached down and touched him - and even though he is a complete idiot, he can shred circles around everyone else I know - and I've played with some smoking guitar players in my time.

 

I played in a band with him - that is, until he decided he wanted to cook on his side of the stage so he could " ...feed his fans... " when they came to see him play.

And, yes, he was dead serious about that. The bass player looked at me with a look of horror, and after practice told me,"Dude, when he said that, I knew I was quitting right then, let's go start our own band." And we did - the very next day.

 

 

:poke:

[Consume]

 

Work can make anyone "better" in anything they strive for. However, it does NOT make a tone deaf person able to sing on pitch consistently or in a manner that people want to hear. There are always exceptions, but humans are born with particular gifts. They can be nurtured or not. We're all different, and we all have talent, in different arenas.

 

 

Keep in mind that somebody who is tone deaf, is well - deaf. It is not their ability to sing that is the issue in your example, it is literally their ability to hear - they can not hear the difference in pitches.

[Consume]

Well.... yes.... Actually I believe so. If a person is able to put in the work he WILL be a good singer! There are lot's of real skinny guys (or fat guys) building themselves up to be hunks. Lot's! A guy I know benches twice as me, being much more skinney than me, however he is now built atlethic and was just a thin boy two years ago. Every time I see him he is getting bigger. In two year he will be massive. So the genetic don't determine whether you can build a strong, defined body. Mentally, I agree, I think this is the key. If you are mentally determined, you will make it. If your mentality says: "Screw talent, I'm gonna work my self strong or into a great singer" you will make it! Why is this wrong? I tell people this all the time,and it has helped people taking up things they gave up. So when someone struggles with something we should kill their desires by telling them "Sorry, you won't make it cause you lack the necessary talent" As you all see here, everyone has their own definition of the phenomena talent. It is nothing that can be measured. The only thing in being a singer that can be measured is work. Following the 10 000 hour rule you will become a great singer. It is the only thing that is a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bajazz, it is not "wrong", it is delusional.

 

 

If you have an extremely narrow throat and very small sinus cavities - you are not going to have the timbre that somebody who has a large throat passageway, or large sinus cavities has. You simply will not have the basic tools to resonate the same as that other person, which means you are not going to have the same pleasing tone that they have - because they have more area to generate vibrations in - and that, is a genetic advantage for the other guy. You can train all you want, but your resonation will never be as good as that other guy - which gives him a genetic advantage - the very thing you are attempting to deny exists.

 

I'm a White Guy of Irish descent. I look like Bono from U2 - and I mean, almost exactly.

 

One of my favorite singers of all time is Jeff Scott Soto.

 

No matter how much I try, I am not going to sing like JSS.

 

You know why?

Because he has a different shaped skull than I do, he has wider nostrils, and probably has a much bigger sinus cavity than I do based on his tone. No matter how much I practice, I will NEVER be able to sound like JSS.

 

Ronnie James Dio, is the same thing - I will NEVER be able to sound like Dio, even though I use the same techniques that he does.

 

 

 

So, I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp it.

 

Some people are just more talented in some areas than others, and some people have a genetic advantage over others.

I'm 6' tall.

 

A guy who is 6'9" is going to have a GENETIC ADVANTAGE when it comes to dunking a basketball.

 

 

Read "The Bell Curve" if you don't believe that some things are a genetic advantage.

 

Some people simply have a genetic advantage over others.

It's no big deal.

Just because one person has it, it's no reason for the person who doesn't have it to give up all hope, if they enjoy playing, then they should play. Music isn't a sport or competition, but you seem to act like it is....that everything has to start on a level playing field, and that is simply not how the world works.

 

Somebody is always going to be, bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, etc.

And somebody will always be the better musician - with minimal time practicing.

 

You can't have Equality and Excellence at the same time - it simply doesn't work that way; all that you will do is stifle those with natural talent while trying to hold them back to keep from making the less talented feel somehow neglected.

[Consume]

 

So when someone struggles with something we should kill their desires by telling them "Sorry, you won't make it cause you lack the necessary talent"

 

 

 

I just caught this.

 

Since when did TALENT have anything to do with "making it"?

 

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

Talent has nothing to do with "making it".

 

You want talent - go to Nashville and take a look at the Studio Musicians - that is where the talent is. I'll bet you probably can't name but a few of them, neither can I - but I'll assure you that is where you will find the largest pool of talented musician....much more-so than those who have "made it".

 

 

I'll give you an example:

 

Fred Durst.