the concept of "talent": C/D?

I got this too from punk at first, but then after listening to a lot of people "being creative" I decided that what the real idea should be is that no one should be prevented from attempting to be creative. I think people do have varying levels of inborn talent (or aptitude, if you will - a less loaded word), in both the creative and technical senses.

Now would you like that new sonata composed by teatime or dinnertime, Your Highness? I have a little shopping to do in Salzburg, then I'll get straight to it.

Point 3: it is irrational to use anything resembling this argument to dissuade someone from trying something, as you can't know if you have a talent for something without having a good crack at it.

Point 1: Of course there's all that stuff out there and the zeitgeist leads others in particular directions and certain kinds of things are going to come along. Nonetheless, even accepting that certain kinds of dance music are coming and that nothing is truly original in some pointless sense, some people have demonstrated a greater ability to make good music than others. Maybe trip-hop was inevitable, but the fact remains that Massive Attack have consistently done it better than the Sneaker Pimps. Do you really believe that it is only that they worked harder? That there would be a direct and universal correlation in music between hard work and quality of output? This strikes me as nonsense. Being self-aware and disciplined might help make you a good musician, but it might also make you a good manager of a shoe shop. There is far more to music than that, and I see no harm in summarising the various different qualities that generally combine with some learning and effort to mean that some people make good music and others don't under the term 'talent'. (I'd say the same for painting or writing or anything along these lines; and indeed for computer programming and accountancy and magazine editing and nearly any other human endeavour.)

That said, I'm not sure why we've even made that separation between "talent" and work or practice: the word was originally meant to apply to all three, no? Which is to say: if someone could do something impressively, whether it was playing an instrument really dexterously or arranging strings with particular skill, they were "talented," no matter whether that talent was more "innate" or more "developed."

Oh wait: arguments can be made that we separated them because of rock and then because of punk, wherein being good at things and being "good" at things became regimented, separate, and often ostensibly opposite. It's a pretty recent idea that someone can be aesthetically "good" at something without having both natural or personality-based aptitude and formal training.

i think there is way too much emphasis on 'talent' in pop these days - - alicia aside, have none of you heard the horror that is vanessa carlton's rewrite of 'the entertainer'?

i pretty much believe anyone can learn to do anything (aka no such thing as talent). As argued by Shakey above and in this book which I haven't read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I think the human brain is incredibly plastic, no-one is born specialised for anything. Walking and talking are incredibly complicated skills that almost everyone masters without a problem. I think that what ultimately makes a difference in learning a skill is interest, desire, passion. If you want to learn a skill you have to put the hours in, and if you don't care about that skill you won't be motivated to. "Putting the hours in" is though a simplification, doing the same thing and making the same mistakes over and over again won't lead to improvement. Thoughtful, directed practice is key.

no-one is born specialised for anything. Walking and talking are incredibly complicated skills that almost everyone masters without a problem.

chomsky of course would say we are all specialised for language.

there are some people i've in the past played gamelan with who are very, very good instrumentalists in their own fields - orchestral music, or various other non-western musics - and they give every indication of applying themselves but they just cannot learn to play to even a minimally good standard. they can't get their ear in; they can't work out how things fit together; they get lost and can't find their way back into a tune that is being played by everyone around them. conversely, i know people who can listen to cassette tapes, recorded in mono with one microphone in the 80s, and identify single instrument lines that they can then reproduce.

and, like, this is gamelan - the level of musicianship needed to just join in is super low (this is why i like it! a group can have wildly divergent skill levels and it will still sound good and be a satisfying experience), but these are people with a high level of musicianship.

― He is "The Developer" and the children view him with a deep susp (c sharp major), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:53 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

does gamelan have different tuning? maybe those with a western music education would have to 'unlearn' certain things.

trouble with this kind of argument is that it tends to become a tennis match of anecdotes. But here's one anyway about the psychologist who tried and succeeded in making all three of his daughters chess prodigies:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200506/the-grandmaster-experiment

by "learn to do anything", do you mean at a basic/competent level or at a high, a-list level?

competently, for sure. but for a-listers i would still argue passion is a if not the significant factor.

ok, my anecdote is about drumming. i think i was drawn to it mentally but there's a huge physical component as well. when it comes to really fast finger control, i just don't have the fast twitch muscle fibers necessary to do it past a certain point (at least in my weak hand), and never will no matter how much time i put into it. i'm stubborn so i kept with it and developed a style around my shortcomings, but it's a different story from friends who had crazy amounts of speed & finger control from day 1. with the same amount of practice & work, those people are going to have a lot more options and facility.

xp

ok yeah there are physical, bodily differences that can have a large effect on performance, i won't deny that.

but i think when people talk of "talent" that's not generally what they're referring to.

my problem is overestimating the importance of 'talent' as you will notice on football threads where i tend to praise talented but feckless prodigies

i flinched a bit when jonathan meades said of vanbrugh or suchlike that he didn't belong to any school in the conventional sense but that didn't matter because there was only one school, the school of talent

I've always rolled my eyes when public figures attribute their success to "just hard work", as though natural attributes - physical and otherwise - aren't the most important determining factor. There are too many measurable factors that are unlearnable that contribute to mastering a skill - perfect pitch is a thing, for example, you can't teach or acquire that. I went to a specialist music school where a good proportion of the students had mastered their instrument to grade 8 level by the time they were 14-15, if not younger, and had been practising it from the minute they physically could - all were very clear and certain that there was a divide between those who were at grade 8 standard just because they'd been practising for their whole life, and those with a "natural" gift.

And then there are even more obvious things like HEIGHT in sports. As hard as she works - and she's got a reputation for being one of the hardest workers on tour - 5'4" Sara Errani will just never be able to serve like 6'1" Venus Williams.

Also think things like hand-eye coordination, academic intelligence are innate.

I went to a talk given by Matthew Syed a couple of weeks ago. He was entertaining, his anecdote about playing tennis with Michael Stich was particularly amusing. I haven't read the book. I assume it argues that the concept of talent is often overemphasised and can be damaging to motivation amongst other things. Not that people have no predisposition to individual differences at all.

but i think when people talk of "talent" that's not generally what they're referring to.

man i think that's exactly what they're referring to.

there's surely a lot of fun to be had on ilx arguing for the heritability of 'academic intelligence'

lex is on team gove huh

perfect pitch is a thing, for example, you can't teach or acquire that

perfect pitch is so not a thing

what was that chap called? dominic cummings?

the via media in this area gets lost in a slough between the genetic determinists and the gladwellian practice practice practice queens, never forgetting the it's all luck crowd

lj i would recommend a skim through the engagingly haywire and convinced dom c paper, linked to on the caek thread

I couldn't be a professional footballer/nuclear physicist/R&B diva no matter how hard I worked at it. "Anyone can learn to do anything" leads you to some dodgy Thatcherite conclusions if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

nilmar u forgot the cultural marxists

man i think that's exactly what they're referring to.

i think of it more as referring to some ill-defined idea of learning as a mental skill, regardless of the physical nature of the task. "i couldn't learn to juggle, i don't have the talent" - you've got two hands, that's all you need.

all babies have crap hand eye coordination.

the real answer IN MY SUPREME OPINION lol is that some effort, well directed, is the optimal circumstance for achievement of goals artistic or otherwise. one's ability to choose the direction(s) might rely on instinct but this instinct will be honed by experience. ultimately the best one can hope is to be aware of one's moment

are there any soi disant cultural marxists? did a telegraph blogger ever start castigating them only to summon the apparition of walter benjamin in the commentboxes

xp i don't really know about perfect pitch (apart from my total certainty that i don't and could never have it) but it was taken as a given among the musicians i grew up with that it was innate?

and yeah it's the "hard work and practice" line that's beloved of tories right now

I sympathize (but don't agree) with the "talent don't exist, don't matter in music" stance. "Talent" has been used incorrectly to praise and sell musicians for so long that it's led to a dilution of the word's meaning. "Alicia Keys: she is a talented pianist" is usually some more-legitimate-because-piano-lessons hoodwink. But talent exists and it matters, as lex said, there are sexy mfs and then there aren't.

"i couldn't learn to juggle, i don't have the talent" - you've got two hands, that's all you need.

I used the examples of two top 10 tennis players w/r/t height but it's obvious if you look at the huge pool of failed pros - the ones who couldn't even make it on tour in the first place - who started just as early and worked just as hard as successful pros the role that natural talent plays.

I am a good singer and an okay musician and one of the basic facts that comes of being a good singer and an okay musician who has played a bunch of music is that I know I am not brilliant and never will be. It does not matter how much I practice. I have friends who've graduated from conservatoires or music degrees and the most practical thing they have learnt is that they are destined to be second-desk in a lesser city orchestra and no amount of practice will alter that fact.

this happens with maths, too - i think people who are good at mathematics nevertheless reach at some point their "level". As someone who is okay at maths, I can get better at performing maths functions and thinking like a mathematician with regular practice, but i'm still going to reach a point (somewhere around further maths a-level iirc) beyond which i am incapable of

many xposts

I think "talent" is a bit of a poor word in that it's often used to justify one's aesthetic embrace of something merely on the grounds of its visibly evident level of craftsmanship; i.e., the way it's often used implies a conflation of skillfulness and aestheic quality. However, to state that talen't "doesn't exist" doesn't compute for me. It's not as if there's this substance in our brains or blood called Talent that can be extracted; it's merely a word we use to evaluate a person based on his/her performances or displays of skills.

xp-to-self

"beyond which i am incapable of progressing.", i think that was.

Well the least i'm arguing is that anyone can achieve basic competence. Maybe there is some special something that the a-listers have - but maybe they're just better at practicing (as I said earlier, simply working hard is not sufficient, you have to be good at noticing and correcting your mistakes. Wait did I just imply you have to have a talent for practising?)

perfect pitch is so not a thing

Perfect pitch is a thing insofar as some people in music school like to parade around their ability to *gasp* correctly identify pitches as if they were christened by unicorn Jesus. You know who has perfect pitch? every working monitor engineer

i don't really know about perfect pitch (apart from my total certainty that i don't and could never have it) but it was taken as a given among the musicians i grew up with that it was innate?

i too grew up with musicians who believed in it, but we were all children and mythomaniacs -- all "perfect pitch" is is very good relative pitch and a strong memory.

s someone who is okay at maths, I can get better at performing maths functions and thinking like a mathematician with regular practice, but i'm still going to reach a point (somewhere around further maths a-level iirc) beyond which i am incapable of

No you are just not working hard enough and basically deserve to be queueing at a food bank.

I sympathize (but don't agree) with the "talent don't exist, don't matter in music" stance. "Talent" has been used incorrectly to praise and sell musicians for so long that it's led to a dilution of the word's meaning. "Alicia Keys: she is a talented pianist" is usually some more-legitimate-because-piano-lessons hoodwink. But talent exists and it matters, as lex said, there are sexy mfs and then there aren't.

― reeves garbles (flamboyant goon tie included), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:39 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM and what I was trying to say. The way people use "talent" often is an attempt to legitimize an artist based on their virtuosity. Which of course you often can't argue with but agreeing with it forces you to conflate craftsmanship with quality like the user of the word "talent" is. I can't stand the word and pretty much never use it myself.

"mythomaniacs" is my favourite word thank you C#+

banaka to thread

Yeah, I use the word "talent" rarely, except when lovingly-derisively talking about a coddled client ("somebody go fetch The Talent"), or when talking about 8====D

Well the least i'm arguing is that anyone can achieve basic competence.

what is "basic competence" though? grade 5 piano? local club level tennis? a-level further maths? or before that? i think as CSM said everyone has their ceiling in a lot of these fields - but the fact that those ceilings are so wildly varying suggests to me that there's something innate at work.

No you are just not working hard enough and basically deserve to be queueing at a food bank.

you think there should still be food banks? pinko.

i think maths seems a particularly strong place for that kind of plateauing of ability, i've known a few people who were seemingly destined to be mathematicians until their final year of university when suddenly nothing made sense.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I could not achieve even basic competence in, eg, trapeze.

xp but then yknow if we feel like trying to decipher the particular reasons behind that plateau we're not going to get very far beyond wild guesswork.

think of all the people who never managed to achieve basic competence in lying!

Yeah, I use the word "talent" rarely, except when lovingly-derisively talking about a coddled client ("somebody go fetch The Talent"), or when talking about 8====D

― reeves garbles (flamboyant goon tie included), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:52 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is probably my own bias here, but when I hear someone describe someone as "talented" I often think it's because they can't find anything nicer or more substantive to say. It's the "she's got a great personality" of talking about skills.

often when i describe someone as "talented" i kind of mean "is nothing more than talented" i.e. isn't great (whether for lack of work or lack of genius).

^^^

Yeah I'm pretty sure I could not achieve even basic competence in, eg, trapeze.

why not? fear of heights? that could be a legitimate factor in that it seems to be something people develop as they get older, so it wouldn't inhibit learning at an earlier age. but other than that...

I *do* reckon most people are capable of excellence in almost any field, BUT here's the kicker:

they have to be consciously or unconsciously prepared for that field from pretty much age 0

the older a child gets, the more boats they miss. We adults have missed most of them. But that's ok.

think of all the people who never managed to achieve basic competence in lying!

that's me! but i never practise!

xp yeah there's so much that could have happened in the childhoods of talented people that we, or even they, don't know about.

when i describe musicians as "talented" it's in the but-not-necessarily-great sense, when i describe sportspeople as "talented" i definitely mean that they have amazing innate gifts

... which might have nothing to do with actually being able to play an instrument... or sing!

with music it's different though. "talent", like "classical training", has long been words used to sell horseshit

I am talented at verb tenses

What I mean is:

often when i describe someone as "talented" i kind of mean "is nothing more than talented" i.e. isn't great (whether for lack of work or lack of genius).

this is typically a thing that happens in music and music only. And writing. I've definitely used "talented" to describe Roberto Bolano.

but wait what is there to be talented at that isn't music or writing??? so confused

"she is a talented acrobat"

I guess if one said "a talented politician" you'd mean the athletics thing, wouldn't you - naturally gifted

political talent = people skills!

(people skills used for evil obv)

TS "talented" vs "whip-smart".

a talented pineapple

are men ever "whip-smart"? i feel like that one's limited to young women.

i think the faint-praise definition of "talent" applies across all the arts-- a "talented painter" suggests to me something of a journeyman.

journeymen or young as-yet-unfulfilled promise

i think whip-smart was discussed on ilx or twitter recently, i was saying how much i dislike the term.

well aren't you bright as a button.

As a kid I was festooned with words like 'talented', 'smart', 'gifted' etc and started to believe the hype myself, which is why ILX has done me a valuable service in constantly reminding me how stupid I am

I have no truck with 'talent'. It's about how you direct your energies in sympathy with your surroundings. All of my academic 'potential' - ground through the mill to produce a high-earning Cityboy? Is that truly the realisation of talent? I think that there are obligations concomitant with living in a society - to privilege 'talent' over this is dangerous.

Do you believe that Messi achieved his position through working harder than every other footballer?

Not in the slightest. I'm not saying that hard work brooks achievement. Read my post again.

Messi didn't train harder but he clearly worked on his skills in such as way as to ensure extreme rapidity, awareness & close-control when moving with the ball. This doesn't mean that he trained harder, but that his methods, whatever they were, worked.

His coaches & family would have had a huge impact too.

how do you know how hard messi "worked" as a kid or even toddler on the physical skills necessary to become a great footballer?

Ok, he didn't NECESSARILY train harder. Obviously he trained hard *enough*.

this is the thread where a bunch of workshy fops solve the nature/nurture debate once and for all time

i worked hard to become the fop i am

whereas i am naturally gifted at it

multi xps

yeah, there's often an implicit 'but' with 'talented' or 'gifted' in the arts - still young or undisciplined or missing something (seriousness, ambition etc). It gets frittered a lot.

I mean it seems obvious to me that his working very hard got him to a certain point but there's an innate something that made him the best player in the world, but equally talent without application would never have got him there either.

guys, if you put your mind to it, and you put in the hours, and work as hard as you can, you'll always be able to tell your friends how hard you worked when you inevitably give up and become a mobile salesman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-24536530

as good a place as any for this story which made my inner mean kid rofl

A man who planned to travel around the world on a bicycle rickshaw has decided to abandon the project after a month.

Luke Parry, 22, from Eastrington, East Yorkshire, said the trip, which he began on 10 September, had not worked out as he had envisaged.

though I liked this from one of Larkin's letters.

I also happened on a poem called “Dublin” by MacNeice & that also depressed me by its extraordinary talent. Despite all we say about them, Auden & MacNeice have talent whereas the tiny fish have not. Poetry is like everything else: if you’re not 2/3rds of the way there already, it’s not worth starting.

when is "already"? Who are these amazing children born with 2/3 of the skill of a great poet?

really hate that quote

it's conceivable - and i'm not getting sucked in! i promise myself! there is no right answer!! - that kids when they start writing poetry might display a greater feel for the form, better verbal dexterity, more 'intersting' imaginations etc. otherwise really ledge you're suggesting that everything, including what makes a piece of art engaging, can be broken down into explicable process. which seems unreasonable.

I suppose it's elitist one way or Thatcherite the other, huh? We really can reduce this debate to a polarity of shitbag Tory fallacies!

albeit i wd usually argue that qualities of engagement are in the beholder rather than the work itself but still, i refute the notion that all displays of skill can be broken down into translatable steps that can be assimilated by all. where does physical skill come into the equation for a start? can somebody who physically cannot accomplish a task be said to be equally capable in theory of performing it as anybody else?

As I've said, I think it's about HOW the child is first introduced to the poetic process. This might not involve poetry itself but basic patterns of communication aged 0-2. Obviously there might as well be minuscule genetic factors (which might be amplified in the fields of physical skill) but I feel the fairest society is based on the principle of learning & development and so I choose to believe in it.

debunking the innate is for savages who don't deserve anything

that kids when they start writing poetry might display a greater feel for the form, better verbal dexterity, more 'intersting' imaginations etc.

yeah but that might depend on what books they read as very small children, how encouraging their parents were, how naturally they were drawn to the idea of reading. ok there might be an innate neural/genetic component but people ignore the million unknown and maybe unknowable things that happen in a person's life from the moment they're born that will help nurture and grow this "talent" thing.

there is no right answer!!

absolutely! i'm just trying to push back a little against the 'nature' side of the argument.

we seem to be in broad agreement, lj.

I think the concept of natural talent is a valid one, but as with 'artistic intentions', short of stalking the artist from the time they begin artisting, there's not really a way to know.

Speaking as a singer, I can tell you I've known many extremely talented singers who never took formal voice training. However, that also doesn't mean that they didn't "work hard" (a term I loathe) at it for years, either, even if it was via self-taught measures. Who knows how many days they spent woodshedding and how many hours per day, really? It's like Schroedinger's esophagus.

I can say though I played guitar for about 7 years and practiced nonstop for hours a day and couldn't play leads to save my life, and had people who'd just picked up the instrument 2-3 years, self-taught with no lessons prior lapping me. What's the reason that they were so much better than me? Did I not 'work hard' enough? Did they have better predisposition to the instrument? I am doubting it was purely that they worked an extra half hour a day than I did and more that I just wasn't cut out to be Uli Roth, or at the very least, I wasn't taking the RIGHT kinds of lessons.

ctrl-F "Michael Jordan + basketball + baseball" no results found oh well

the cop-out answer here is probably that "talent" as commonly used refers to the primordial soup of an individual's existence wherein a bunch of genetic/environmental factors have exerted their influence well before it's possible to distinguish which is which. and that's okay as is.

"fast twitch fibers"

man this has to be one of the first threads I ever started

with Mavis Beacon, all is possible

As this is an ILM thread I'm going to post two Youtubes that I hope help to back up my overall argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTBUzbfSJvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We_mND4HpTg

^^^featuring implicit robert plant zing :D

all "perfect pitch" is is very good relative pitch and a strong memory.

so what's the difference? it does exist, and it can be learned.

ok, my anecdote is about drumming. i think i was drawn to it mentally but there's a huge physical component as well. when it comes to really fast finger control, i just don't have the fast twitch muscle fibers necessary to do it past a certain point (at least in my weak hand), and never will no matter how much time i put into it. i'm stubborn so i kept with it and developed a style around my shortcomings, but it's a different story from friends who had crazy amounts of speed & finger control from day 1. with the same amount of practice & work, those people are going to have a lot more options and facility.

xp

― festival culture (Jordan), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:20 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok yeah there are physical, bodily differences that can have a large effect on performance, i won't deny that.

― as a chocolate salesperson (ledge), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but i think when people talk of "talent" that's not generally what they're referring to.

― as a chocolate salesperson (ledge), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Why couldn't there be physiological differences in the brain just like there are physiological differences in the body? I don't think anything is entirely genetic, but I find it hard to believe that some people's brains aren't better wired for certain activities when I see, for example, how much faster certain babies/toddlers pick up certain things than others.

FWIW I have the exact same issue as Jordan -- it's always taken me more practice than others to master the same things in drumming when it comes to speed and coordination, and I've never been a very fast or coordinated drummer considering how much time I put in (and I too developed my style around those limitations).

Why couldn't there be physiological differences in the brain just like there are physiological differences in the body?

of course that's possible - certain even - but i think the brain is so plastic that such differences will be of minor importance compared to the more obvious physical ones.

sorry called away after posting controversial quote, but basically NV otm for me - the knack of poetry often visible really early, but can't say how early life, reading habits etc all fit together & hard to say what if any genetic component there is. I mean the core of it doesn't look trainable, but obviously that doesn't imply it's genetic. 'Talent' acts a shorthand for this mess of things we can't see before the game starts, & maybe 'natural' is just a bad word for thinking about it, covering up a mess as appeals to the natural usually do. I tend to use it myself, lazily – there's often something uncanny to me in what major talents can do before they're 20, with little practice, so I fall back on natural – it doesn't seem accountable from biography, but yeah maybe there's a kind of micro-biography of 0-5 coming-into-experience-and-language that is unavailable to us but may account for some part of it.

there are innate differences in people's brains and bodies which can lead to various talents, but those talents aren't very good predictors of success. there are plenty of young people who are talented in a particular field but never go on to achieve success in that field, and others who reach the top of their field even though they didn't particularly stand out as children.

what's cool about music is that it involves so many different skills and talents that I think this is ultimately impossible to unpack.

This thread and Hurting's comment reminding me of a discussion I had recently in which somebody was telling me that people who are really good might have the ability to focus properly on something for just the amount of time they need to get it. In my practicing I find that I maybe I get the idea pretty quickly and can do something like it right away if I am lucky but it might take an eternity to make it sound acceptable to someone else like, say, a teacher.

the via media in this area gets lost in a slough between the genetic determinists and the gladwellian practice practice practice queens, never forgetting the it's all luck crowd

i refute the notion that all displays of skill can be broken down into translatable steps that can be assimilated by all.

I think that every skill can theoretically be broken down into steps, but there are so many factors that it's far too complex to figure out in practice. Someone's guitar playing isn't just the sum of all of the hours they practiced various scales, but it's also every piece of music and sound they ever heard, who they are as a person, what they ate for breakfast, etc. It's not all predetermined at birth, but you can't become a clone of somebody else simply through practice either.

^^^^ this, plus there are physical determinants too. I had a wrist that tended to cramp if I played fast, as well as a hand that would spasm. As a singer, I have a huge adam's apple and thus my voice is deep. These are things that I have no control over but played a huge role in my development in both instruments.

like you could practice 30,000 hours on your layup, go to the most expensive of basketball camps, but if you're 4'11", your ceiling is pretty low.

all "perfect pitch" is is very good relative pitch and a strong memory.

so what's the difference? it does exist, and it can be learned.

i was responding to the statement "perfect pitch is a thing, for example, you can't teach or acquire that" - innateness and unteachability is in the definition of "perfect pitch" as it's understood by me and anyone i know who uses the term.

i realized walking home that the real problem talking about "talent" in the abstract is maybe like talking about "intelligence" in the abstract - both terms have no real meaning outside of performative contexts

innateness and unteachability is in the definition of "perfect pitch" as it's understood by me and anyone i know who uses the term.

perfect pitch just means that you can identify notes, or sing a note without an external reference. people might assume that it's innate, but I don't see how it's built into the definition of the term.

Isn't there something in that Brain on Music book that says that the brain actually does hear the absolute pitch but most people can't access it at a conscious level?

there will be arguments over whether perfect pitch can be learned or not until the end of time, but there are a large number of people who do claim to have been taught it. I don't think it's a slam dunk either.

(I definitely don't have it)

pretty sure that on one of the music production courses at my workplace they try to teach students to identify pitches from hearing alone

this is an aside, but David Foster Wallace claimed to have perfect pitch (who knows) and repeatedly described non-musical sounds as having pitches in his stories, like a flipped coin being a "high A flat" or something. fine, sure, cool, but i've seen this same thing in so many of his disciples' writing and it drives me nuts. you did/would not identify that as a specific note, nor is it a meaningful description for 99% of readers!

I have good relative pitch from ear training at a young age, and I can often sing songs from memory in the correct key, so I think if I tried I could figure out how to use my memory as a reference point and develop "perfect pitch."

Since musical tuning is arbitrary and isn't the same in every culture it would be absurd to assume that it's something innate, wouldn't it?

pretty sure that on one of the music production courses at my workplace they try to teach students to identify pitches from hearing alone

pitches or frequency ranges? maybe this is what flamboyant goon was getting at upthread re: monitor engineers. i've gotten better at thinking in terms of frequencies, as in "sounds a little harsh around 5k", but not nearly exact enough to narrow that down to a pitch.

i'm not sure tbh Jordan, it was a conversation i had with a student a few years back so i could be misremembering

Since musical tuning is arbitrary and isn't the same
This is supposedly the downside of having absolute pitch, you have difficulty adjusting if something is in a different key then you are used to, or a half-step off, let alone a little sharp or flat.

yeah, I suppose there should be a distinction between people who would be bothered by something being tuned away from 440 and people who can do the parlor trick of naming off notes that somebody is playing on the piano.

The only situations where I've gotten in "ooh this passage is tough because I have perfect pitch" arguments-- with adults-- have been over quarter-tone notation. Dude, if you _really_ had this mystical magical power of Perfect Pitch, then you should be able to pull a B-half-flat out of the air like it's no thing.

How convenient that your magical superpower only extends to the 12-tone system at 440 Hz no less

Yeah perfect pitch almost by definition has to be "learned" on some level, even if it's learned at age four. But I think the capacity for it may be innate to varying degrees.

well, the capacity to tell whether you're in tune with the music around you certainly does

certainly is, i mean.

he only situations where I've gotten in "ooh this passage is tough because I have perfect pitch" arguments-- with adults-- have been over quarter-tone notation. Dude, if you _really_ had this mystical magical power of Perfect Pitch, then you should be able to pull a B-half-flat out of the air like it's no thing.

― reeves garbles (flamboyant goon tie included), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:24 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How convenient that your magical superpower only extends to the 12-tone system at 440 Hz no less

― reeves garbles (flamboyant goon tie included), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:27 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But I don't see any particular reason that such a person's capacity for perfect pitch couldn't have been trained toward quarter-tone harmony if they had started from an earlier age.

i realized walking home that the real problem talking about "talent" in the abstract is maybe like talking about "intelligence" in the abstract - both terms have no real meaning outside of performative contexts

― footballer of the future (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is the real and true Wittgensteinian heart of the matter.

How convenient that your magical superpower only extends to the 12-tone system at 440 Hz no less

yeah, almost seems like an odd sort of learned handicap at that point

Do not ask for the talent, ask instead for the use.

(xp)

But I don't see any particular reason that such a person's capacity for perfect pitch couldn't have been trained toward quarter-tone harmony if they had started from an earlier age.

"Trained"? What are you talking about? Perfect pitch isn't ~trained~, it has to do with your time-of-birth and whether or not Mozart was played during the pregnancy

I remember a documentary about Glenn Gould that blamed his awesomeness on a combination of factors, one of which was "a preternatural physical gift" or somesuch, and that seemed apt. Watching clips of Elvis during his decline, where he's just tossing off some technically amazing bits of singing/performance, obviously without giving anything like a shit - or even bothering to learn the song, in some cases - makes a disbelief in native talent impossible, at least from my perspective.

That said, talented people are a dime a dozen. I've known tons of talented creative people, very few of whom have produced anything of note. When talent collides with desire/work/some kind of connection to a zeitgeist/luck/the right circumstances, that's when the magic happens. Some of the best stuff in the world has come from moderately talented people hitting some combination of other factors to create something that wouldn't otherwise have existed in the same way (cf. "punk" etc)

maybe there should be some sort of TALENT thread full of people like evgeny kissin playing flight of the bumblebee at 800 notes per second or ricardo quaresma trying to do anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7DuVU9SPTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLQS27yQZYY

oh yeah and kaikhosru sorabji

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBdyq5lNn8k

But I don't see any particular reason that such a person's capacity for perfect pitch couldn't have been trained toward quarter-tone harmony if they had started from an earlier age.

"Trained"? What are you talking about? Perfect pitch isn't ~trained~, it has to do with your time-of-birth and whether or not Mozart was played during the pregnancy

― reeves garbles (flamboyant goon tie included), Wednesday, 16 October 2013 19:14 (34 minutes ago) Permalink

You seem a little butthurt about this subject tbh. I discovered I had it at around age 7. Obviously I was "trained" in the sense that I couldn't have even known what the fuck a "C" was if I hadn't had a piano in the house and a few piano lessons, but at the same time, I wasn't practicing 5 hours a day or sitting around with tuning forks. I grew up in a musical household, but so did a lot of other kids. How come I developed it? Don't you think there might be something about the structure of my ear or the auditory parts of my brain that were just more "receptive" to it? My point was that if I had been raised with non-western harmony, those same structural things about my ear or brain or whatever it is probably would have developed to respond to other harmonic systems instead.

Sure, sure, but did you ever make an album that sold as many copies as (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, hm? I think not.

I think what staggerlee said basically. Talent =/= success. That doesn't mean talent isn't a thing at all.

Obviously I was "trained" in the sense that I couldn't have even known what the fuck a "C" was if I hadn't had a piano in the house and a few piano lessons, but at the same time, I wasn't practicing 5 hours a day or sitting around with tuning forks. I grew up in a musical household, but so did a lot of other kids. How come I developed it? Don't you think there might be something about the structure of my ear or the auditory parts of my brain that were just more "receptive" to it?

But that doesn't preclude the possibility of another kid with your exact genetic talents who wasn't raised in a musical household, didn't have a piano, and didn't develop perfect pitch. Or a third kid whose innate auditory processing was merely average but who learned to develop a sense of pitch that's identical to yours because they were trained in a different way or at an earlier age.

Hurting 2 I don't know what I'd be butthurt about. Naming pitches or singing 440 are both as easy as ID'ing species of tomatoes. It doesn't take five-hours-a-day of practice or tuning forks. And anyway I'm speaking against "perfect pitch" as a talking point, a badge of honour for music camp bitches, an excuse for violinists with quarter-tone issues.

I sing 440 like music camp bitches
I roll with groups of ghetto bastards with pitches

But that doesn't preclude the possibility of another kid with your exact genetic talents who wasn't raised in a musical household, didn't have a piano, and didn't develop perfect pitch. Or a third kid whose innate auditory processing was merely average but who learned to develop a sense of pitch that's identical to yours because they were trained in a different way or at an earlier age.

― wk, Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:24 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sure, but it's not like this renders talent entirely meaningless. Ultimately it's probably going to be the kid with the talent AND the musical household AND the rigorous training AND a combination of other factors who becomes Glenn Gould. Most of us could practice 8 hours a day from age 4 and would never be Glenn Gould. Meanwhile guys like me wind up as day job professionals with a neat parlor trick, it's true.

it renders it meaningless in the broader sense that a lot of the general public uses the word. it makes sense if you use it to describe the potential in a young child, but falls apart if you try to use it as an explanation for later greatness imo.

also glen gould seems like a terrible example of innate talent

Watching clips of Elvis during his decline, where he's just tossing off some technically amazing bits of singing/performance, obviously without giving anything like a shit - or even bothering to learn the song, in some cases - makes a disbelief in native talent impossible, at least from my perspective.

I don't know how you could watch someone at the end of their career, the culmination of tens of thousands of hours of honing their craft, and conclude it's down to native talent.

Anyway I've been reading Matthew Syed's Bounce and it is inspirational. It has fair number of Gladwell style anecdotes but also references a good amount of proper academic research, with citations. At first glance his thesis seems even more outrageous than mine - I've merely been arguing anyone can achieve competence at any skill, he claims anyone can achieve world class excellence! But the difference is superficial. He thinks anyone can achieve excellence given the right circumstances, which will include access to decent facilities and coaching, ideally from a young age. Hence his anecdote about it being no coincidence, genetic or otherwise, that at one point in the 1980s one suburban street in Reading containing more top class table tennis players (including himself) than the rest of the UK put together. But obviously to achieve some level of competence will take less time and require less supporting facilities.

The key parts of the thesis are: it applies mainly to complex activities (which would include most sports), rather than simple demonstrations of speed or strength, although obviously those can (and must) be improved with practice too. It requires dedication - Gladwell's 10,000 hours figure gets quote approvingly and often. I know the Gladwell backlash is in full swing but this is one of his ideas that is backed up by (and probably based on) decent research. It requires deliberate or purposeful practice: constantly attempting things beyond ones ability, focussing on the end goal, learning from ones mistakes. It requires motivation and, in the case of world class excellence, a literally irrational level of self belief - but these two are themselves amenable to training. Perhaps the most surprising idea is that it requires you to already believe in the thesis itself! If you think any skill you might possess is down to innate talent you will (on average) be less motivated to work hard, less keen on testing yourself in case you fail and disprove your own ability. If you think success is down to hard work then that itself helps motivate you to work hard.

Most of us could practice 8 hours a day from age 4 and would never be Glenn Gould.

*If* most of us could have proper, coached, internally motivated, purposeful practice 8 hours a day (actually more like 3 or the risk of burnout is massive) from age 4, then yes most of us would be Glenn Gould! Or whoever.

Keeping with the football analogy, I'd argue that given world-class facilities and coaching from a very young age it might be possible to coach a fully willing and motivated kid to the level of, say, a La Liga B-Team player but to become a genuinely world-class player? To the level of a Xavi/Iniesta/Messi? No fucking way.

There are also kids who can do things above and beyond any of their peers who piss it away through lack of motivation and application, so it's not like hard work and access to facilities are irrelevant, on the contrary, good coaching is massively important.

There's also the issue of level of competition, it's easy to become "world-class" in some fields than others because the field is so much less crowded. It's why you see people competing in the Olympics and in some cases doing really well having taken up the sport five years previously.

I'm not sure why the concept of some inherent physical or mental limitations existing is so difficult for ppl to get their head around.

big diff between physical limitations and "mental limitations" which could be anything.

yeah but mental limitations can be both instilled and overcome by external forces. It can't have been a coincidence that, having decided to produce a family of chess champions, Laszlo Polgar's three daughters all grew up with a love of chess and a desire to succeed at it. He gave them that desire.

What about the people who decide to produce a family of chess champions and you've never heard of because they just didn't succeed?

I mean yeah there are loads of mental limitations that can exist, some can be overcome, others can't.

just because some people don't make it doesn't prove that those who do were born with innate talent. the idea of "mental limitations" reinforces that point.

I'm not sure why the concept of some inherent physical or mental limitations existing is so difficult for ppl to get their head around.

because the evidence seems to show that these limitations are not innate.

How would you coach a 5"2 person to become a world-class goalkeeper?

Springs in their shoes.

just because some people don't make it doesn't prove that those who do were born with innate talent

Agree with this fwiw. But equally, "making it" requires more work for some than for others, and some people have a lower ceiling to what they can achieve.

I mean 5'2" obviously, although what I wrote would at least be interesting.

Yeah yeah well done. Ok assuming that a given field has no genetically determined physical factors required for success, *or* that a given candidate has those factors, then success will be a product of effort, not innate talent.

I wonder how tallthe shortest world-class goalie is.

Some people are going to be genetically better equipped for some things - very tall people for basketball, people with long, supple, strong fingers for guitar, etc etc etc - but that doesn't mean that the practice thing isn't hugely important. And in fact I think Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi might almost be counter-intuitive as examples of 'natural' or 'genetic' talent, as they're all little weedy guys, with the exception of Messi not especially quick. Obviously there's a low centre-of-gravity thing going on which can be beneficial to footballers, but the kinds of player that Xavi and Iniesta are especially, that strikes me as being the result of practice and strategy and coaching an determination rather than inherent ability or genetics.

agreed, matt.

i'm not on some tory "you can get if you really want" tip but i do think "talent" is exalted too much as some miraculous touch from god. and people are capable of learning how to do almost anything. you might be starting off from a lesser position than some but just cos we self-define as being shit at something (and this happens more the older we get) doesn't mean a bit of work can't unpick that lock.

the reason starting from youth is better is prob as much to do with the person having no preconceived ideas about the self and how incapable they are at x, y, z, as anything else.

Iker Cassillas is a slither under 6 feet tall.

Physical and mental maleability best reasons for starting young imo.

people with long, supple, strong fingers for guitar, etc etc etc

wonder how long, supple and strong django reinhardt's two fingers were

Well yes, quite. But Hendrix's were very much so; I'm agreeing wit you, by and large!

:)

yeah it's a stretch to start saying people's physical shape is a big thing for musicians.

they were damn strong, etc (xpost)

Well there was Jordan's post upthread about fast twitch muscles and drumming, which I'll concede was a good point.

If your arms aren't long enough to reach around a cello you'll struggle, that's all I'm saying. But then Def Leppard.

free will is prob the biggest obstacle to people making it at whatever thing.

i'll worry matt here by agreeing with him.

and imo if you concede that 5ft 2 inch gk has issues then everything else is just quibbling

i'm not on some tory "you can get if you really want" tip but i do think "talent" is exalted too much as some miraculous touch from god. and people are capable of learning how to do almost anything. you might be starting off from a lesser position than some but just cos we self-define as being shit at something (and this happens more the older we get) doesn't mean a bit of work can't unpick that lock.

Agree with this as well. Technique is more important than anything and honing technique is the bit that requires the real work. But there is something special about people at the very top, even if it's just a happy confluence of physical and mental attributes that have been perfectly-directed.

On the subject of music, a voice is something you need to really nurture to become world-class, but it's also a physical attribute as well.

phrenology ftw

xpost that's by classical standards of singing tho. the other thing about the arts is that nowadays success isn't really measured by those kind of standards. it's perfectly possible for someone who is "weak" by a classical standard to be hugely popular, and to be seen as talented.

it's sort of the dividing line between composing or creating art and reproducing or performing the art of others that's at the heart of this.

perfectly free to make your own art with your own rules and succeed nowadays.

id want to see everyone's degrees in neuroscience etc before they proved anything wasn't a physical attribute tbh

you'd want to see where they learned neuroscience before they proved that alright.

well tbh i'd need to know they hads a talent for it from early age more than the right traingin but obv both are elements

If I become a world famous neuroscientist and trapeze artist will you all believe me

well tbh i'd need to know they hads a talent for it from early age more than the right traingin but obv both are elements

yeah cos people learn to be neuroscientists from the age of 3.

any doctor who went to university at a normal age is talentless and a fraud.

Obv, obv

dougie howser otm

doogie howser md

If your arms aren't long enough to reach around a cello you'll struggle, that's all I'm saying. But then Def Leppard.

It's not like Rick Allen can sit down at just any old drum kit and play anymore.

Sure he can.

If they were playing bebop rather than Mutt Lange stadium rock he'd def have a hard time keeping up.

*If* most of us could have proper, coached, internally motivated, purposeful practice 8 hours a day (actually more like 3 or the risk of burnout is massive) from age 4, then yes most of us would be Glenn Gould! Or whoever.

― as a chocolate salesperson (ledge), Friday, 1 November 2013 10:24 (4 hours ago) Permalink

But there are easily thousands of people in the world who more-or-less get this kind of intensive training and practice from a young age, and most of them become generic highly competent classical musicians at best.

There's probably something to be said about the modern fascination for measuring everything even if its not appropriate; if you can't establish a metric, you can't tell if anything is any good. People can be trained more easily to beat specific metrics than to just be wonderful at something, possibly. I'm thinking aloud here, though.

But there are easily thousands of people in the world who more-or-less get this kind of intensive training and practice from a young age, and most of them become generic highly competent classical musicians at best.

that 'more or less' covers a lot of sins, how many coaches browbeat their students instead of inspiring them, or emphasise talent instead of effort? i know this sounds like a lot of bet hedging - "if the circumstances are *exactly right* then everyone can become a superstar". still, "generic highly competent" is probably more than most people believe they could achieve even given the chance.

*If* most of us could have proper, coached, internally motivated, purposeful practice 8 hours a day (actually more like 3 or the risk of burnout is massive) from age 4, then yes most of us would be Glenn Gould! Or whoever.

― as a chocolate salesperson (ledge), Friday, 1 November 2013 10:24 (4 hours ago) Permalink

But there are easily thousands of people in the world who more-or-less get this kind of intensive training and practice from a young age, and most of them become generic highly competent classical musicians at best.

― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Friday, November 1, 2013 3:04 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously!! you clearly do not want to get this into your head, ledge, because it's been said on this thread before enough times, but there are loads of young musicians with the motivation and the support and the time to put in this kind of practice, who do not become such greats.

but how good do they get? and how many people believe they could *never* get that good no matter how hard they tried?

Wow, you guys are very clearly presenting the subtle nuances of each side of this argument. Let me check the URL to see if I am at the right place.

Sorry, meant to say something like good thread, but couldn't bring myself to type it.

mostly they get good enough to know they will never be good enough?

the threads do?

...yes

those are some pretty introspective threads

and how many people believe they could *never* get that good no matter how hard they tried?

but now we're not talking about 'trying hard', we're talking about being intensively trained (in the right way) from a very early age, with the right level of encouragement, support (& possibly something else - manipulative withholding of affection?) from your family and ending up reaching (let's say) a solid professional level of competency (so you're in a second-tier orchestra maybe? I don't know how classical players make a living). I think a lot of people would accept that as realistic. And trying hard won't do it now (=post-pubescence).

manipulative withholding of affection

there's probably as many anecdotes on either side, maybe tiger woods' dad was a bastard idk, but i get the impression being inspiring and encouraging enthusiasm is the way to go.

but there are loads of young musicians with the motivation and the support and the time to put in this kind of practice, who do not become such greats.

i don't wanna be all "studies have shown" but... some studies have shown that amount of time spent on purposeful practice is the *only* thing separating the great from the good.

what separates the good from the not good

the same.

talent is classic. there should be more talented people.

It is always suspicious when someone shows a certain dedication and drive at a young age that
I'd prefer parents be actively discouraging -- like If tiger woods' dad showed up at practices with a "golf schmolf" tshirt,
I'd be more confident that tiger's desire was intrinsic.

i've three brothers. three of us can sing, one can't. one of us had a flair for drawing that the others didn't (not the non-singer, as it happens). without practice or training beyond what the others of us were doing (ie no training, practicing by doing it because it ocurred to us to do it on whims, as children do).

the guy that could never sing still can't sing (but he is in a band, lol). the three of us that could never draw can't draw yet (and one of us sat through two years of art school).

i don't wanna be all "studies have shown" but... some studies have shown that amount of time spent on purposeful practice is the *only* thing separating the great from the good.

This is just madness. It's like watching the young Jacko sing 'I Want You Back' and concluding that any kid with an identical upbringing could have done that.

Janet seems to have done alright. But maybe she isn't a Germaine comparison.

lock thread tbh

janet jackson-level is p much the epitome of 'anyone could do that given the time and training' tbh

At first glance his thesis seems even more outrageous than mine - I've merely been arguing anyone can achieve competence at any skill, he claims anyone can achieve world class excellence! But the difference is superficial. He thinks anyone can achieve excellence given the right circumstances, which will include access to decent facilities and coaching, ideally from a young age. Hence his anecdote about it being no coincidence, genetic or otherwise, that at one point in the 1980s one suburban street in Reading containing more top class table tennis players (including himself) than the rest of the UK put together. But obviously to achieve some level of competence will take less time and require less supporting facilities.

this doesn't really refute "talent" as innate, though. it instead suggests that the skills granted by innate talent (if such a thing exists) can be cultivated in less innately talented individuals - given the right circumstances.

once upon a time, i knew a young man who could draw super-realistic images from memory. he would sit at his desk and crank out photo-perfect pictures of dogs and birds, as that was what interested him, but he said he could draw anything. moreover, he said he'd "always" been able to do it. he looked at the paper, imagined the image he wanted to duplicate, and "saw" it clearly enough to simply trace. he wasn't anywhere near as good at drawing things from imagination. he was basically a copy machine. of course i can't say for certain, but this at least sounds like the expression of an unusual innate ability to me. a talent.

similarly, some people can perform impossible-seeming mathematical calculations in their heads and often express this ability from a very early age. i suppose it's possible that some rare combination of actions and environmental factors causes this in all cases, but it seems absurd to categorically reject the idea that innate ability (genetics, neurology, that sort of thing) might also be involved, might even provide the entire explanation.

i'm sure that people are often mistaken in their identification of talent, mistaking the result of interest, dedication and time for some kind of god-given gift, but people are often wrong about everything. tbh, i don't see any reason why one would want to nail down a final answer here. we don't know enough to be certain. and ambiguity is almost always preferable anyway.

some studies have shown that amount of time spent on purposeful practice is the *only* thing separating the great from the good.

In sport or music performance or both or something else? & what are the great/good criteria? (sorry, that's a long-winded 'can you point me to the studies please?')

Anyway asking why any child pianist who works and works and works and has the optimum level of coaching can't emulate Glenn Gould is like asking why an actor can't emulate Olivier. Or why a footballer can't emulate Messi. At some point there's just something in the personality that raises them above being merely technically perfect.

xp this is the main one: http://www.mockingbirdeducation.net/uploads/5/4/0/7/5407628/ericsson_1993.pdf

a basic talent maybe gives drive to practice in a way that struggling towards competency doesn't? the flow of succeeding at a task from instinct feeds a desire to see where you can take it as opposed to plodding along on a set of defined milestones in a text/method

"talent" IMO isn't an indicator of whether someone can or can't do something; it's more of an indicator of how quickly one can become proficient in the rudimentary skill of something.

I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpu2FuQbsVU

This toddler has probably heard this song rehearsed multiple times but clearly understands matching pitch, pitch duration and phrasing; only lung capacity is keeping him/her from singing the full lines and the words aren't quite there, but an understanding of the melody clearly is, as is shown when the busker drops out and the toddler finishes the song. Not every child of this age is able to do this.

moreover, he said he'd "always" been able to do it.

from when he was born?

we're back on the old merry-go-round here.

similarly, some people can perform impossible-seeming mathematical calculations in their heads and often express this ability from a very early age.

this is an ability that can be taught. binet found in 1896 that cashiers with 14 years experience performed faster at 3 and 4 digit multiplications than 'natural' prodigies.

Very few disciplines value tricks like eidetic memory and mental math as being the basis of world class performance especially since we have cameras and calculators now.

We're not comparing ppl who have never practiced vs ppl with talent we're asking if there is such a thing as talent the answer's yes

Garbled that but w/e

xp this is the main one: http://www.mockingbirdeducation.net/uploads/5/4/0/7/5407628/ericsson_1993.pdf

― as a chocolate salesperson (ledge), Friday, November 1, 2013 9:36 AM (2 minutes ago)

the conclusions drawn overextend the implications of the gathered data. showing that people tend to acquire many skills at more or less the same rate, primarily as a result of time dedicated and method of study/practice, doesn't refute the existence of intrinsic ability. a more defensible conclusion would be that it plays a smaller role than some seem to think.

"talent" IMO isn't an indicator of whether someone can or can't do something; it's more of an indicator of how quickly one can become proficient in the rudimentary skill of something

^^^ This, as well.

we're back on the old merry-go-round here.

exactly. there's simply no way to draw a conclusion that's both reasonable and definitive. this isn't a question we can answer at present.

this is an ability that can be taught. binet found in 1896 that cashiers with 14 years experience performed faster at 3 and 4 digit multiplications than 'natural' prodigies.

exactly. that a skill can be taught does not mean that it cannot exist in some as a "natural talent".

xps on the maths
but the prodigies didn't have 14 years to learn them - they're often untrained & about 10-11 when they're noticed. And they aren't just doing 3-4 digit calculations, they're doing bigger numbers. Quick search shows this girl winning world mental calculation championship in 2010. What environmental/educational factors lead to beating a field of motivated adults? Some kids can do this purely cognitive thing - I'm willing to listen & am basically in the interaction of multiple complex factors camp, but that looks something like an innate gift.

ie contenderizer otm imo

Is willingness to perform beyond your abilities unhampered by fear of ridicule a talent? Because often that's what it looks like to me.

they're often untrained

home trained or self trained i reckon.

But there are easily thousands of people in the world who more-or-less get this kind of intensive training and practice from a young age, and most of them become generic highly competent classical musicians at best.

But generic, highly competent classical musicianship is exactly what they're being trained in. You could train a child to be a Bob Dylan too by focusing on things like songwriting and poetry rather than playing Bach.

but nobody does that

But generic, highly competent classical musicianship is exactly what they're being trained in

Rong.

Really, how many of the kids who are drilled on piano or violin from an early age are being taught composition or being exposed to a wide range of music beyond the classical canon?

the three of us that could never draw can't draw yet (and one of us sat through two years of art school).

Ah y'know they stopped teaching drawing at art school years ago now.

(Showing my innate talent for snappy ripostes)

There's that video of that kid who plays rush on four instruments at once

That's beside the point. It may be that there are people who can't tell the difference between a perfectly good second violinist in a middle-ranking professional orchestra and a really first-rate international soloist but I can guarantee you that "generic, highly competent classical musicianship" is not what either have been trained to aspire to.

(That was an xpost to WK)

Then there's this guy who was at Berklee with like four different scholarships, each one for a different instrument: http://zildjian.com/Artists/C/Louis-Cato

That's beside the point. It may be that there are people who can't tell the difference between a perfectly good second violinist in a middle-ranking professional orchestra and a really first-rate international soloist but I can guarantee you that "generic, highly competent classical musicianship" is not what either have been trained to aspire to.

ah, I see you're making the distinction between different competent classical musicians. I was referring to them all as generic competent classical musicians as opposed to the artists who are composers, songwriters, etc.

I mean I would think to most ILMers the interesting question is not the difference between the soloist and second violin, but those people vs. the Coltranes, Lou Reeds, and Brian Wilsons of the world.

There are so many stopping points along the way from "innate talent is the ultimate determinant" and "there is no such thing is talent" but I guess people have to get their theory on.
(xp to no one in particular)

Actually more interested in the first of those questions tbh.

well yeah from a scientific point of view I guess the interesting question is between two violinists like that who somehow had identical training. the michael vs jermaine question.

Jermaine was Joe Jackson's Bottle Rocket. Michael was his Rushmore

I really don't want to hear about joe jackson's bottle rocket

You can't measure innate talent or luck or happenstance but you can measure hours practiced.