What is talent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frankie Rage
  • Start date Start date
I have just recently started to write, and some people think the songs are pretty good.

I enjoyed listening to your work. I would say you have many talents. The ability to teach yourself all of those instruments, the ability to create songs, music, etc.

So, to compare, I would say that I have "musical talent", and my wife does not.
I would disagree with you, though, on the point that just because your wife does not share your ability to improvise, or create her own music from scratch, does not invalidate her "musical talent" (or ability) to sit down in front of a sheet of music, read it, and play in a way that is pleasing to others.

I've known several amazing musicians, who couldn't read a stitch of music, and I've known several amazing musicians who depended upon some form of music to guide them in what to play. Both types of musicians were/are talented, in their own area of experience. Being able to play music that is pleasing to listen to is a talent. Being able to create music and/or lyrics is another talent. Wouldn't you agree?
 
I think talent is the ability connect with your audience viscerally, regardless of the medium. How you gain that ability is besides the point.
 
i'm pretty sure someday a trained monkey will play the entire joe satriani catalogue.
talent is that little extra thing that the monkey can't do.
 
Strat1958 said:
My wife took 8 years of Royal Conservatory piano training. While she plays, I have heard numerous people say "I wish I was that talented" or some such thing. But - If you pull away the sheet music while she is playing, she has to stop, because she has no idea what to play next. She cannot learn a song by ear. She cannot just "sit down and play something". She cannot jam with anyone or improvise a musical phrase.

I never learned anything beyond the most basic music theory. I can (no, MUST) play by ear. I taught myself guitar, bass, drums and piano. I can sing a little. I can sit in and play with almost anyone, blues/jazz/rock/country/whatever, and not make an ass of myself. I have just recently started to write, and some people think the songs are pretty good.

So, to compare, I would say that I have "musical talent", and my wife does not.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of why I think there are risks in using a general term such as "musical talent". Because I hold the view that musical talent is a huge bundle of assorted aptitudes, some of which are more developed than others, I am confident that your wife has musical talent has well: the ability to render scribbles on a page into sensitive, skilfully played music that resonates with her audience.

Being able to play by ear is also a part of musical talent, but doesn't define it.
 
.........................................
 
Last edited:
How lucky does one have to be to be in the right place at the right time for all the characteristics of fate to come together in one moment. MTV guy goes to a Duran Duran concert likes what he sees (perhaps what he hears, I dunno as hair and clothing were the only things talked about) - next thing their videos are screened 84 times a day ...
Would the resulting Worldwide #1 after #1 success imply Duran Duran had greater talent than each and every other musician/band in the whole World?
 
Talent and success don't have a lot to do with each other. And- "success" is relative also. If he'd been born into a different family, Michael Jackson might be happily delivering pizzas today- but he'd be alive.-Richie
 
There was a big debate over the use of these words in NSW a few years back taht resolved a common understanding to be:
Gifted - inate ability beyond the norm that can be enhanced by training & hard work;
Talented - learnt ability that, with training and hard work is enhanced.
Now these definitions do not concurr with thesaurus & dictionary definitions - in fact talented is described as having a natural gift and gifted as having a natural talent.
Etymologically speaking it's even messier:
talent 1292, "inclination, disposition, will, desire," from O.Fr. Meaning "special natural ability, aptitude," developed c.1430, from the parable of the talents in Matt. xxv:14-30.
gift Sense of "natural talent" is c.1300.
From these we can extrapolate that an inclination that is developed to demonstrable expertise is a talent as established in writing in 1292 and the natural aptitude or superior ability is a gift as in writing around 1300.
Neither suggest creativity as a component.
Clear as mud isn't it? Hence the agreed definitions in the educational setting in NSW.
 
Last edited:
rayc said:
There was a big debate over the use of these words in NSW a few years back taht resolved a common understanding to be:
Gifted - inate ability beyond the norm that can be enhanced by training & hard work;
Talented - learnt ability that, with training and hard work is enhanced.
Now these definitions do not concurr with thesaurus & dictionary definitions - in fact talented is described as having a natural gift and gifted as having a natural talent.
Etymologically speaking it's even messier:
talent 1292, "inclination, disposition, will, desire," from O.Fr. Meaning "special natural ability, aptitude," developed c.1430, from the parable of the talents in Matt. xxv:14-30.
gift Sense of "natural talent" is c.1300.
From these we can extrapolate that an inclination that is developed to demonstrable expertise is a talent as established in writing in 1292 and the natural aptitude or superior ability is a gift as in writing around 1300.
Neither suggest creativity as a component.
Clear as mud isn't it? Hence the agreed definitions in the educational setting in NSW.
Click to expand...

I can see why those definitions have been adopted in NSW. As you note, it's 'clear as mud'.

Notwithstanding those defintions, I expect popular usage would tend to equate 'gifted' and 'talented'. However they do convey slightly different nuances. I would not be surprised to hear a sentence like: "Little Mary is gifted, and shows amazing talent on the violin." Here there is a sense of cause and effect: a 'gift' (from God or from one's genes), results in the emergence of a 'talent'; the ability to do something really well.

You note that 'neither suggest creativity as a component'. I've used Tiger Woods as an example before, so I may as well continue. Most people would agree he is a talented golfer (or maybe a gifted golfer). 'Creativity' is not a word you normally expect in golfing contexts, or with Tiger's talent, but I daresay that part of Tiger's success is due to his creativity: in his case an ability to assess a golfing situation and devise a novel way of dealing with it.

In any case, I think that 'creativity', like 'talent', is a danger word in that (as I noted earlier), it is not a single entity. There are many ways in which creativity can manifest itself (e.g. coming up with an idea, or extrapolating from an idea that someone else has come up with). Someone who can play by ear has a talent (amongst others) of creatively recognising patterns.

Well . . . we have Frankie to blame for this can of worms he's opened. I did a quick google on this and got:

"endowment: natural abilities or qualities "
"a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity "
"talented - endowed with talent or talents; "a gifted writer"

we may have to live with its own innate ambiguity!
 
Some of what we perceive as talent has much to do with simply how the brain is wired.

Recently there was a PBS program about these people who have what are considered to be, amazing ability to play piano. One guy is blind from birth and can play back anything he hears having only heard it once and in a multitude of styles.

Another guy never played piano in his life. In his 40s or 50s he got struck by lightning and took up the piano and now plays concerts.

Some people suffer from a condition called amusia, where music sounds like a cacophony of noise.

I think Forrest Gump might say – talent is as talent does.

But it’s all relative and subjective.
 
Interesting thread!!!!

I think there are so many components. Some people have a particular interest in something - which gives them the motivation to develop a higher level of knowledge. The dedication to apply that knowledge on a consistant basis over an extended period of time leads to a high level of skill - or some would call it "talent".

I do accept some people are more "gifted" then others - however, it could be debated that the "gift" is simply a higher level of awareness - which leads to the interest, motivation, etc. etc. - rather than an inate skill given to them at birth.

As someone else mentioned, an African runner may not have been gifted with more inate physical skills......but rather the fact that lack of other forms of transportation dictated at an early age that they develop running skills....in that case the environment demanded the interest, motivation, etc to develop the skill (or talent) to run.

Like many here - I am mostly a self taught musician, who can hold my own in most musical genre's. I have learned to play several instruments at a high enough level that I have long been a 1st call musician on the local circuit. I've forced myself to learn a fair amount of theory and tried to develop reading chops...but I have never been overly motivated to become formally edcuated (I mostly depend on my improvations skills and my ear - and candidly, I'm a little lazy when it comes to formal education). For many years, I was convinced that it is better to be self taught and to play with passion than to be formally trained and lack soul - however, as I've gained more "formal" knowledge my views have changed. Over the years I've worked with hundreds of very talented self taught musicians and many talented formally trained musicians.

While I too have met "talented" trained "musicians" who were lacking in any improvising skills - that did not mean they lacked talent....it simply meant they lacked motivation to develop those skills. On the other hand, some of the finest musicians I have worked with have developed both formal education and improvational skills. I tend to group musician's into two catagories 1) Musician's - those who have some skills/talent, but lack the ability to hang (ie: effectively interact on stage or in the studio - or 2) Player's = thoe who have skills but as importantly can hang (improvise, learn by ear, read some charts, etc. etc.)

I must say that in general, I find (having worked with hundreds of musicians and/or players )that the musicians who are the most vocal that formal education, theory, etc. is over rated, not needed, etc - tend to be musicians who simply lacked the motivation to develop those skills.
 
Creativity as I see it is the ability to dismantle information you take in, and then reassemble it in any number of random ways that the creator/you find appealing.

"Talent vs Theory" I feel is subjective. When I was in middle school back in about '92 or '93 I was 2nd chair trumpet out of a total of 7 others (maybe 5 I don't remember exactly). Only because I couldn't sight read all to well. My poor sight reading was the only reason I didn't make 1st chair. So, can one be done with out the other. Yes! But, there is a point at which you will need to have both. But, to have both is not a necessity to play. Depending upon the application. To be in a philharmonic you need to be able to sight read. To be able to jam with your friends you have to be able to play.

I just had a discussion with one of my best friends. He is a drummer, and said "I always wished I had the talent to play the guitar". I said he does. Personally I am of the belief that if you can play one instrument, then you can play any. Playing an instrument is nothing more than the ability to take what you hear/read, and then translate that in to physical movement, resulting in music. If someone can do it on one instrument, then there is no reason they can't do it on another. But, with all instrument's it takes PRACTICE to make you good.

Learning to play by ear is made possible by pattern recognition, and tonal recognition. To play by sight reading you just add in a visual cue as well. If you can play Simon (the electronic memory game), you can learn to play an instrument(so long as you have the will/drive to do so). While playing music is more complicated than Simon, the basic skills it requires are the same as playing an instrument.

There are plenty of other skills that come into play as well, but for the sake of being brief I decided to not go that far.

What is talent? According to Merriam-Webster:
tal·ent
Pronunciation:
\ˈta-lənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, plural of talentum unit of weight or money, from Greek talanton pan of a scale, weight; akin to Greek tlēnai to bear; in senses 2–5, from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30 — more at tolerate
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: any of several ancient units of weight 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 person4 a: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude b: general intelligence or mental power : ability
5: a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity

To me "Talent" is your natural ability to apply what you have learned about a specific field, to that field in a creative way.
 
I don't really believe in 'Talent'. I agree with Gecko, in that Talent is generally an innate ability, but there are endless people in the world with innate ability who waste it every day.

I look at effective talent as more of a function of persistence, creativity and drive where innate ability has little to do with the success of a person.

I have heard that it takes 10,000 hours to master something and someone like Tiger Woods, would have definitely put in his 10,000 hours way before anyone else... but so would a Mozart, or a Jimi Hendrix.

I know of many musicians who started out on their paths late in life, but crammed in their 10,000 hours and are absolute monsters.

Food for thought.
 
Jack_Jones said:
I don't really believe in 'Talent'. I agree with Gecko, in that Talent is generally an innate ability, but there are endless people in the world with innate ability who waste it every day.

I look at effective talent as more of a function of persistence, creativity and drive where innate ability has little to do with the success of a person.
Click to expand...

I like this idea of "effective talent". I am sure there are thousands of gifted potential musicians out there who never see the light of day.

These are people who've:
* never had the chance, because their entire life is spent securing their existence (e.g. a subsistence farmer in an impoverished area;
* had the opportunity, but have never realised that they could amount to something in music and ended up doing something else (e.g. teaching maths); and
* had the opportunity, but wasted it, because they didn't have the perseverence and dedication to make something of it.
 
I think there is merit in every point of view raised in this thread.

I love the horse and jockey analogy!

In terms of writing GREAT songs, words and music, and by GREAT songs I mean those that are accepted (almost) universally as CLASSICS. E.g. Bridge over trouble water (Paul Simon), Hey Jude (Paul McCartney), Like a rolling stone (Bob Dylan)...

What about this,

Horse - musical ability gained by any method, by ear, by studying music, by working at it for 10,000 hours, innate ability, etc. in any combination or mix you choose!

jockey - talent

Without 'talent' the horse will wander where he will and no doubt eat some good grass! :D

I have heard songs written by some fantastic musicians and whilst their songs are brilliantly played/peformed they remain (as songs) sadly mediocre or average, NOT classics. Some of them not even "good" songs. Some of them, in fact, "crap" songs albeit brilliantly executed!

*nods to subjectivity*

Frankie xxx :)
 
Last edited:
I became a bit distracted by the matching of improvisational skills within the debate. To my mind that's an entire skill/talent/gift set, (yes, now with steak knives), of its own.
I'm not a talented or skilled musician - by any definition. To play/record a solo for one of my songs I have to do hard graft and plan, develop, structure and then practice - no improvistation at all. Even then the solo is usually mundane - that's why I ask others to do them for me when possible.
I have a friend who's into jazz, he plays sax & did quite a few courses in jazz improvisation - he came away VERY disillusioned about the basics of the course - come up with/borrow a lick & learn it in every key & position then insert as necessary.
I'm astounded at the tendency for multiple talent/skill/gift clusters - you know the person who writes ace songs, sings them beautifully, plays a key instrument throughout & blasts away an amazing solo to boot! Someone like Elvis Costello for example. Yeah, we all have our heroes - he's mine! Then there are those who have that same skills set & are good looking too!
Is this a multiple modernist incarnation of Siddhartha or the high step before a major reincarnation/karma fall?
I LOVE great solos/improvisations/extrapolations/variations - but I don't rate them highly as individual things - as components of a song - WOW!
 
Someone like Elvis Costello for example. Yeah, we all have our heroes - he's mine!
Click to expand...
Total thread hijack here: Ray, I have briefly met Elvis Costello and his wife a couple of times. He is gracious, soft-spoken and a 'nice guy'. To stand backstage and hear him do "Alison" with just him and an acoustic guitar was a great moment in my life. Of course 15 minutes later I escorted Elton John out the back door to his limo, so the Elvis moment got trumped :)
 
rayc said:
I became a bit distracted by the matching of improvisational skills within the debate.
Click to expand...

I thnik the references to improvisational skills were used primarily to compare a formally trained musician who can read music (and likely understands some theory) and who may not be able to actually perform without a piece of music in front of them - vs. a self taught player who may not formally understand theory, etc - but who can play with other musicians - without the benefit of theory and reading chops (who can improvise)

My interpretation of the original post (although it refences talent vs. theory) was more about approaching music/writing from a raw "uneducated" approach (talent) vs. a more formally structured approach (theory).

I think, any musican needs some level of skill (talent) to hang, but having skill based on fundamental knowledge vs. raw "talent" can only make that musician that much more rounded - if musicans have a basic understanding of theory, they can at least communicate more effectively (as example - they understand what a I-IV-V progression means).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top