Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Realistic Goals as adults/late starter

At the risk of blowing my secular cover, "faith without works is dead." To me it's the same with talent. I have no doubt whatsoever it exists, it's just that by itself, it's not all that much. You have to do something with it. Even Liszt practiced eight to ten hours a day for years. A strong willed, but modestly talented (read relatively untalented) individual might do the same, and develop into a very respectable amateur pianist but he'd never be Liszt and Liszt if he'd practiced a good deal less would still have been a great virtuoso, but he wouldn't have been THE Great Virtuoso.

pianoloverus,

Yes, that is true, but I have met good number of people who started late and was able to achieve "professional level" by your definition, meaning graduating college/grad school with a performance degree.

sotto voce,

My experience was that everybody in music school seem to have some kind of talent, but there were very few people that I would say was truly exceptional. So my feeling, and (probably every else's feeling)was that whatever talent we had was modest at best. I can say the same thing about most of my teachers too.

So in that sense I don't believe you have to have 'exceptional' talent like Jarrett or Horowitz to play at a high/respectable (maybe even professional) level. being a world-class performer is completely different issue.

"but people who have natural gifts don't seem to share such a preoccupation with the theories of natural ability versus hard work that downplay talent."

but then again, Dave Liebman, Bill Evans, and Pat Metheny all downplay talent. They've all said, one way or the other that they have modest talent at best, and it's hard work that got there.

as far as "People who write such things about talent generally do not have any." goes.. Thomas Edison once said “Genius was 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.”.. So I guess I'll take both statements with grain of salt

I am not saying talent is irrelevant or you don't need talent to succeed.. but it's important to realize talent is 'perceived', its something that someone either "seem" to have or not, and often times we can be wrong about our assessment. Sometimes people's real talent don't really emerge until later in their development.

Maybe part of the reason I feel this way about talent is because I grew up in Asia, and people tend to place you according to whatever talent you seem to posses at a young age. But as far as I know, that kind of filtering has not been very effective in many cases, and in some ways it was harmful to children's development.

Andromaque,

No I don't believe that everyone is capable of becoming a excellent/exceptional surgeon. But I don't think it's impossible for people with average talent to become a doctor or even a 'descent' surgeon.. and becoming a doctor is a pretty high level of achievement in itself, even though it may not be as spectacular as being a world class surgeon.

I am sure that talented people who downplay their own talent do so out of a sense of humility, modesty and good taste. It would be unseemly to exhibit any semblance of vanity or boastfulness about something that comes from genetic happenstance and amounts to luck of the draw.

Hard work has bragging rights; natural endowments do not.

Steven

That may be true, but we haven't talk to them in person so we can't really assume. As far as I've read, Bill Evans genuinely believed that he did not possess any exceptional talent.

Also I remember Bill Evan's talking about how talented people may get 'stuck' at one point of their development. If a lot of things comes easy/natural to you, you might not have the ability to deal with something that is difficult later on.

Also when I read Kenny Werner's "effortless mastery", my impression is that a lot of one's success largely depended on how you practice and your attitude about learning. He talks about how things came more natural to him, not necessary because he had exceptional talent, but because he learned how to practice at an early age. I don't think he dismiss talent completely, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said that the reason people don't achieve their desired level has less to do with talent than we think.

I wasn't referring to super-talented performers or to anyone specific at all; I meant people in general who have a degree of talent of which they are aware.

This thread is becoming awesome. etcetra, I'm wondering just how many times you're going to resummarize and restate the exact same points.

Steven

I hesitate to enter the fray but I did look up and check out the articles Monica (very graciously) pointed us towards. I must say I did not find them as convincing as she did on the "training" side of the "training versus talent" controversy. I think the rejoinders to the Howe article were very interesting and a great intellectual free for all ensued. Fascinating stuff!

As I've said in past threads, part of the difficulty with discussions like this is they tend to polarize into "either-or" thinking: nature vs nurture when of course it's BOTH working synergistically. I accept the evidence that focused practice makes a huge difference in skill level over time and in maximizing one’s natural aptitudes and abilities. However, there are some reasons I don’t buy the full argument that 10,000 hours is sufficient to turn anyone selected at random into a professional-level or elite pianist.

I think the problem with much of the expertise literature is that it is not dealing with randomly selected populations but compares different levels of attainment within groups of musicians, or chess players, or other skilled groups. When the sample is selected from one end of the distribution and the range is restricted on that variable, the correlation of that variable with outcomes will be reduced (a statistical effect of range restriction). So within that group, yes, practice will show larger effects because they are already self-selected to probably have a higher than average degree of aptitude (“talent” if you will) compared to the population as a whole.

If we think of this literature in terms of how to best nurture and develop aptitudes in people (which probably are some combination of cognitive, physical, and temperament endowments) - it makes sense. People who start out with some aptitude and interest, who are highly motivated to improve, and who stick with it (remember there is a strong attrition process as those not doing well drop out) will improve, and often greatly improve, to some level of expertise after many hours of focused concentrated practice (not just repetition, but focused on skill building). I have no argument with that and think the evidence is quite good for it.

It gets interpreted though by many people as meaning that if you select people randomly you can create Martha Argerich, Vladimir Horowitz or Mozart by subjecting them to 10k hours of focused training. I just don't think there is any good evidence to that effect (and I read the studies Monica cites – there is far from consensus among scientists that talent is nonexistent or irrelevant. Just read the rejoinders to the Howe article. Some excellent points by eminent scientists for the other side.) In the real world, people don't spend 10,000 hours doing something they have no aptitude for-- the process weeds out those who are not making progress. Perhaps having the cognitive and physical ability to intensely concentrate, focus and discipline oneself to not only put in the time but benefit from and progress as a result of hours and hours of efficient practice is in fact part of the underlying set of aptitudes that we call talent!

I've made this point in other threads, but I find it interesting that most people have little trouble accepting that you need to be born with a great vocal apparatus to become a world class singer but that somehow the same principle doesn't apply to the piano. Yes, much hard work, many hours of practice and a will to succeed are also necessary to have a professional career, but without the basic physical apparatus, all the work in the world will not produce a Renee Fleming or Joan Sutherland, nor will it produce a Horowitz, Argerich or Richter. That's not to say hard work is not needed but it's not going anywhere without the basic underlying physical and mental aptitudes. Training is no doubt necessary but I do not think it is sufficient to achieve elite status. And other set of factors come into play to have commercial success in a professional career as a musician-- much hinges on temperament, luck, timing, good connections, drive and even, these days, how good looking one is!

So I agree that it takes stuggle, sacrifice and intense practice even for the innately talented. 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.

Sophia

If this is one of the excellent points by an eminent scientist, he ought to stick to his specialty.

Everyone has an aptitude for playing music. Just as everyone has an aptitude for language. It is a human characteristic. If great talent or genious exist, they exist on the basis of this general human quality.

And yes, of course people spend 10000 hours doing things for which "they have no aptitude". Jogging, for example. And just look at how many people run marathons today, and the years of preparation that that implies. If people had that kind of preoccupation with their artistic being instead of their physical fitness, that would be interesting. There'd be a much richer basis for discussing the importance of in-born talent in music or in art.

That is obviously a social phenomenon and has nothing to do with individual talent or aptitude.

To take up your example of singers, I think that there as well things are not so evident. You have a very specific idea in mind of what a great singer is. Yet I have heard Pavarotti say that everyone has a great voice inside of him, it is just a question to find it. I am firmly of this opinion as well.

And Louis Armstrong, does he not fit the bill as a great singer? Did he have the right apparatus?

This idea of the "basic physical apparatus" of a Joan Sutherland or a Martha Agerich strikes me as tredding very close to the idea of Stalinist genetics that a selective reproduction can be effectuated resulting in a population of bel canto.

(I can't believe I'm getting into this...)
Everyone may have an aptitude for making music - but we're talking a bit more specifically here, aren't we? We're talking about playing a specific instrument, a piano. Surely you don't think that everyone has an equal aptitude for playing the violin, or the flute, or the double bass?

A lot of people are arguing as if I am saying there is no such thing as talent or that we are all capable of playing like the best of the best just from hard work..and that is not what I am talking about.



If I can get this much across, then I wouldn't need to repeat myself so often

landorrano,

If you look at Bulgarain and African ethnic music, there are a lot of complex rhythm and odd-meter stuff that most people would find 'intimidating'... I think most of us would conclude that the music is way beyond our ability and these people are born with innate talent for rhythm. But for them, those things are natural part of their lives. And if you visit them, they might be surprised to see you struggling with things that even kids are able to do there. Of course there are different levels of excellence among them, but overall their aptitude for rhythm is better than most of us.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. On one hand, you are saying these are good musicians who practiced a lot, but it sounds like you are also saying they aren't good musicians (i.e., haven't got talent).



In the quote you cited, he could just as well have come right out and said that he thought it was his own artistry that was a "deeper and more beautiful thing" than the artistry of people who, in his eyes, didn't work so hard as he did. And that sounds like self-flattery to me. He wasn't talking about Vladimir Horowitz, you know, he was talking about musicians who just happened to be exactly like him (I wonder who those players were who he thought had "that ability and fluidity" from the start, that he didn't think so highly of).

If he really thought he had little or no talent, he must have been defining the word to suit his self-image. It was obvious to other people that he did have a massive talent, or he never would have become famous and we would never have heard of him. Oftentimes, it is others who recognize that a person has talent, not they themselves. To the talented person, they just are what they are, and it only gets to be seen as unusual when compared to other people. That can mean they are not in a position to accurately assess whether they have talent.

In jazz musicians, talent can be a very different thing than in classical players, and it can be as much or more a compositional/arranging/improvisational talent as a performing one in the classical music sense. And to the extent that a person is coming up with a unique style, it can take a while to get worked out, and while that working out is in process, the person may not seem to be doing a whole lot that is especially notable, and may not be getting much positive reinforcement along the way.

Well, then, what is your point? That everyone is capable of being mediocre at whatever they want to be mediocre at?



!!!!!!!!!

wr,

I get the impression that you are saying you either have to be mediocre or spectacular in music... I hate to repeat myself again, but all I am saying is that with modest talent, people seem to be able to attain high level of achievement in music (even professional level), even though it may not be spectacular keith jarrett level. Some of my teachers genuinely showed no talent in college.. at least it seemed that way back then.

As far as my comment about rhythm and culture. I am just making a point that we taking ALOT of things for granted, and sometimes we don't realize the advantages we have can be seen as innate talent. Are those people genetically superior in terms of rhythmic understanding? who knows, but I am guessing it has to do more with the fact that they are used to these complex rhythms at a very early age.

BTW.. I agree that talent in jazz is quite different than talent in classical. My point is that, very few people seem to have it easily/naturally even among the pros. I used to think I was really slow because it took me weeks sometimes months to learn new scales, chords or new licks, and I was surprised to find out that it was like that for everyone else including Bill Evans or Dave Liebman.

As far as I know very few people had the kind of talent to learn a new voicing in every key and use it the next week. The only person who seem to have that kind of talent is Keith Jarrett.

Hi Sophia! I'm glad you took the time to look those articles up and found them interesting. You make a lot of wonderful points, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with your major conclusion: performance is going to be a function of both genetic and environmental influences. Where we will disagree is the relative percentages allotted to those two sources of influence.

Here's why I find it hard to accept the position that performance is 100% a function of deliberate practice: I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that 'g' (the innate general intelligence factor) exists and predicts all sorts of important outcomes. So if I'm willing to believe in some sort of dimension of innate ability as it pertains to educational outcomes, why should I not believe in a similar dimension of innate 'musical talent'?

The answer lies in the lack of empirical evidence for such an underlying 'musical talent' ability. Nobody has to date been able to (a) devise a musical IQ test that taps into aptitude (independent of learned performance) and (b) show that these aptitude scores predict musical expertise (controlling for practice), the way that IQ tests have been developed and shown to predict intellectual outcomes.

If 'musical talent' independent of practice exists, we ought to be able to measure it. The Ericsson article talked about efforts to come up with motor coordination and hand independence measures that ought to predict piano ability, but those measures didn't work.

I will confess to feeling sympathetic to the logical argument that there should be some normally distributed underlying individual difference aptitude for music analogous to the 'g' of general intelligence. But we don't have the data at the current time to support it... as opposed to the data in favor of the importance of deliberate practice, of which there is a huge amount.

On a somewhat different note, the jogging/running example mentioned by several posters is illustrative. Ericsson threw out the fascinating example that the winning time of the 1896 Olympic marathon was something like a full minute slower than the qualifying time of the Boston marathon today... a criterion literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people meet easily today. The difference, of course, can be attributed to better nutrition, health, and training... all environmental factors. In other words, given basic biomechanical health (that is, you need two legs ), an argument could be made that training and diet matter much more than one's genetic makeup in determining something as body-focused as running speed.

How certain are you that lack of a 'musical IQ' test implies lack of musical talent? Are there are other qualities besides intelligence that can be measured in this way (that might be similar to music)?

Not tremendously certain... I'm a social psychologist, dabbling in the psychology of music for a class I'm teaching. But I've read more of the scientific literature than a casual student. If valid tests of musical talent exist, I'm not aware of them... but would love to be made so.

As to other qualities besides general intelligence that can be reliably measured and have predictive validity, there are certain personality traits that come to mind, e.g., the Big Five (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness). These have well-validated measures and have been shown to predict useful life outcomes. Impulsivity and delay of gratification (which in themselves are related to intelligence) also appear to predict useful outcomes.

But just as a general principle, if no test for measuring a quantity has been discovered, do we assume the attribute is not quantifiable?



How about other qualities that, like musical ability, are only really evident after a significant amount of practice and exposure has been undertaken?

Or, are you saying that musical ability would be the predicted outcome of some hypothetical innate quality? If so, what's an example of a measurable innate quality along with its concrete outcome?

Not necessarily...just that we haven't quantified it yet, and that trait lies in the great big bag of "to be empirically demonstrated" stuff.



These are great questions, ones I'm not sure I have the answer to. What I would like to see is some way of tapping into musical talent that does not involve actual musical mastery. If we devised a test, for example, that measured how quickly and smoothly a violinist could move his or her bow across a predetermined sequence of strings, it would probably predict skill as a violinist, but it wouldn't help us untangle the innate talent vs. practice question because performance on that measure would be confounded with past experience with violin.

But for the domain of IQ, we *have* developed measures (Raven's progressive matrices come to mind, as well as other nonverbal measures of intelligence) where the tasks involved on the test are largely unrelated to what people have learned in school or everyday life, yet scores on such measures predict outcomes like grades in college, success in careers, etc.

So what would be most useful is if researchers could devise a test that would tap into the skills that are necessary for being a good musician but that don't mimic the actual training musicians receive. And that's tough.

Just out of curiosity, are we sure that IQ itself is not a good predictor of musical ability?

I'm glad you're not in my class, because you keep asking good questions that I really ought to know the answers to!

My memory is that I've read of studies that correlated IQ with musical ability and there was no strong/significant effect. [scampers off to look it up, so I'll be prepared when somebody asks me that on Wednesday.]

Like many other terms, "talent" seems to come with a lot of baggage. My guess is that what is really going on is more like an affinity for music...a tendency from a very early age to notice and connect with music, long before you start playing an instrument. You have to be able to really listen and hear, connect with music and be able to imagine subtle or not-so-subtle changes or inflections and how that would change the music you're hearing. From then on it's a short step to wanting to try out those variations yourself.

I don't think "talent" is quite the right word for what I'm talking about though. It has been used too much to speak about the ability to actively make the sounds...not actively listen to them and think about them.

There is probably a sliding scale of humanity from "ignore music altogether" on up through world-class musical individuals. There have been times when I could have sat for hours and just played chords on a particularly lovely piano...and my husband didn't hear the difference at all between it and the one next to it.