just wondering..........................

no

you still need to work hard even though you have a certain amount of talent in music....

talent only develops if you put the work in and you enjoy it.VERY few people have natural talent...lucky them...

Talent is only another way of describing 'natural ability' or 'leaning towards' doing a particular task with relative ease. If you have a keen interest in something, then the chances are you will acquire skills in that area with comparative ease.



I would say it's more about the above; keen interest from which often stems a natural ability to pick up ideas and skills in a relatively short space of time.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses - the object is to capitalise on the former.

No, especially if you're just doing it for fun.

haha, nice replies from you all , but will a ''less talented'' person be unable or more 'effort needed'' to learn a technique such as a turn or modernt?i've been wondering how am i to cope wif those problem if i find that im not ''talented'' on day.lol, is this over worrying?

Possibly.

However, you could also argue that's the very reason understanding music theory runs hand-in-hand with the practical side.

you dont need to be talented to do something well and just because you're less talented than someone else doest mean you're not talented...how do you define talent anyway?

I suppose one doesn't necessarily need to be talented to learn to play an instrument well, but it definitely helps speed up the amount of time needed to master new skills. People with absolutely no talent for playing music should maybe look for a different occupation, while there are few really really talented people.

it isn't so important i don't think...
my piano teacher keeps saying i have a natural ability (awwww!!) but he says that people with talent have to discipline themselves more than others because they tend to go a bit mad and not practice things like technical bits as well - they just play whatever fingering they feel like (i tend to do that - very bad!! hehe)
but i wouldnt say it was important - i think how 'talented' you are depends on how much practise you put in, how effectively you practice and how enthusiastic you are about your instrument!

certain amount of talent is a good thing....but work...i do mean it....is vital...in order to success...

Music requires more than one talent - it's not likely that every musican was born with all those talents, plus the "achiever/hate to lose" competitive personality, and had a family/social background that favored music and had money to spend on it!

Everybody probably has one or two aspects of music that come easily to them, but human beings are still animals - we learn by actually moving our meat and doing the work. Sorry to be unromantic .

You can get a person who takes to an instrument amazingly so thinks they don't need to practice, and someone who finds it hard to get going but works really hard. Eventually though, the hard worker will be the better player with the solid technique. There's no point in having a natral feel for the music if you can't play it in tune.
My sister plays the violin, and was a slow beginner. But she practices 7 hours a day and has overtaken all the child progedys from when they were younger! Thats real talent.

Clarinetistandproud is right. I've read some biographies and I've learnt that even though Yehudi was a so-called natural talent, apparently, his mum said he hates to stop practising! Not even for his dinner. Then, there's Vadim Repin who practises 5 hours a day at aged 15 and Nathan Milstein who's addicted to practising as if it were a way of life! These are all TOP world class musicians though Milstein was by admission NOT a child prodigy.

Talent is not very important, but it helps. My brother had no musical talent at all, but now, he plays the most difficult pieces ever written for piano.
While I, a possessor of this "Talent" learned fast, didn't practise, and suffered for it. Talent is a sort of double-edged sword.

yes i agree completely - people who dont practice ('talented' or not) aren't going to go as far as people who are completely dedicated to practise



yeah, agree again with the top point!
and your sister - 7 hours a day! wow! now thats dedication - but where on earth does she find the time? im lucky to fit in an hour or two!
but good for her though - shes done really well! good luck to her in the future - sounds like she deserves all the success that is coming to her!

does anyone see 'talent' as something that develops over time, with practice and good tutoring, rather than something people are born with?
because if you practice more and get all your work to a higher quality, then would you say that this is talent? i would, anyway just wondered what everyone else thought!

Technically not, because "Talent, n: a natural endowment or ability of a superior quality"

to learn such quality, is skill. I find skill to be more valuable, because you have to work for it.

Actually, I have a confession to make. When I really seriously thought about it, I realise I don't really know what talent is!!! Our daughter asked me whether she was talented and I ducked the question, "That is not a question for me. THAT is a question for (first name of teacher) Why don't you ask him?"

I guessed it didn't matter as long as one practises hard and wisely!

At the top level of music, it matters a lot about talent. All the top musicians practice hard and have given all their dedication. But the difference between umm... for example Dubravka Tomsic (top top living pianist) and Serg Van Gennip (a professional pianist but a relative nobody in the music world) is the talent, and the understanding that comes naturally, that they can play exactly how they want to.

That's how I feel. I could identify various talents which contribute to musical ability, but as to which one is "it"...

There are many views on talent. Some say that a person is born with talent, some people say that there is no talent, it's a matter of dedication and practice, and so on.

My mother says that most smart children (I mean with a high IQ, if you know what I mean: smart at school and stuff like that) can be quite good at playing a musical instrument even if they're not really talented because of their diligent practising. There are some child prodigies who have a big amount of talent, but I think that anybody can be a child prodigy if they want to practise hours and hours a day when they're little. The problem is, most children don't want to practise that much. Why were most Chinese pianists prodigies when they were little? I think that's more because of practising than pure, natural-born talent.

Someone who wants to become a great musician doesn't really need as much talent as Mozart or Saint-Saens, for example, but just "a little talent" will be needed, as long as we want to practise enough. Sure there are children who seem to have no talent at all; they don't want to practise and have no motivation to do lessons. But I think that that's more because of themselves, not talent.

DGA wrote:
Someone who wants to become a great musician doesn't really need as much talent as Mozart or Saint-Saens, for example, but just "a little talent" will be needed, as long as we want to practise enough.

Sounds about right to me. Was thinking about Sony artists like violinists Leila J. and V Mullova who come from totally unmusical backgrounds and were not prodigies like Mozart, etc. Before they know their ABCs they were practically forced into music because their parents' expressed ambition for them were to be world class violinists... and they made it... and now, loving every minute of it! I suppose they have talent but who knows? They would not have got far at all if they did not practised like crazy at a young age.

Some great composers also came into themselves very late and before that fruition no one seemed to have spotted any talent in them.

Having just browsed through (no time to read such a heavy book yet, maybe next year?) what appears to be a fascinating book called "Musical Excellence - Strategies and Techniques to enhance Performance" by Aaron Williamon, etc, which was strongly recommended to me, I have decided to keep an open mind...

My teacher said to my Mom at the end of my first lesson that I had a natrual talent. My Mom only told me the other day but I;m not sure how you can recognise it some one has got it. I dont think you have to have talent jsut the will and effort. My teacher also said that people who are good at maths are usually good at music. Which is good encouragement because I think I am good at maths.

By the way I dont want to sound like I am showing off. I just thought the maths thing would be interesting to share.

some people can make it....obviously they must have talent....but a lot of young teen english artists who are with sony now are not a great standard....but more of a branch between "old classical" and "new popular."

i have to disagree that one DOES have to have an enormous amount of natural talent to be nearly as good as mozart or saint-saens.

I don't think talent is needed, if it was I wouldn't be where I am now.

yes nat....you dont need too much talent to be a very good musician like youself. But i was thinking....to be a prodigy, someone like mozart who played for the king before he was 10....you have to be born with music in your veins.

Yeah, sl123451, I agree with you. I believe, Mozart and Beethoven are very different altogether from people like Martha Argerich, Yehudi Menuhin or Sarah Chang.

someone once said this. "being good at something is 90%work and 10% talent. but dont you ever try it without that 10%" i think thats a very fitting comment.

hear, hear

I suppose loving the music is the best way to play with a beautiful sound. For example, have you ever played a piece that you don't like with a beautiful sound?

...sweet love...

but have anyone here ever experienced this.....sturggling learning a song which u like and should be able to be played at ur level....i just want to know whether ''talented'' is really affects the learning progress.

That comment about "don't you ever try it without that talent" is nonsense.

The remark probably came originally from someone who didn't like the implication of the original saying, which is that natural born genius is a myth.

Talent can be developed, with the right conditions. If the conditions include a musical family, lots of musical input from a very young age, key experiences (which you can't control because they tend to happen when the child just happens to be in a particularly responsive mood that day), a fantastic teacher, the right sort of encouragement to practise (different children need different approaches)..

Think of it like a seed growing. The ground needs to be fertile, but the fertility of the ground is often a matter of complete chance. Suzuki attempted to work out how to make the ground fertile, with an enormous amount of success, vis a vi starting young, involving the mother, listening etc etc.

The idea of some people being born with innate talent unike the rest of us poor saps is a convenient ruse to explain our own lack of achivement or to justify not bothering to practise! The highest musicla achievers universally spend prodigious amounts of time practising.

I've recently found a technique for co-ordinating sautille bowing and fast fingering and can now play a Pagannini piece I thought only naturally talented people could hope to master! But hey, what do you know - finding out the right practice method and applying myself to it daily for a while has - made me more talented? What do you think? I certainly couldn't play it a couple of weeks ago... was I less talented then?

Violinia

yea, i know that practise could make nearly everything possible..but the problem is the times needed to master it...i mean will a more ''talented' ppl master that piece faster?with less struggle?

I don't really understand what you meant with this sentence. Literally, it meant that you AGREED with the statement "One DOES NOT have to have an enormous amount of natural talent to be nearly as good as mozart or saint-saens."

Or you meant the opposite? "One DOES have to have an enormous amount of natural talent to be nearly as good as mozart or saint-saens.", and you DISAGREE with my statement. (those caps aren't offence, they're for clearness)

I think that one shouldn't have as much talent as Mozart to become a great musician. Music is for everyone. Beethoven wasn't as talented as mozart, he wasn't invited to play before kings when he was little, but generally he influenced music more than Mozart. He made changes to the orchestra by adding instruments and seperating the cello and double bass staves, he didn't stick to strict Classical period composing, and generally Beethoven's works are known more by name, even though it's Mozart's that's said to have a big benefit for children.

Only a few composers are as talented as Mozart and Saint Saens, but they influenced music as much as them.

I think it's more because of practising. But a question is, does talent have a connection with practising? I mean, some say that a talented child would want have the motivation to practise more than others.

Well, we have NO control over our inborn "talent" OR the kind of genes we have inherited, have we? So, let's all go for the practice! Full stop.

That's a rather controversial statement and I assume you're saying that because Beethoven wasn't as good as Mozart was when he was young (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that) but the point is talent is about what one can achieve; not how old one is when one achieves it. If Beethoven did go on to write better music (another point of debate) then surely he was more talented (or worked harder as some people would have it) just because someone's better when they're young and then another person is better when they're older doesn't mean that the former is more tallented than the latter. In fact if one prefers Beethoven's music then one must believe he was more talented (or worked harder...).

As for the issue of the topic I would say that some people are naturally more talented than others (in born) although many people don't like this idea but no matter how much talent one has one will get nowhere without practise; similarly most people could make it with enough practise. There are of course some people who seem to be born specifically anti-talented for certain things (drawing is my major anti-talent!) and no matter how hard they try they will never make it to the top (or even anywhere near in some cases) but they can still enjoy it if they want; personally I could never make it as an artist (although you never know with modern art!) but as well as the lack of natural ability I also have the problem that I absolutely hate drawing so would never want to practise anyway to get any good. Talent may even just be a natural inborn ability to enjoy practising something!

im saying i DISAGREED with the statement.

And violinia i have to disagree...as what your saying is that anyone who practices enough can become one of the best musicians of their time...which is clearly not the case.

Clearly some people DO have an innate talent which they are born with, which to varying degrees helps them to pick things up much easier than others.

Whoa....better stop there. I didn't say exactly that. THIS is what I said:



So, my view is, not everybody's as talented as Mozart, but there are more people who have a level of "moderate talent" or "high talent" (if Mozart is considered "extreme talent"). I think that there are levels to talent, as some people are more talented than others. The people with this level of talent could become great musicians, not just those with extreme talent.

But I think that a great musician isn't just someone who plays well. Maybe someone with great talent can play better than somebody else with just ordinary talent, but that lesser person can do a lot of useful things than just play and perform, making the rest of the world consider him a great musical figure, too.

Whoops...I'm being stupid. You were commenting on Violinia's statement. But that's my respond for people who disagree

Yeah, that's about right, but I really believe that Beethoven had greater influence. According to my experience, even though Mozart's music is frequently played for studying, tests, children, etc., a lot more people knew Beethoven's melodies like from the finale of Symphonie No. 9 and Fur Elise, for example. A lot of people can recall those melodies easily, but Mozart is a bit more difficult.

People who prefer Beethoven's music doesn't always mean they think Beethoven's better, but because they really like the music itself, and this is a matter of taste rather than the greatness of the composer.

Yes, talent isn't measured by how old one achieves it, but age is a very good thing to compare, as when someone's older, it doesn't just depend on the natural born talent but also the practice and musical training the person got.

Talent maybe restricted to just playing and composing, but a lot of people with lesser talent can influence music greatly by doing other useful things.

I still wouldn't agree with that though because Mozart had done far more work than almost everyone else on piano when he was seven and had been exposed to a lot more music. Take Einstien for example, he was really quite poor at school, not very clever at all but he was certainly a talented physicist (and yes I do believe that talent/aptitude for maths and sciences exists in just the same way it does for music) he just developed later in life; I don't think that means he wasn't talented.

Sorry, correction. I've read about Einstein's life. Apparently, he was expelled from school because he was always daydreaming and take no interest in school lessons as they were below his level of intelligence. He did not "develop" later in life. I'm NOT agreeing or disagreeing with anything here. Just pointing out a factual account given by his family and those who knew him in his lifetime. Einstein never had low IQ although he did have poor communication skills which may have given the opposite impression. He seems to be "talented" all along.

By the way, I just realised that in terms of fame, money and sex appeal - all the stuff with which a conservative middle-aged person like me would refuse to measure success, and sensibly, too - Vanessa Mae seems to be a lot more "successful" worldwide (by such measures that young people of today would employ) than Nigel Kennedy!!! Surely, Nigel has MORE talent, most of you would say!

My guitar teacher couldn't praise me enough for my keen ear and natural sense of rhythm and ability. But! It just got to my head and for a couple of months I just thought I didn't have to practise much, silly me.

Yes, I suspect that you're correct but what I was really trying to get at is that he wasn't regarded by anyone really as a great physicist until later in life (no physics before the king for him aged 7!) but he certainly did make it in the end and surpassed what others had done: he wasn't really trying when he was a child.

I agree with your point about Vanessa Mae though, money earnt and popularity is certainly not necessarily an indication of skill!

Yes, I suspect that you're correct but what I was really trying to get at is that he wasn't regarded by anyone really as a great physicist until later in life (no physics before the king for him aged 7!) but he certainly did make it in the end and surpassed what others had done: he wasn't really trying when he was a child.

I agree with your point about Vanessa Mae though, money earnt and popularity is certainly not necessarily an indication of skill!

[/quote]

Yes, I would agree with you, too, on both counts.

Well, that's why Mozart's better: he had a father who realized his son's talent and started to expose more music to him.

Whether talent develops or not, it depends on a lot of other things, too. For example, a child prodigy might be able to play difficult pieces at a young age, but then he got spoiled and arrogant, which resulted in his own downfall when he was older, but a person with lesser talent could achieve more than him because of his pushy parents. That could make people think that the person who had achieved more has more talent. Well, that's not a general case, but it's an example.

Whether talent develops or not, it depends on a lot of other things, too. For example, a child prodigy might be able to play difficult pieces at a young age, but then he got spoiled and arrogant, which resulted in his own downfall when he was older, but a person with lesser talent could achieve more than him because of his pushy parents. That could make people think that the person who had achieved more has more talent. Well, that's not a general case, but it's an example.

[/quote]


Pushy Mum (?) + Some Talent + Personality = Vanessa Mae???

No hard feelings just because my hubby is fan of hers!

Is that a disagreement or agreement? I mean, I've read some people in this thread thinks that Vanessa Mae's not really a good musician, just a load of show off