Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VIRTUOSO TECHNIQUE!!!

Leaving the the talent/piano thing aside, apply "talent" to singing.

The concept that talent does not exist, and that one can achieve much improvement (or greatness) simply by working correctly and hard falls apart with singing.

You are either born with the pipes, or you aren't.

I don't have the pipes. But for decades I have faithfully worked hard to improve my singing, with 3 different teachers, and all it has done is make me a better lousy singer.

I now have breath control, know how to shape the vowels, to pace the lyrics, etc, and, because of my other musical training, I know rhythms, repertoire, etc, but because I was not born with the pipes, I will never ever achieve the level of a gifted talented singer.

There is a distinction between ability and talent.

For example, the most talented pianist in the world cannot play a piano if he doesn't have one.

Good example.. if you were comparing it to a person lacking a larynx.

Agree and well stated. The normal curve applies here as it does to just about every other facet of human endeavor. Training and disciplined practice can hone abilities, but cannot completely make up for the degree of innate aptitude someone brings to the table.

right-- no matter how many singing lessons I take, I'll never sound like Renee Fleming or even Bette Midler ! (love them both)

Not at all, a disabled person could be talented but unable to play the piano they have!

The first qualification is ability.

Talent is a different thing.

Perhaps this will help you grasp this tricky concept.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ability

""""" Ability is the mental or physical power to do something:""""


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent


""a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.""""


See how both words are applicable, for certain situations, but being able does not mean you have talent and being talented does not mean you are able.

Good evening. For my part I don't see it as interesting at all, at least until playing piano becomes an olympic sport!

To me, it seems much more useful to have a good musical education more widely accessible, than to try to see how to select genetically-disposed specimens.

No don't worry, I completely get it. I understand what you're saying now. Let's say Lang Lang breaks his hands tomorrow, he will obviously still be talented. Talent lies in the brain, not the hands. (or larynx) I get it.

I have managed (at last) to copy the Matthey piece on talent, I hope this helps a bit, although of course, who knows, he may be wrong?

INTRODUCTORY. 37
"PIANO-TALENT"
Note IV.—For§§ 3 and 5, Chapter V., pages 32 and 34. Here once
again, is a point where natural endowment differs widely. Those who, without
effort, unconsciously give Attention with full purpose, possess indeed
•' talent" in the most important respect of all :
—
For talent itself, in its most general sense—that exhibition of a strong
bias toward some particular pursuit, may be denned, from its results, as simply
: ability to learn tvith ease.
Now our ability to learn anything, directly depends on the power of our
Memory— its impressionability, and its retentiveness ; and memorizing again
directly depends on the degree of Attention we can provide. Hence, it is,
that Power of Attention, or ability to acquire this, is synonymous with : good
memory, ease in learning, and in a word "Talent."
A few words of Summary, may prevent misapprehension with regard to
the question of Pianoforte '
' talent :
"
—
Special phases of endowment are needed in addition to general Musicality.
These are : a good " piano-voice "—the possession of a sufficiently ample
muscular endowment, combined with Ease in mental-muscular discrimination ;
a good " Ear," not only for Time, but also particularly for the discernment
of subtle distinctions in tone-quantity, and above all, in tone-Quality ; " Brains "
to enable Attention to be given, combined with a personal bias toward giving
the particular form of Attention demanded in playing.
These particular endowments are nevertheless not very far-reaching, unless
there be besides, a general endowment musically. Musical imaginativeness is
required, both emotionally and intellectually. Without that, nothing vivid
can be done, however excellent the other, the special, phases of Talent.
Moreover, even such endowments do not constitute a player. To succeed
as an Artist, we need besides all that, PERSISTENCE. That depends on
character, on our real love for the Art, and whether we possess Health sound
enough to stand the necessary close application.
For eventually, as Rubinstein once said to us Royal Academy Students
:
"real Hard Work is the only road to success."

Sorry, but this is not an argument in favor of "talent". It has nothing to do with the premise of what "talent" is (according to those who have posted in favor of its existence), and we had agreed (at the onset) to leave physicality out of the discussion of "talent". It's like saying someone with a Ferrari F1 premiere race car is a better driver than someone with a street-sold 1984 Hyundai because they can complete the road course faster.


So, what you're saying is that, because someone developed the knowledge/ability of how to learn, they are more "talented" than someone who has not developed the knowledge/ability of how to learn? Still sounds to me like a lack of understanding in describing why someone "without talent" can't learn as well as someone "with talent". Which still indicates to me that no one has provided an accurate description of exactly what "talent" is. And, of course, there has been no evidence provided of its existence (that hasn't been easily refuted).

In the first Steinway Magazine of 2012 Sergey Babayan says this about Daniil Trifonov. "A talent like his is born maybe once every 100 years. He breathes music."(My boldface) Of course, Babayan is only one of the most important teachers in the world so he wouldn't know much about whether talent exists or whether it is something one is born with.

Did you mean "...whether talent is acquired or whether it is something one is born with" ?

That's probably what he intended to say.

And, to add my opinion to this issue: Talent is innate; you are born with it. Skill is acquired, and is usually a combination of talent and hard work.

What a ridiculous thing for Babayan to say. What about all of the other pianists out there? Is Trifonov the next best thing since Horowitz? I don't even find him all that good to be honest. His Chopin op. 25 is fantastic, but everything else that I've heard I find to be nothing special.

Actually, I didn't mean to say that although it would have been reasonable.

My point was a few people on the thread think that talent(as it normally used and how it is defined)doesn't really exist but Babayan clearly does and clearly is using it in its normal meaning as something one is born with.

Is this your "evidence"? Someone else used the term in reference to someone else, and this clearly indicates the thing itself exists?

Using that theory, the Earth should still be the center of the Universe. For that matter, it should also still be flat.

Close this thread already.

I second the motion.

Someone or something must be forcing you to read it against your will, because otherwise, you could simply not click on it if you don't want to read it.

I don't believe that anyone here is expressing a "enough hard work" argument.

As for Mozart, though, he represents the worst example possible if you want to prove the importance or even the existence of talent.

When you take account of the extremely high cultural level in which he grew up: a bourgeois family in Salzbourg, Austria in the middle of the 18th century, the Enlightenment. A family of musicians, a father who was kapellmeister, composer, pedagogue, who taught the older sister at home.

You don't realize the richness and the power of circumstances such as these.