What is talent?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Okay, this comes out of the great Home Truths battle on ILE. Forgive me if I sound like your English teacher.

I'm interested to know how people define talent. The question has to be pretty central to a board called I Love Music, where the daily commerce is 'x is better than y'. Unless the 'why' is 'because I say so', there has to be recourse to personal definitions of talent.

So, I've made a cursory search through ILM looking for definitions of talent. I'm not surprised to find there are no explicit definitions of what it is that makes one artist or band or musician better than another -- I wouldn't reach back into definitions of talent in a casual post either.

What I find, though, are implied definitions.

So, for instance, Bryan says 'So many people tweak, noodle, and experiment with their software, they forget about writing good melodies.' Okay, so talent is, partly, for Bryan, the ability to write good melodies. We could call this 'composition skill' or 'mastery of form'.

Another definition of talent that emerges from your posts is an emphasis on the unexpected, on playfulness. Hence Honda on Nobukazu Takemura: 'As undanceable as it was, his multimedia playfulness was really moving and quite unlike anything I've seen before.' Honda draws a line from the artist's playfulness to his own emotion. He appreciates Takemura's risk-taking choice to be undanceable at a dance festival event, and stresses the freshness of the experience. So for Honda talent seems to be the ability to surprise the listener, to move him, to be playful, to confound expectations.

There are a lot of threads about genre and category, eg 'Aerosmith Rocks -- the first punk-dub album?' (Dave Q) and 'Is Waylon Jennings country music? If so, what country?' (Bobby D. Gray). These questions (particularly the 'Is X Rock?' threads, which have quite rightly descended into farce and self-parody) seem, at first glance, sterile. But it's interesting that genres as a whole are seen as having character and 'talent', just as an individual might be. For instance, Keith McDougall on Trans Am: 'The songs I've heard off 'Future World' sound much better - actually kind of funky - but none of the weirdness/humour/astounding complexity of IDM'. For Keith, a genre can be intrinsically weird, and have a good sense of humour, just like a person.

This reminds us that, to one way of thinking about it, music is best seen as a collective activity. Talent, in this view, is manifest not in individual acts of will but in social changes, cross-fertilisations, meldings and mutations, possibly even accidental ones. It's a Darwinian concept, close to Natural Selection. Or it's like the idea of the monkey with the typewriter: leave genres to tap randomly at their tools and eventually you'll get great works.

A halfway house to this position is the view that individual talent can be justified insofar as it goes on to influence genre: 'There's just something about James Brown's sum of 1969-1975 super heavy funk though. Without either, so much breakbeat style music wouldn't be the same.'

Of course, playing music is also a 'craft', and on this level talent is defined as playing your instrument well. Thus Curt on The White Stripes: 'What I wasn't prepared for was the primal impact of Meg's drumming.'

So, my question is: What's your definition of talent? Is it close to the western Romantic notion of the exceptional communicator with profound insights into life, the universe and everything (the artist), or is it much more about how well or movingly you play your instrument (the craftsman)? Is the concept of talent more relevant applied to individuals or to genres? Is it more relevant to some genres than others (for instance, IDM rather than chart pop)? Is the question of talent an embarrassing one, somehow outdated? Has talent shifted, in recent decades, from 'the talented artist' to 'the talented listener' or 'the talented marketer'? But above all, just a simple personal definition, please. 'For me, talent is...'

― Momus, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For me, talent is a reification

― mark s, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

talent for me is clay , its a raw unruly messy thing that is not very useful- the purpose of talent is the craft , the hard work that alters conventions to art

― anthony, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For me talent is all of the above. Good melodies (Abba), playfulness (Daft Punk), craft (Stephin Merritt, The Streets), genre (UK garage), genre-shattering individual will (Dylan), probably other things too. There are also things I like where I don't know enough to detect talent yet (most of the African music I listen to), and things I enjoy where talent seems less relevant (the charts, sometimes). There is no one fixed internal scale of 'talent' for me, something to tick new records off against - the different concepts are combined and applied where neccessary.

I think though there's another dimension to the discourse here which sidesteps the question, which is the area of personal impact - I also listen to records because I recognise myself in them, and to records because I can recognise nothing of myself in them and they're an enjoyable or fascinating place to visit, and records which are in between. So in this sense talent = "making a record which interacts with Tom's concept of selfhood". But the artists have never met me - how can that be a 'talent' in any real sense, then?

The other great thing about this second strand of discourse is that it allows for non-comparative assessments - *not* all of ILM talk is based on "x is better than y", or even implies it.

― Tom, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For me it is merely the ability to make something with the mind and/or body. I don't think quality and valuation are primordial in this.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

talent = desire + attention

― Colin Meeder, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Abotu 15 years ago I shared a flat with this chap who used to get almost physically abusive over my listening to indie shit, as he called it, "...because they can't play their instruments, you only like it because it's trendy etc. etc. etbloodycetera..." & saying I should listen to early Elton John & the like. Anyway, to get to the point, because of this man's odd behaviour, I had to keep coming up with arguments in defence of my record collection, & I came to the conclusion that I'd rather hear a great song played badly than a bad song played well.

― Jez, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Something innate which you happen to hit on, then hone. There may be scores more innate talents which lie unmined.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah... building off the example I have become, I find talent to be in the ability to destruct or mutate a listener's existing expectations or notions of context..... rearranging foundational blocks and exploiting the aural reference points a listener has accumulated. Genre cesspool formation is always collectively "talented", then, but after the point of stability, there's really no telling.

Also, lots of talented music is accidental... if a chart pop single with millions of executive dollars behind it manages to sound extraordinarily new, the talent is not really in the teenage singer or whoever, but in the accidents and phenomena resulting from all of the intricate industry decisions (monkeys? typewriters?). IDM artists may labor for days over 84 stereo tracks of glitchy noise, but this meticulous crafting and individual dedication may not amount to "talent" if the result sounds just like Richard Devine or 500 other IDM people.

In some cases, some auteur-type comes along and actually lives up to being the talented craftsman. Perhaps, this is where a more personal resonance is found in the music. Again, this view sort of divorces effect from intention so that talent largely becomes "natural" rather than plotted.

― Honda, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Scientists in Australia, reports the BBC, have invented a magnetic hat which, by stimulating the right side of the brain, can make people more talented within 15 minutes. This includes musical talent, the article says.

'The news has been given a cautious welcome by experts in the UK.'

― Momus, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

That must be a misprint. Surely 'Experts in the UK were partying hard.'

― Momus, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"UK experts – contacted in their Tokyo homes – were partying hard..."

― mark s, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

*milk flys out of nose*

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

*brain flys out of nose*

― david h, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Although Momus is asking for very specific personal answers, I find myself hard-pressed to think of any specific criteria for music (or for that matter movies or books) except to say that I tend to think someone is talented (although this is a bit of lie--I more likely to just think the work in question is good) when they make (or I hear, read or watch) something innovative (Wow, I've never heard anything like that before) insightful (Wow, that really speaks directly to something I've thought or would have like to have thought of) or awe- inspiring (Jesus Christ, that is {{insert noisy, bizarre, completely insane, complicated here}}!! I'm going to sit back and {{insert drool, get jiggy, go mad here}}). That's ridiculously broad, but I think it covers most of the reasons why I like something (which I guess could be said to speak to something which could be called talent although it seems much more abstract and personal than narrow artist focused term).

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Talent is simply the ability to do something well. That talent may be the ability to dupe teenagers into thinking that you're making quality music, when you're really just selling pet rocks. Or that talent may be to write music and/or lyrics that communicate well or strike a chord with someone.

Or that talent may be the abililty to hear something subtle, or to appreciate something that most people can't. Ahaaa! So the talent may need to lie with the listener as well as the artist - and where the listener's "talent" meets the artist's talent is what we commonly call "taste". i.e. if your ability to listen to music is only superficial, you have bad taste. And if your ability to write music only resonates with people that have superficial listening skills, you are a bad artist.

― Dave225, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

How can you tell if someone's listening skills are "superficial", Dave?

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's pretty damn subjective. But my own opinion is that if you like music only because "it has a good beat" or the lyrics are cliche'd - it isn't that you're an imbecile or that you'll never have good taste - just that your listening skills need to be broadened.

It's the same with anything cultural - travel, reading, theatre - the broader your experiences, the deeper your appreciation...

― Dave225, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Come on. This is the music critic version of a circle jerk.

wank wank wank wank.

For crying out loud, stop and relax and just LISTEN to the sounds, dont overload your psyche with neurosis of what it MEANS.

― Gage-o, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

They say "it's the music, man" = they are monkeys = can we eat them?

― Tim, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Psyche!

― Gage-o, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I believe that the concept of "talent" can be complicated when applied to music. Firstly, it can be inherent in a person without ever being utilised to its full potential. So how do you decide that it's there in the first place? Musically, it is manifest in many different forms. Some seem to have an ability to easily express themselves in writing (lyrics), others may just as easily construct a melody, and some show an ability to play instruments. Or you can be talented as a producer, adding details that lifts the song to another level. Few are those who are able to do everything, but those who can, will often be singled out as the most talented, as individuals. Even if someone has talent, they may sound crap, because they haven't developed it (they haven't worked at it enough). Or it may have been wrong to claim that they had any talent in the first place. You can't really decide, because it may be constantly evolving or even degenerating… But my opinion is that talent need not sound innovative at all, it just needs to show that innovation is likely or possible. The ability to do something well, is aptly put.

vandahl

― tore dahl, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dear Gage-o:

..And what SOUNDS shall we listen to? Shakira? Because Shakira does nothing for me... So I can't relax - and listening to her SOUNDS does not appeal to me. Doesn't mean she doesn't have a talent though.

Some people like to talk about philosophy, psychology, etc.. And they also like music - so they like to talk about the two subjects at the same time. Why not let them?

And if all you're interested in is listening to the SOUNDS, then why are you wasting your time posting to a message board?

― Dave225, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

On the English teacher note, had a particularly bad drafting teacher in grade nine. He'd hand you a technical drawing and give you three hours to get it back to him type of individual, all done by hand despite the increase in availability to autoCAD. So far no real big complaints, but if a student came and asked him for help, tip toeing carefully betweent he rows of wobbly drafting desks the conversation went like this:
Student:"How do I draw this [or something more specfic]?"
teacher:after briefly examing the problem "Talent"
student:"How do I get talent without help?"
teacher:"Skill!"
student:"How does one develop skill without knowing what they're doing?"
teacher:"Practise more drawings.
At this point the students usually walked away.

― Mr Noodles, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I definitely believe talent is something inherent to a person, probably something they are born with. At best, it is a *potential* for the ability to do something well, because in most cases it does take practice before the person will actually develop the skill he/she has talent for. Mozart was a genius, but without music lessons, he could not have written out the scores for his symphonies. However, he may well have been able to conceive the pieces without lessons -- but then what if he'd been deaf, never been able to hear a note of music? He would probably never have become a musician in the first place.

So, is a genius with no exposure to their "destiny" still a genius? How Zen. Anyway, if you (like me) define talent as merely the inherent potential for great skill, then yes. But at that point, the person becomes a tragic genius, and will most likely end up writing record reviews for peanuts.

― dleone, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i have a headache (luckily i can't feel it)

― mark s, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Talent is simply the ability to do something well.

If we are looking for a real definition of the word "talent," this is probably the best given so far. Certainly it's pointless to say, "Talent to me is being able to write a good melody" "No, it's being able to improvise in unexpected ways." Those are simply different talents.

Yes, I believe some individuals are more talented than others, and that there is a genetic component to this. Is it possible to become more talented over time? Perhaps. Since the brain continues to be restructured over time, it may be possible to become more talented. (When I first started Latin dancing, I found it very difficult to remember relatively short patterns of steps. Now I find that I learn much more complex patterns more easily than I learned those simple ones. Someone might look at me and say, "You have a real talent for remembering these moves," but it sure didn't come naturally to me three years ago.)

Different cultures and sub-cultures will value different types of talent. For that matter, certain types of talent may not even be recognized by a particular culture or sub-culture.

The cultural products/events themselves teach us what the standards are. (Well, okay, they are also supplemented to varying degrees by the discourse around a given art form, from critical writings to casual conversations.) By immersing ourselves in a certain type of music, we (generally) eventually learn what the standards are, even if we couldn't articulate them precisely. So then we know when someone makes music in a way that fits the expectations for a particular type of music; or we recognize when they fight against the usual conventions in interesting, expressive*, ways.

*Expressive: This is a word I use a lot and I have to admit that I don't have a very good explanation of what I mean by it. Certainly the evaluation of it is pretty subjective.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i have a headache (luckily i can't feel it)

This is the cornerstone of the American prescription drug industry.

― dleone, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For me, talent is exceptionalism: the ability to do something in a way that is a) different from the received way of doing it (a.k.a. "style," which generally can't exist without talent), and/or b) markedly better than an average amateur practitioner of that thing.

For example, I cook most nights, and almost always end up with something I think is tasty and nutritious, but I don't consider myself a talented cook: I just follow the recipes, and have learned a little about knife technique, so I can work fairly quickly. A talented cook would be able to look in the fridge, think for a moment, and prepare something complicated and good without reference to pre-existing recipes.

― Douglas, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For crying out loud, stop and relax and just LISTEN to the sounds, dont overload your psyche with neurosis of what it MEANS.
I don't know what is scarier: a musician hyerventilating or a critic without a pen (or too many to choose from). Excuse while I go erase the doors of perception.

― nathalie, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The dictionary works just fine for me:

"...b: a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver 2 archaic: a characteristic feature, aptitude or disposition of a person or animal 3: the natural endowments of a person 4 a: a special often creative or artistic aptitude

I like the way this equates money--ie, the ability to be a professional at something, or reify it heh heh--with "God-given" ability.

― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Going back to an old critical saw of mine -- there's an intent to unity on the part of the artist in creating something, and an intent to unity on the part of the audience member recieving the work. These are generally very different things, howevah. Perhaps then talent is the degree to which this gap can be bridged.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Something in what Tom said appeals to me, and to rephrase it in my terms: talent is not per se defined by connection or vice versa, but connection trumps 'talent' as broadly considered in my universe. If it works -- whatever and however that is -- then that is enough, because that is what counts. One can argue that someone is talented enough to produce that connection with me, but I don't really see it in those terms.

*thinks* I guess if anything I am more interested in the results than the creator of the process...and as such, the results cannot be talented in and of themselves.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha what do i mean by talent when I use the word a ways down this thread? (i am relieved to see that i consider it a potentially NEGATIVE attribute...)

― mark s, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Looking at my answer: or simple and good, actually.

― Douglas, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

For me, talent is a knack. A knack for something is created and fostered by nothing more than confidence and enthusiasm. I know people who have a knack for carpentry, but not because they've got some kind of carpentry gene goin on from birth... I think a carpenter might actually be insulted if you said that they've got a "talent" for it... "do you know how many years i've worked at this?" they might reply. "This is no accident."

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think a talented person in music is just someone who can play or created quality music. And quality in music like any arts has endless definitions. It could be aesthetic or anti-aesthetic. Talent in playing an instrument/singing is usually based on a fairly classical type of quality, but this (especially over the last century) does not make for quality music. (e.g. the Raincoats or the Red Crayola could hardly play thier instruments when they made thier first albums.) But music has so many different aspects where talent could be. Personal I like it the most when a musician is mostly creative while retaining slight amounts of other talents.

― A Nairn, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

hmmm... Knack = Talent.

Talent can be learned. You can develop a talent. You may be born with a natural ability to do something with little effort - but if someone else can do (whatever) just as well but had to work to be good at it, they are not less talented (as long as they are just as good at it now & do not have to work any harder to accomplish. - i.e. they may have had to work harder to get there, but do not have to work any harder now that they've learned - ergo, just as talented.)

― Dave225, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A few people have said it already, but for me "talent" is the innate part of achievement. The phrase "Natural talent" is redundant for me. The worth of the final product comes from talent + hard work. Edison's idea on the relative amount of each in genius (1% inspiration, 99% perspiration) was off; I'd say it’s more like 30%/70%. It’s a little mysterious because you never know how much talent and how much hard work go into a finished product. It's fun to think about, but who cares in the end, really.

― Mark, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It says here:

'natural aptitude or skill'

Which sounds fair enough. Trust Pinefox to go one step further. Then again, aren't skill and talent more or less the same thing?

'people regarded as sexually attractive or as prospective sexual partners: most Saturday nights I have this urge to go on the hunt for new talent.'

No doubt overheard from a Larry Parnes conversation.

― PM, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

An example – I started playing guitar around same time as a good friend of mine. We both spent about the same amount of time on it, but within a month, he was quite a bit better than I was, and he continued to improve at a much greater rate.

Another time we fooled around on some drums at a friend’s house. Neither of us had ever played. I tried to bang something out and it sounded awful. My friend picked up the sticks and played a note- perfect rendition of the intro to “Sunday Bloody Sunday” (hey, it was the 80s!), first time he’d ever touched the things. He had much more talent for music than I did. Of course, I could have worked my ass off and learned to play as well, but I was never going to have more talent (by this definition.)

― Mark, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I skimmed over everyone's posts so far, and I think Sterling's view, if I understand it correctly, is closest to mine. I think someone is talented if (1) they can create a world of their own (we had a thread on this (2) they have something original to express (but this is probably just a matter of getting it across: everyone is unique, etc.). I want to have the feeling that I'm involved in something different from/greater than what I've experienced, the feeling of not being in control. I think I'd be willing to overlook technical flaws if I thought someone was talented in this way. And I don't mean to suggest this attitude of complete earnestness and seriousness on the part of either the artist or the audience. I'm learning to enjoy lightness.

― youn, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

How nice to see a thread where everyone is OTM.

― Momus, Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

While we're in the love-in, ta for the Holger Hiller recommendations Momus, the CD I got is good atmospheric stuff (except for the occasional lame drum-n-bass outing).

― Tom, Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom: glad you're enjoying the Hiller. I would recommend above all his late 80s records 'Oben Im Eck' and 'As Is', as well as some of his early 80s collaborations with people like Thomas Fehlmann and Andreas Dorau. In the 90s, I'd really only recommend 'Little Present', the radio documentary he made about a visit to his son in Tokyo.

― Momus, Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Whippets" with Billy Mackenzie!!

― mark s, Thursday, 18 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

eight years pass...

I hope you're proud of yourself, Lou Read.

― C:\Users\Bill\Desktop\shirtless.jpg (Matt P), Thursday, 9 September 2010 16:47 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.