Is this a term applied specifically to young promising players?
Do you always have to work hard to bring it out?
Can it be accrued, so that older players might have built it up and allowed it to mature through years of playing?
Is it just dedication or something natural and "God-given" or gene-given (or even epigenetic/perinatal) in today's parlance, or a mixture of both, to varying degrees?
Not sure that this won't come down to a nurture verus nature debate. With hard work and desire being on the nurture side, and all the controversy on the nature side.
That's a philosophy subject... I think that a talented player is someone that a majority of players, even very good players look at him and are really surprised and admirative. Does a telented player know he has talent ? Perhaps for him, only very talented players have talent. In a few words, is talent a relative word ?
Given the huge range of heritable characteristics it would be odd if some things we are born with (or not) don't confer some advantage. But then for some that might just be elements of a personality that can cope with slagging from other kids when you walk down the street carrying a fiddle or a set of pipes.
I just HAD to include this wonderful bit from Chris Smith's blog, aka coyotebanjo [from his section "100 Greats"] ...since we're talking about talent [he's a member here]
"... this led me to an awareness that talent is like a dry day in Ireland: it’s a wonderful surprise that makes life much more pleasant for anybody lucky enough to hit the jackpot that day, but it damned sure it isn’t something you can count on. Years after that, when I went off to a righteous conservatory and met a population of people with the sense of entitlement that always results from having things (even “talent”) handed to you, and started teaching and seeking to motivate others who didn’t have that natural luck, I formulated the aphorism (which I mostly only used when confronted by that sense of entitlement) “Talent ain’t sh*t; what matters is effort.” Because talent is based upon the luck of the genetic draw, you can’t count on it—and it can be damned difficult, for those to whom musical things have come easily, to develop the self-discipline and the just-plain mental guts that result from facing up to doing things that are hard. And boring. But you can count on effort, if you can learn to count on yourself."
No, I didn’t catch any breaks in the “talent” sweepstakes. But I’m happy to have traded very bit of any of that kind of luck for the astonishing good fortune I did receive—of hearing absolutely peerless music very early, very often, and (seemingly) always when I needed to. I have heard more absolutely transformative music, at more felicitous moments in time, than just about anybody I know. That’s actually, now that I think about it, why I’m a teacher of music: because I am so deeply conscious of the atypicality of my good fortune that I feel a cosmic obligation to try to spread that good fortune. I can’t make somebody talented—but I can damned sure give them the tools and the self-discipline they need to overcome any “defects” of “talent”, because if I could do it then anybody can do it.
I think of talent as natural aptitude. Something that makes it possible for a player to accomplish more than the average player would in the same amount of time. One example would be instinctive ability, such as the ability to match pitch or mimic rhythms or parrot back melodies accurately - to call this talent, I think you must be born with it. It takes a lot of work for most people to develop these skills, but some kids can just do it from the start.
Second is a kind of natural musicality that makes it possible for a player to infuse their music with sensitivity and expression far beyond mechanical achievement. I know plenty of people who can play music, but not many who can instantly evoke emotion with their playing. Maybe this kind of musicality can be developed over time, but some people have it from the start. I wonder if there are any teachers here who can comment on this.
I think a thirdaspect of talent manifests as confidence and/or persistence - the ability to perform comfortably for others, not being daunted by mistakes, the ability to focus deeply when practicing, not being beaten down by unsympathetic audiences, not being scared away by intimidating ITM curmudgeons (ahem). Or perhaps it's just that the first two aspects of talent would wither and die, likely unnoticed, if the person didn't also possess this third aspect.
‘…Dr Tim Spector […] believes that up to 80 per cent of "tune deafness" can be blamed on genes rather than environment. He said: "This is just one aspect of musical ability, but it is any important one. If you don't recognise pitch, you are not going to become a great musician…’
I seem to remember reading that if you gave kids pentatonic xylophones the random bashing sometimes turns into deliberate nice noises.
Its hard to believe a kid could not mimic a simple tune on a toy xylophone without being taught. Come to think of it, thats probably how I got a major scale imprinted in my head. Hey I did start young after all !
Or is that learning llig and you mean't they don't arrive ready to sing themselves Happy Birthday ?
More of the "everything is genetic" research making slightly spurious claims. Or stating the bleeding obvious. Duh, no one who is tone deaf is going to become Mozart. The hilarious part is that the idea that everything under the sun is "inherited" is hardly cutting edge. It was hugely fashionable during the 19th century and then sort of gave way to psychoanalytic theory and later behaviourism in the beginning and middle of the twentieth century. The article makes the "no duh" claim in a way that excises learning from the equation, asserting that you can't teach someone who has no innate musical ability music because tone deaf people cannot become Mozart. Think about the logic of that one.
The Duke Uni one is a bit better, far more nuanced. But then if Duke Uni sounded as ridiculous as the "Torygraph," the world would be in a sad state indeed.
Musical talent certainly exists, just ask anyone who tries to teach a class of children musical skills. Whether it is all nurture or nature is not relevant as to the existence of talent but it is an interesting question. Most likely it is a combination of both.
One aspect that has been brought up in this discussion is whether or not non-humans have musical talent because they can mimic music. The answer is probably yes, at least the kind of talent that is fairly universal amongst humans, the ability to appreciate music. Most of us have that capacity and a large percentage of us can recognize and pick out tunes. I think my dog does too because he likes my playing :grin:
The musical talent that Thistle Day refers to is the ability to play music.
If you go to any open session you will find a wide variety of skill levels. Some of this can be explained via training, but a lot of good by-ear musicians have no formal training. As the Duke paper states, those with the inborn talents needed to play music do better with training. You can also train someone with so-so musical talent to play well - there is a town in Kansas with 200 students in the high school that regularly has a marching band of over 100 players - but it takes dedication on everyone's part. Most of those who start out playing music as part of a school requirement don't follow up mostly because it is hard to do without good motivation. (As an aside, my Irish friends who don't play music often tell be about the bad experiences they had learning the whistle.)
I suspect that most people can learn to play an instrument, but only a few are talented enough to become musicians. There is a difference, one that relies on a lot of environmental factors in addition to what is probably a genetic load of musical talent. The same is true of almost any performance activity including sports, games, acting, woodworking, etc. There are complex mental sets that give an initial advantage to those lucky enough to have them. They are a starting point but nothing else.
Persons with incredible talents can either develop beyond that talent or stick with them. In the field of major sports it is almost impossible to be successful if you don't put in the hard work to develop what you have because everyone you compete against has about the same level of talent. While there are Tiger Woods exceptions, they are very rare.
The bottom line is that you cannot become an elite performer without talent but you can become one without having the highest levels of talent. Talent is the base upon which you start. Some are more fortunate than others but hard work, understanding, drive,and good coaching/teaching are still needed to reach perfection in your chosen area of performance. This is especially true in highly competitive fields such as classical music.
A talent scout is someone who goes looking for people who can sing, play instruments, tell jokes, etc etc. Therefor in my book a Talented person is someone who is good at more than one thing.
>The musical talent that Thistle Day refers to is the ability to play music.
No, I am referring to the ability to play music well.
And yes, I think there are genetic and epigenetic determinants.
But please carry on posturing and strutting your stuff, you lot....
after all, this website is free.
I don't think the sporting analogy works. There are no physical attributes needed to become a great musician beyond the average. With any sport, you need an extraordinary body.
For me the similarity with sport is the practice ethos. There are lots of jobs or 'pastimes' (lets not get into that) where the custom is to build up knowledge and physical skills by doing it. Spend your time hill walking or hiking through woods and you become more surefooted that someone who only walks on pavements. Turn it into a sport (fell running or orienteering maybe) and you do then practice over the terrain to move those coordination and other skills on faster. Music you do that too. It requires a discipline (so a desire as llig said above) an 'I am going to get better at this' attitude.
But if you have talent maybe it doesn't and its just like a walk in the park.
ilig you are limiting things to digits, extremities and such. Don't forget the brain.
The sporting analogy may be close. But so would be any analogy to becoming competent in professions, the arts etc. Many very good and very bad sorts.
But in any avocation, there are some that can make a 'step up' The synapses fire faster. The fingers are more agile. The brain is more attuned to the skills needed. The mind has a creative bent. There is a spark in the eye.
But without the dedication-attitude and discipline I suppose- physical attributes are meaningless. Disciplne makes mediocre talents excellent. Lack of it makes prodigies hopeless ne'er-do-wells drunks and depressives.
"Tiny Talent Time was a long-running and hugely successful television program on CHCH television, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. For almost four decades (1957 to 1992) the talent and variety program showcased the talents of local children in an entertaining family genre. The show was marked by a characteristically home-spun style and had great appeal to many different age groups. Indeed, many participants in the original show have enjoyed illustrious careers as performers around the world.
The original Tiny Talent Time was aired in a half-hour format and was hosted by notable Canadian performer Bill Lawrence. During the program, Mr. Lawrence engaged in casual, light-hearted banter with the performers before and after each act. The questions usually revolved around a child's school, home life, family and likes and dislikes. "
No fiddlers on it that I remember. Nor box or wooden flute players. Lots of violinists though. I guess they did have talent, albeit tiny, and although most were mediocre they worked hard and seemed dedicated.
have to disagree with you llig, with all respect, of course, but I've been in on the bandstand with some great singers, and that is all in how they are made by God.
A normal person could practice everyday until they were a million years old and never sound as good as one of those people
and there are players of every instrument that are on another level entirely from us humans
I think the sporting analogy is more than an anology.
I also think part of talent is the ability to apply oneself overwhelmingly focussedly to the required task, be it sport, music, acting, whatever.
I think some people have more "innate" musical sense -- better understanding of timing, pitch, etc. -- than others but it all boils down to how you use it and the work you put in. If my brother had put serious work into music, he'd be a much better musician than myself because he can do things like listen to a tune and be like, "It's in D." I can't do that. But he never put the work in (whereas I work at those damned pipes until my fingers nearly bleed) and is therefore under the delusion that I have more "musical talent" than he does. But no one can suddenly play an instrument. That is more than just hearing pitches and understanding rhythm -- it's teaching your body to do something that's pretty unnatural, no matter what you play. It's not exactly an "instinctive" behaviour.
Nate, Ok, I forgot about singing. Yeah, there has to be something good about the sound of your voice that is extraordinary. But playing an instrument, no. You only need regular hands, lips, whatever. It's all in haow you apply them
Fur fux ache shuttit you shower of total pricks. It's so easy to wind youse up., I don't even give a turkish delight - a greyfriers bobby - if you are good players or not - as if its important.
just - a shower of - complete -
sling the anchors
Just heard a radio story on the way home about how a youtube clip of a dancing parrot led scientists to discover that animals that have the ability to mimic sounds, like parrots and elephants, also have an ability to move to a rhythm, which is something previously thought to be only a human trait. So the ability to sing and dance may go hand in hand, and have a genetic marker that goes along with it.....
Daniel Levitin, a musician and cognitive psychologist at McGill University, has studied talent and reviewed the extant literature. His conclusion (also supported by Malcolm Gladwell's observations across a range of skill areas) is that "talent" is essentially a desire, or motivation, to practice. Those who find joy in music are happy pursuing it, spend more time at it, and consequently get really good at it. The "magic number," of sorts, is 10,000 hours -- the amount of time it takes to reach world-class expertise at just about anything. Levitin makes a pretty convincing case, based on a careful review of apocryphal anecdotes (e.g., some of the Mozart stories) and laboratory studies, involving both musicians and non-musicians. The magic number works out to about 20 hours of practice a week for 10 years.
Gladwell (in his book "Outliers") notes that the time the Beatles spent playing in strip joints in Germany adds up to just about 10,000 hours (8-hour-a-day shifts for about 5 years). The lads themselves commented that they were very raw in the beginning and that those gigs played a critical role in their musical development. Investigations from widely diverse fields suggests a similar value (10,000 hours) as a criterion for getting really good at a variety of abilities.
This argument definitely flies in the face of the subjective impressions many of us have and there are lots of anecdotal reports that would seem to contradict it. But Levitin (in his book, "This is Your Brain on Music") makes a convincing case and, as a researcher, I can say that the studies are reasonably well done. I don't think the issue has been definitively resolved yet (that's not how science works) but the preponderance of evidence seems to support the talent-as-motivation argument, at least for now.
I've always been told that talent could be equated with some innate ability or aptitude polished by hard work.
But then you have the gifted players, those who seem to take the music to that next level. They will always sound better than you simply because music (or art or sports or basket-weaving) is simply a part of who they are.
My wife is a primary teacher. Last year she had a pupil who was blind and autistic. She had been having "musical therapy". This consisted of her therapist using noises in a totally irational way. Noise as noise. He also taught her, for some reason, to throw chairs at people. In spite of this she has become a musical prodigy. If she hears something she can play it on her keyboards, complete with variations. Given that she can barely talk, is this talent or something different?
I'm surprised no one has brought up autism before. I remember hearing somewhere (I may be wrong) that the cases of so called prodigy in the autistic are no more common than in the general population. It's just that the autistic latch onto something they find (or someone finds) they can do and give it much more time. The way they concentrate and the way they are encouraged is different to the rest of us. (and being blind will also focus your attention on what you hear of course)
I think that a lot of people who obsess about things, train spotters, philatelists, learners of a thousand tunes from a tight and specific genre, show autistic tendencies.
Can't help but agree. One opinions my wife holds, as a result of professional training and many years experiance, is that we are all autistic to a greater or lesser degree.
Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's. Jeremy has given me a few tellings off for flagrantly using these terms, when it comes to musicisns. The fact is - no not the fact is, but my strongly held opinion is - either you have to be a bit "head in the clouds" in the first place to play this music, or playing makes you that way; the former, I suspect.
I'm pretty closesly connected to autism and I agree with all this, the lines between intelligent eccentricity and the higher functioning autism-related disorders are very narrow. Many wise educators and doctors are making that realization and children are beginning to have dual diagnoses.
You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't practice regularly and work at it, you won't succeed. You have to be persistent and dedicated to succeed as a musician. I have met some really talented musicians who gave up and quit because they felt that success didn't come as easily as they felt it should.
Talent
Talent
What does having talent mean?
Is this a term applied specifically to young promising players?
Do you always have to work hard to bring it out?
Can it be accrued, so that older players might have built it up and allowed it to mature through years of playing?
Is it just dedication or something natural and "God-given" or gene-given (or even epigenetic/perinatal) in today's parlance, or a mixture of both, to varying degrees?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Rudall the time
Re: Talent
Well.... it might mean the following:
any of various ancient units of weight, as a unit of Palestine and Syria equal to 3000 shekels, or a unit of Greece equal to 6000 drachmas.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Ron P
Re: Talent
I think the use of the term does stem from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents
in which is fairly easy not to get hung up on the god bit.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
an early angle on "use it or lose it" ?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
It means nothing more than aptitude. Which in turn is nothing more than desire, mixed with a certain amount of intelligence.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
I'm not sure what it is -- it's such an overused word as to be almost meaningless nowadays.
But you know when someone doesn't have it.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
Not sure that this won't come down to a nurture verus nature debate. With hard work and desire being on the nurture side, and all the controversy on the nature side.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
Maybe talent is aptitude. Is it learned or refined upon? God given? A bit of both? Who knows.
What do we mean, for instance, when we say "She's a really competent fiddle player" vs. "She's a really talented fiddle player" ?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
sorry, bit of a x post there.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
As an aside, I just got this notion of someone burying their 'pure drop' for safe keeping and then digging it up and finding it had gone stale.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
"She's a really competent fiddle player" means she'll never be much good, no matter how hard she tries.
"She's a really talented fiddle player" means it's astonishing how good she is concidering she never practices.
Both are daft
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
Ha. And if we say:
"She's a natural fiddle player." ?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
That's a philosophy subject... I think that a talented player is someone that a majority of players, even very good players look at him and are really surprised and admirative. Does a telented player know he has talent ? Perhaps for him, only very talented players have talent. In a few words, is talent a relative word ?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by RoLuPiN
Re: Talent
I believe it's something we could all develop better were we to get off our computers and play more. . . I'm including myself in this.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by lastnitesfun
Re: Talent
Given the huge range of heritable characteristics it would be odd if some things we are born with (or not) don't confer some advantage. But then for some that might just be elements of a personality that can cope with slagging from other kids when you walk down the street carrying a fiddle or a set of pipes.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
HA! So david, because my father was a musician, it enables me to be a musician and endure the same societal scorn? Hmm...
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Talent
I just HAD to include this wonderful bit from Chris Smith's blog, aka coyotebanjo [from his section "100 Greats"] ...since we're talking about talent [he's a member here]
"... this led me to an awareness that talent is like a dry day in Ireland: it’s a wonderful surprise that makes life much more pleasant for anybody lucky enough to hit the jackpot that day, but it damned sure it isn’t something you can count on. Years after that, when I went off to a righteous conservatory and met a population of people with the sense of entitlement that always results from having things (even “talent”) handed to you, and started teaching and seeking to motivate others who didn’t have that natural luck, I formulated the aphorism (which I mostly only used when confronted by that sense of entitlement) “Talent ain’t sh*t; what matters is effort.” Because talent is based upon the luck of the genetic draw, you can’t count on it—and it can be damned difficult, for those to whom musical things have come easily, to develop the self-discipline and the just-plain mental guts that result from facing up to doing things that are hard. And boring. But you can count on effort, if you can learn to count on yourself."
No, I didn’t catch any breaks in the “talent” sweepstakes. But I’m happy to have traded very bit of any of that kind of luck for the astonishing good fortune I did receive—of hearing absolutely peerless music very early, very often, and (seemingly) always when I needed to. I have heard more absolutely transformative music, at more felicitous moments in time, than just about anybody I know. That’s actually, now that I think about it, why I’m a teacher of music: because I am so deeply conscious of the atypicality of my good fortune that I feel a cosmic obligation to try to spread that good fortune. I can’t make somebody talented—but I can damned sure give them the tools and the self-discipline they need to overcome any “defects” of “talent”, because if I could do it then anybody can do it.
-chris smith/coyotebanjo
http://coyotebanjo.blogspot.com/search/label/%22100%20Greats%22
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
I think of talent as natural aptitude. Something that makes it possible for a player to accomplish more than the average player would in the same amount of time. One example would be instinctive ability, such as the ability to match pitch or mimic rhythms or parrot back melodies accurately - to call this talent, I think you must be born with it. It takes a lot of work for most people to develop these skills, but some kids can just do it from the start.
Second is a kind of natural musicality that makes it possible for a player to infuse their music with sensitivity and expression far beyond mechanical achievement. I know plenty of people who can play music, but not many who can instantly evoke emotion with their playing. Maybe this kind of musicality can be developed over time, but some people have it from the start. I wonder if there are any teachers here who can comment on this.
I think a thirdaspect of talent manifests as confidence and/or persistence - the ability to perform comfortably for others, not being daunted by mistakes, the ability to focus deeply when practicing, not being beaten down by unsympathetic audiences, not being scared away by intimidating ITM curmudgeons (ahem). Or perhaps it's just that the first two aspects of talent would wither and die, likely unnoticed, if the person didn't also possess this third aspect.
Just my thoughts.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by worthy
Re: Talent
No human has ever been born with an instinctive ability to play music. It is all learned
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
Mynah birds and parrots are excellent mimics. So are they talented?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
Musical Talent: Innate or Learned?
http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol3no1_article.html
Melody gene 'is the key to music ability'
‘…Dr Tim Spector […] believes that up to 80 per cent of "tune deafness" can be blamed on genes rather than environment. He said: "This is just one aspect of musical ability, but it is any important one. If you don't recognise pitch, you are not going to become a great musician…’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1325655/Melody-gene-is-the-key-to-music-ability.html
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Talent
A parrot recognizes pitch, but you wouldn't call him gifted musician; a talented mimic maybe.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
I seem to remember reading that if you gave kids pentatonic xylophones the random bashing sometimes turns into deliberate nice noises.
Its hard to believe a kid could not mimic a simple tune on a toy xylophone without being taught. Come to think of it, thats probably how I got a major scale imprinted in my head. Hey I did start young after all !
Or is that learning llig and you mean't they don't arrive ready to sing themselves Happy Birthday ?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
...and you give them pentatonic xylophones to make the random bashing less irritating.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
More of the "everything is genetic" research making slightly spurious claims. Or stating the bleeding obvious. Duh, no one who is tone deaf is going to become Mozart. The hilarious part is that the idea that everything under the sun is "inherited" is hardly cutting edge. It was hugely fashionable during the 19th century and then sort of gave way to psychoanalytic theory and later behaviourism in the beginning and middle of the twentieth century. The article makes the "no duh" claim in a way that excises learning from the equation, asserting that you can't teach someone who has no innate musical ability music because tone deaf people cannot become Mozart. Think about the logic of that one.
The Duke Uni one is a bit better, far more nuanced. But then if Duke Uni sounded as ridiculous as the "Torygraph," the world would be in a sad state indeed.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Talent
HA! Well, that's what you'd expect for academia vs. the mass media, eh?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Talent
Every time I see an article headlined: "Scientists prove X is genetic" I want to throw things at the computer/TV/newspaper stand.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Talent
Musical talent certainly exists, just ask anyone who tries to teach a class of children musical skills. Whether it is all nurture or nature is not relevant as to the existence of talent but it is an interesting question. Most likely it is a combination of both.
One aspect that has been brought up in this discussion is whether or not non-humans have musical talent because they can mimic music. The answer is probably yes, at least the kind of talent that is fairly universal amongst humans, the ability to appreciate music. Most of us have that capacity and a large percentage of us can recognize and pick out tunes. I think my dog does too because he likes my playing :grin:
The musical talent that Thistle Day refers to is the ability to play music.
If you go to any open session you will find a wide variety of skill levels. Some of this can be explained via training, but a lot of good by-ear musicians have no formal training. As the Duke paper states, those with the inborn talents needed to play music do better with training. You can also train someone with so-so musical talent to play well - there is a town in Kansas with 200 students in the high school that regularly has a marching band of over 100 players - but it takes dedication on everyone's part. Most of those who start out playing music as part of a school requirement don't follow up mostly because it is hard to do without good motivation. (As an aside, my Irish friends who don't play music often tell be about the bad experiences they had learning the whistle.)
I suspect that most people can learn to play an instrument, but only a few are talented enough to become musicians. There is a difference, one that relies on a lot of environmental factors in addition to what is probably a genetic load of musical talent. The same is true of almost any performance activity including sports, games, acting, woodworking, etc. There are complex mental sets that give an initial advantage to those lucky enough to have them. They are a starting point but nothing else.
Persons with incredible talents can either develop beyond that talent or stick with them. In the field of major sports it is almost impossible to be successful if you don't put in the hard work to develop what you have because everyone you compete against has about the same level of talent. While there are Tiger Woods exceptions, they are very rare.
The bottom line is that you cannot become an elite performer without talent but you can become one without having the highest levels of talent. Talent is the base upon which you start. Some are more fortunate than others but hard work, understanding, drive,and good coaching/teaching are still needed to reach perfection in your chosen area of performance. This is especially true in highly competitive fields such as classical music.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by mikeyes
Re: Talent
A talent scout is someone who goes looking for people who can sing, play instruments, tell jokes, etc etc. Therefor in my book a Talented person is someone who is good at more than one thing.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Free Reed
Re: Talent
>The musical talent that Thistle Day refers to is the ability to play music.
No, I am referring to the ability to play music well.
And yes, I think there are genetic and epigenetic determinants.
But please carry on posturing and strutting your stuff, you lot....
after all, this website is free.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Rudall the time
Re: Talent
I don't think the sporting analogy works. There are no physical attributes needed to become a great musician beyond the average. With any sport, you need an extraordinary body.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
But surely there are above-average physical attributes that can give a person a significant advantage.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Talent
Most people can become musicians just like most blokes could probably play sunday league football.
but some can't
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Mike Floorstand
Re: Talent
For me the similarity with sport is the practice ethos. There are lots of jobs or 'pastimes' (lets not get into that) where the custom is to build up knowledge and physical skills by doing it. Spend your time hill walking or hiking through woods and you become more surefooted that someone who only walks on pavements. Turn it into a sport (fell running or orienteering maybe) and you do then practice over the terrain to move those coordination and other skills on faster. Music you do that too. It requires a discipline (so a desire as llig said above) an 'I am going to get better at this' attitude.
But if you have talent maybe it doesn't and its just like a walk in the park.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
ilig you are limiting things to digits, extremities and such. Don't forget the brain.
The sporting analogy may be close. But so would be any analogy to becoming competent in professions, the arts etc. Many very good and very bad sorts.
But in any avocation, there are some that can make a 'step up' The synapses fire faster. The fingers are more agile. The brain is more attuned to the skills needed. The mind has a creative bent. There is a spark in the eye.
But without the dedication-attitude and discipline I suppose- physical attributes are meaningless. Disciplne makes mediocre talents excellent. Lack of it makes prodigies hopeless ne'er-do-wells drunks and depressives.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by zippydw
Re: Talent
"Tiny Talent Time was a long-running and hugely successful television program on CHCH television, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. For almost four decades (1957 to 1992) the talent and variety program showcased the talents of local children in an entertaining family genre. The show was marked by a characteristically home-spun style and had great appeal to many different age groups. Indeed, many participants in the original show have enjoyed illustrious careers as performers around the world.
The original Tiny Talent Time was aired in a half-hour format and was hosted by notable Canadian performer Bill Lawrence. During the program, Mr. Lawrence engaged in casual, light-hearted banter with the performers before and after each act. The questions usually revolved around a child's school, home life, family and likes and dislikes. "
No fiddlers on it that I remember. Nor box or wooden flute players. Lots of violinists though. I guess they did have talent, albeit tiny, and although most were mediocre they worked hard and seemed dedicated.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg96did00ng
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by skin&bow
Re: Talent
have to disagree with you llig, with all respect, of course, but I've been in on the bandstand with some great singers, and that is all in how they are made by God.
A normal person could practice everyday until they were a million years old and never sound as good as one of those people
and there are players of every instrument that are on another level entirely from us humans
some people just have "it" , whatever "it" is
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Nate Ryan
Re: Talent
I think the sporting analogy is more than an anology.
I also think part of talent is the ability to apply oneself overwhelmingly focussedly to the required task, be it sport, music, acting, whatever.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by Rudall the time
Re: Talent
I think some people have more "innate" musical sense -- better understanding of timing, pitch, etc. -- than others but it all boils down to how you use it and the work you put in. If my brother had put serious work into music, he'd be a much better musician than myself because he can do things like listen to a tune and be like, "It's in D." I can't do that. But he never put the work in (whereas I work at those damned pipes until my fingers nearly bleed) and is therefore under the delusion that I have more "musical talent" than he does. But no one can suddenly play an instrument. That is more than just hearing pitches and understanding rhythm -- it's teaching your body to do something that's pretty unnatural, no matter what you play. It's not exactly an "instinctive" behaviour.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Talent
Coincidentaly (?) todays news in the UK has this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8026439.stm
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by David50
Re: Talent
Check this one out..... is it talented?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by CW
Re: Talent
Yup. Especially the chain saws.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Talent
That's pretty cool. I want one at a session. Do you think it would be able to sing the tunes?
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Talent
"Hi guys... Didn't bring my instrument today... just my pet lyre bird."
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Talent
Nate, Ok, I forgot about singing. Yeah, there has to be something good about the sound of your voice that is extraordinary. But playing an instrument, no. You only need regular hands, lips, whatever. It's all in haow you apply them
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
There's always the talent of keeping one's own counsel.
# Posted on April 30th 2009 by drone
Re: Talent
Fur fux ache shuttit you shower of total pricks. It's so easy to wind youse up., I don't even give a turkish delight - a greyfriers bobby - if you are good players or not - as if its important.
just - a shower of - complete -
sling the anchors
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Rudall the time
Re: Talent
OH and If you inherit your talent from Scottish genes and you don't live in Scotland..You need to return them..
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by lamh trom
Re: Talent
I've never been good at anagrams:
thistle day
hasty title
sad little he
slays his date
I give up...
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by airport
Re: Talent
Just heard a radio story on the way home about how a youtube clip of a dancing parrot led scientists to discover that animals that have the ability to mimic sounds, like parrots and elephants, also have an ability to move to a rhythm, which is something previously thought to be only a human trait. So the ability to sing and dance may go hand in hand, and have a genetic marker that goes along with it.....
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Talent
Daniel Levitin, a musician and cognitive psychologist at McGill University, has studied talent and reviewed the extant literature. His conclusion (also supported by Malcolm Gladwell's observations across a range of skill areas) is that "talent" is essentially a desire, or motivation, to practice. Those who find joy in music are happy pursuing it, spend more time at it, and consequently get really good at it. The "magic number," of sorts, is 10,000 hours -- the amount of time it takes to reach world-class expertise at just about anything. Levitin makes a pretty convincing case, based on a careful review of apocryphal anecdotes (e.g., some of the Mozart stories) and laboratory studies, involving both musicians and non-musicians. The magic number works out to about 20 hours of practice a week for 10 years.
Gladwell (in his book "Outliers") notes that the time the Beatles spent playing in strip joints in Germany adds up to just about 10,000 hours (8-hour-a-day shifts for about 5 years). The lads themselves commented that they were very raw in the beginning and that those gigs played a critical role in their musical development. Investigations from widely diverse fields suggests a similar value (10,000 hours) as a criterion for getting really good at a variety of abilities.
This argument definitely flies in the face of the subjective impressions many of us have and there are lots of anecdotal reports that would seem to contradict it. But Levitin (in his book, "This is Your Brain on Music") makes a convincing case and, as a researcher, I can say that the studies are reasonably well done. I don't think the issue has been definitively resolved yet (that's not how science works) but the preponderance of evidence seems to support the talent-as-motivation argument, at least for now.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by devellis
Re: Talent
Sly tit head.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Talent
I've always been told that talent could be equated with some innate ability or aptitude polished by hard work.
But then you have the gifted players, those who seem to take the music to that next level. They will always sound better than you simply because music (or art or sports or basket-weaving) is simply a part of who they are.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by meredithrachael
Re: Talent
nice one Bob!
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by airport
Re: Talent
This bird has real talent...you've got to see this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7IZmRnAo6s
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by leoj
Re: Talent
Talent is just an anagram for "Latent"
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: Talent
The anagram for "Bodhran player" = Bad horn player
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: Talent
Nice one devillis
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by piobagusfidil
Re: Talent
>Talent is just an anagram for "Latent"
And "Evian" is "naive" spelled backwards.
Remember that the next time you think about paying £1.50 for something that comes out of the tap.
- chris
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by ramblingpitchfork
Re: Talent
Talent? no idea. All I know is that Britain's got it... apparently
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Cath
Re: Talent
My wife is a primary teacher. Last year she had a pupil who was blind and autistic. She had been having "musical therapy". This consisted of her therapist using noises in a totally irational way. Noise as noise. He also taught her, for some reason, to throw chairs at people. In spite of this she has become a musical prodigy. If she hears something she can play it on her keyboards, complete with variations. Given that she can barely talk, is this talent or something different?
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Talent
I'm surprised no one has brought up autism before. I remember hearing somewhere (I may be wrong) that the cases of so called prodigy in the autistic are no more common than in the general population. It's just that the autistic latch onto something they find (or someone finds) they can do and give it much more time. The way they concentrate and the way they are encouraged is different to the rest of us. (and being blind will also focus your attention on what you hear of course)
I think that a lot of people who obsess about things, train spotters, philatelists, learners of a thousand tunes from a tight and specific genre, show autistic tendencies.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Talent
Can't help but agree. One opinions my wife holds, as a result of professional training and many years experiance, is that we are all autistic to a greater or lesser degree.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Talent
One opinion
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Talent
Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's. Jeremy has given me a few tellings off for flagrantly using these terms, when it comes to musicisns. The fact is - no not the fact is, but my strongly held opinion is - either you have to be a bit "head in the clouds" in the first place to play this music, or playing makes you that way; the former, I suspect.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Rudall the time
Re: Talent
Or maybe "head in the clouds" is just the anagram of
"A Chided Note Lush"?
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: Talent
Prob'ly right, Thistle.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Talent
I'm pretty closesly connected to autism and I agree with all this, the lines between intelligent eccentricity and the higher functioning autism-related disorders are very narrow. Many wise educators and doctors are making that realization and children are beginning to have dual diagnoses.
# Posted on May 1st 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Talent
You can have all the talent in the world but if you don't practice regularly and work at it, you won't succeed. You have to be persistent and dedicated to succeed as a musician. I have met some really talented musicians who gave up and quit because they felt that success didn't come as easily as they felt it should.
# Posted on May 2nd 2009 by fauxcelt