hard work vs talent ?

[ROGI]

first I'm sorry if there is similar topic.
So, anyway I've been reading this topic at another forum about talent and "genetic" aspect of playing and creativity. since it's very interesting subject I wonder what is your opinion on this subject.
I've myself stand for hard work and believe talent is nothing more than will to work. also, my belief is that talent is mystified and sometimes shown as physical or intellectual or creative advantage that some individuals have over others. talent being the gift at birth. i stand on the side that thinks talent is not something one is born with as superior skill but mainly as a greater interest / love for certain thing under the influence of environment (nurture). so to say, if Mozart were born in some jungle tribe, he would not become great composer of that tribe but would develop his interest according to the environment.
I've based this on my experience with teaching (bass instructions) and my progress in music, and also from the standpoint of thinking that there are no "musical" genes.

I've read this article that has fascinated me
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

I've seen much kids that had no connections to music (noone in family was playing anything or singing) make extreme progress, and all of them showed love and dedication to playing. As they developed it was truly amazing to hear their ideas and listen to their work. from this i also gained confidence in my believes that it's nurture, not nature. so to say, trough hard work and love for music they developed skills, creativity and music intelligence so to say. i believe that with the right teacher (i'm not pointing at myself but far away ) , dedication, love and hardwork are geniuses born, not trough "magic" (so to say) or chance of faith or genetics.


also there is great national geographic documentary "Einstein's Brain" that truly sheds different light on brain understanding. Brain is like a muscle. it can be trained and improved. intelligence, perception, creativity and other mental "aspects" can be improved trough training.

that's my 0.02$, hope we make this a productive topic. while it does seem that my standpoints are firm, I'm always open to new ideas and by all means want to hear all sides and opinions.

[Ed Fuqua]

It's not a matter of "genes" so much as a matter of skill sets. And given that most ANYTHING is a matter of brain chemistry, it's not hard to suppose that someone's brain chemistry will give them differing levels of hand/eye co ordination, twitch response etc etc. All of which means that YES, there are going to be certain skill sets that are necessary for the making of music that will require less or more effort for different individuals. When those skill sets are ones that generally take a lot of work for most people to develop, then someone who seems to gain these with little or no effort, THEN people talk about talent.

So don't think TALENT, think DISPOSITION. For some people it takes no thought, effort or training to sink a little white ball into a hole, for others no amount of effort gets them to a place that they can do so consistently.

But it doesn't matter how disposed you are to a certain activity, there are so MANY skill sets needed that, in order to consistently deliver at a high standard, ANYBODY needs to put in a lot of work.

So, genetic? No. But contingent, yes. Just like music, there is no ONE EASY ANSWER. Result is contingent on SO many factors - physical, psychological, emotional - that to "put all your eggs in one basket" i.e. nature or nurture, is as foolish as pursuing a musical career by only working on one aspect of playing.

[wazzel]

IMO it is some of both. If you have the talent and don't put in the work you will not go anywhere. Same if you do not have the basic skill sets for a particular profession but work really hard.

[pointbass]

I would agree that certain individuals are predisposed for selected skills/abilities/"talents" .... I'm positive we all know someone who simply can not sing in tune and would likely never sing in tune regardless of the level of training they might receive (and you can apply that to dance, art, literature, woodworking, whatever).

I come from a totally non-musical family yet for whatever reason I became relatively proficient. As of today, no one in my past and no one in my present family tree has any musical ability. Clearly I have some sort of natural "talent" that the rest of my family (past & present) do not. And as Ed stated above, hard work and effort are needed to increase your skill set beyond what ever natural predisposition you might have ...

[kesslari]

Having taught a bunch of people of wildly varying abilities...

I'd say, for any given talent or skill, picture a bell curve. (and no, I'm not referring to the controversial book - just to the statistical descriptor).
Most folks fall somewhere in the middle.

There are a few on the top end - I call those people "touched by God". They improve incredibly rapidly. Small efforts on their part yield huge results. Big efforts yield incredible results. Mozart exemplifies this kind of talent. But most of us know someone who has it - "natural ability" in spades.
When you combine this kind of natural talent with a good practice discipline, it's amazing.
I had a percussion student once, 12 years old when he came to me. I met him when he was hanging around outside a studio I was recording in, listening and trying to copy what he heard leaking through. He had phenomenal talent and (unusual in someone his age) an incredible practice discipline.
Within 6 months I passed him along to one of the best percussion teachers in the country. He had pretty much surpassed what I had to teach him.

Then there are a few on the bottom end. Virtually no talent. They have to work 10 times as hard to get better 1/4 as fast. It's brutal. I had a girlfriend who wanted to sing. She really had no natural aptitude. She took lessons and struggled. After a few years of really hard work she could sing passably well. But it took so much work, and after that few years she was at the point that many people would reach after a few months of just singing in the shower.

Most of us are in the middle. And from what I've seen, in the middle band, regardless of whether you're "high-middle" or "low-middle", it's the work that yields the results. More effort (well spent, of course) yields more results. Typically, if I practice more (and smarter) than you, I'll improve faster. If you work harder than me, you'll improve faster.

All told, this gives me a sense of hope...

[willgroove2]

I have seen people through the years who have amazing natural talent but lack the will to develop it,for them it is what it is and they are often not really interested in taking their talent to the next level. Then there are others who have a little natural talent but seek to take it to the highest level they can (I fall in this category). I have also seen people with superior talent who also have a superior work ethic and I have to admit to being a bit fascinated by these people as this is the rarest combo IMO.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Like FOGHORN said, it's a little of both. I think of it as "talent=aptitude". Any normal Joe can put in all the hard work in the world, but that won't make that person 6'8", 250 with a 44" vertical like Lebron James. Hard work is always needed in music, but not everyone has the hardware to be a freak like Chris Potter or Bird. One thing that is hard to argue, though - hard work fuels any engine, no matter how many cylinders it's clicking on.

[Rocker949]

Both are important, but without talent the hard work is just going to be wasted. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

[basste]

I think all of us got different kind of abilities we can develop, if we are aware about it. Something more that the average which can makes the difference about creativity, improvement speed, etc
For music, I think this ability has two main sides: ear ability and rhythm sense
If you have natural predisposition in both sides, you will have more facilities to improve your skill than the average.
My parents were not musicians. But I started, when I was very young; to reproduce what I ear on a keyboard, and it was natural for me. Then I came to music later, at 18 with guitar, and always played “by ear”. I think I wouldn’t play music if I didn’t have this natural ability.
And I think that if you completely lack one of these two sides, you will have a big amount of work to just play well.
I met a guy, during my army time, which played guitar since 7 years. He had a great skill in chords, arpeggios, melody, showed me my first jazz tune on guitar, with nice chords and arpeggios. A good ear ability too. But he had NO rhythm sense. And when I say NO, it’s NO. We tried hours and hours to play both, some simple tune, 4/4, simple chords, but we never played both good. He simply couldn’t play in rhythm. And I can say I’m patient and we tried during hours, we tried to work without guitar, just percussions...
So perhaps with rhythm lessons, he could have improved it. But I never saw before someone with such a non-ability in rhythm.
Same thing for ones who can’t sing in tune. Perhaps with a hard work, it can be better, but you will need years of work to achieve what someone with the ability can do in perhaps 2 or 3 months.
So it's always possible for anyone to make music, but i think we are not all equals when we start, and that work isn't sufficicent.

[Vetchking]

Vetchking Here:

I for one believe in there are naturally talented people. They just adapt and have a natural knack for music.

I also believe in trained skills..........

Having studied since I was 9, taught at 15, attended 2 Major Universities one being North Texas State, listened to 30,000 albums. Played in a gillion bands. Produced 18 albums.

I believe in trained skills.

Countless times people of all ages have came up to me and said your great, Your a natural.......blah blah blah.....

My son plays, etc........... Natural Hell, I've watched my hands practice for 6 , 8, 10 hours a day for years. 12 hrs when I got serious.

I also have a few friends that did the same thing.

Natural?????? or did we do our home work and learn how music goes.........

I'm gonna go with we worked our arsh off...........

Anyhow, Practice tip........... Once your warmed up. Practice what you can't play........ Then one day you can play it.

Later.............

[zero0bass]

I agree with Vetch. I've seen naturally gifted musicians at both the starting stages and when they're more experienced (I don't think I'm one of them, at least compared to other people I've seen) and they definitely have an advantage when starting out. However, these people also practice more than anyone else I know.

Dedication FAR surpasses natural aptitude in importance.

[bigblondeafro87]

Willpower is the main determining factor. The ability to focus completely on your sound at that moment in time, how to make the object that is your instrument make a beautiful sound, and how to make these sounds as part of a greater statement all takes a lot of will power.

[Phil Smith]

I believe it's about what you invest in it and if you talk to players that at the highest levels of the game you invariably find out that they started learning music at an early age. Those with a musical family that are actively engaged in the business of music have an addional edge of connections which are required for further success in the industry as are those that have access to capital.

The early start combined with dedication to practice is what makes them the "talented" people you see and hear. It's easy to confuse years of hard work with talent because you don't see the day to day drudgery, you see the result of that made to look easy.