Came across this graphic on Facebook - suits my thinking very well...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
"Talent"
- Thread starter hrodbert696
- Start date
While I agree with everything under the header, it does seem to me like the statement "talent is grown" reflects a misunderstanding of the definition of talent.
Some do have a natural inclination, or aptitude regardless of training for certain skills. They may choose to build off of that or not. Regardless, it's there.
For others, improvement may come a little less naturally, but similar results can still be achieved through hard work and persistence - it will just require a bit more effort.
I'm definitely not saying that talent is an indicator of end-result however.
Last edited:
"Talent" is just a sum circumstances, e.g. being raised in a family of musicians or being surrounded by music from an early age. But that only matters when you're beginning to learn. The essence is in working your ass off and perhaps some luck.
Edit: @Kro quoted me while I was editing the post to better explain my statement. I don't believe there's a significant biological influence when it comes to talent.
Edit: @Kro quoted me while I was editing the post to better explain my statement. I don't believe there's a significant biological influence when it comes to talent.
Last edited:
There's nature, and there's nurture. Of which there is a long-standing debate - see the documentary "Trading Places".
You just named two examples of nurture though (an adopted child could still be raised by musicians). In my opinion talent is more innate, and IME definitely is a factor when it comes to any skill.
It's just a predisposition though, nothing more IMO.
All my talent comes from my shiney pedals.
I actually do, though I think it's most noticeable when comparing those with little or no training (I'm thinking of working with kids with no musical background - some definitely have a better "ear" than others). I think it's safe to say that as more training is involved that predisposition may become less important, though I still personally believe that it will help make things just that much easier for those with it at each step of the way.
Edit: just as a clarification, I'm not necessarily talking about a musical lineage or pedigree. Sure, inherited genes could be part of it, but different things are expressed in different ways. I like to just think of it as us all being wired just a bit differently.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Everybody has innate strengths and weaknesses.
I've worked with people and tried to teach students who were just hopeless. Couldn't hear the difference between two notes no matter how hard they worked at it, couldn't clap in time, etc. They're few and far between, but they're out there. Every one of those people was really good at something non-music related, I'm sure.
You can cultivate and expand on innate ability, but you can't fix a total lack of it. Before I ever touched an instrument I could match pitches with my voice. I would literally sing the note kitchen appliances made before I could talk. Nobody taught me how, I didn't work at it, I just did it.
On the other hand, I have zero sense of direction. If I can't visualize a map in my head of where I'm trying to go I can't get there without help. I've gotten lost when trying to get to a building I've been to 100 times before. I used to get lost in the locker room of a public pool I went to every weekend. It had two exits, one on each side. I could never figure out which one went where.
As for OP's graphic, nothing on the left side is about "talent", it's all about being lazy and egotistical and making excuses.
Ha, earlier this morning, thanks to this thread, I was assessing some of my own talents and… whatever the opposite of talents are. I find it amusing that the big one that I thought of for myself was likewise navigation. Not necessarily sense of direction, which is my saving grace, but man my brain just does not care to prioritize directions or path-finding in any way, shape, or form – no matter how critical it is in any given situation. I've always been that way (even before merciful smartphone GPS crutches); brain don’t care.
I believe - and have the experience/empirical evidence to prove it - that the right side of that graphic is right - up to a point. Yes, of course it's possible to develop what talent you have. For lots of things, though, there is simply a point that practice, training and experience just can't take you past; that's as good as you're going to get. And, reaching that point might - or might not - make you happy and successful. In my case, reaching that point is the reason I don't drive race cars, or race motorcycles anymore. My muscles, reflexes, and eyesight were good enough - with practice and experience - to get me to the point of being somewhere in the front half of the front pack, behind the leaders. And, that was it. "Advanced mediocre" was the best I could do, and the best I was ever going to do. And, on a race track? That's a very dangerous place to be. That's where most of the crashes occur; a cluster of "advanced mediocre" guys driving/riding over their head, and taking other people down with them when they inevitably blow it. Since I wasn't going to get any better, I figured I was better off not being there; which is probably why I'm still alive... As for the left side of the graphic? No matter how much latent talent you have, a quitter is just that - a quitter...
Interesting thread! Warren Buffet has an interesting take on talent. He likes baseball and uses it to explain alot about business. It's been a while since I read his book but it goes something like this. It takes abour 900 top ball players to keep the national league going. Statistics/studies have shown that out of the 7 billion people on earth only about a thousand have the ability to play well enough to to be competitive in the Majors. Even less can be competitive in Golf Master Tournaments. You can make the same comparisons to NSCAR drivers, Boxers (at least the way boxing used to be), etc. There are doctors, lawyers, business leaders, politicians, people in every profession who have made it becasue of education, determination, practice, favors, pay offs and more. None of that works for the sports figures at the top, at least not so much. Warren looks to invest in companies that have the innate and natural talents to make money. It must be clear and very visual, transparent is the word he used with another baseball medifore. We can all see who the top base ball teams are thru scores and stats, the same for indivudual players. It's there for all to see, no hiding. To him top perfroming companies are like that, at least in his mind.
There's more like about how baseball has become boring because it's an almost perfect game with the 900 most perfect players in the world. The only time anyone can score is when the other side makes a mistake. It's the same for most sports. Good teams, good drivers, good XXX, know how to force other to make mistakes. Top buisinesses (read money makers) are the same.
Warren has a way of explaining how the game of baseball has gone from a hitters game to a pitchers game and how that relates to business.
So how does this relate to the thread? Well Sir Paul use to have baseball games with his touring teams!
There's more like about how baseball has become boring because it's an almost perfect game with the 900 most perfect players in the world. The only time anyone can score is when the other side makes a mistake. It's the same for most sports. Good teams, good drivers, good XXX, know how to force other to make mistakes. Top buisinesses (read money makers) are the same.
Warren has a way of explaining how the game of baseball has gone from a hitters game to a pitchers game and how that relates to business.
So how does this relate to the thread? Well Sir Paul use to have baseball games with his touring teams!
Interesting. Probably not the full picture when it comes to the business of music.
“Talent” you can’t change:
1. Vocal range - as a male vocalist wannabe, I wish I was a high tenor. I’m not, and never will be. If I was, I’d probably be much more desirable vocally, as the current market leads me to believe. This is genetic “talent”
2. Perfect Pitch - some people are just born with this ability. I’ve heard it’s a blessing and a curse. But I imagine this would be an asset as a composer, arranger, and producer. Genetic “talent”
3. Hearing Range - it’s my understanding some people hear more frequencies than others. But I’d need to look into this subject more thoroughly.
4. Physical body structure - longer fingers could be an asset
“Talent” you can change:
1. Vocal ability within your range, and even extending your range slightly.
2. Relative Pitch
3. Music theory understanding
4. Instrument technique
5. Music history understanding
But I think I get the OP. The left side is negative. The right side is positive. And it all relates to how we think about art and music.
“Talent” you can’t change:
1. Vocal range - as a male vocalist wannabe, I wish I was a high tenor. I’m not, and never will be. If I was, I’d probably be much more desirable vocally, as the current market leads me to believe. This is genetic “talent”
2. Perfect Pitch - some people are just born with this ability. I’ve heard it’s a blessing and a curse. But I imagine this would be an asset as a composer, arranger, and producer. Genetic “talent”
3. Hearing Range - it’s my understanding some people hear more frequencies than others. But I’d need to look into this subject more thoroughly.
4. Physical body structure - longer fingers could be an asset
“Talent” you can change:
1. Vocal ability within your range, and even extending your range slightly.
2. Relative Pitch
3. Music theory understanding
4. Instrument technique
5. Music history understanding
But I think I get the OP. The left side is negative. The right side is positive. And it all relates to how we think about art and music.
- Oct 18, 2012
- 6,683
- 5,538
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Fender, Spector, Ampeg, Curt Mangan, Nordstrand Pickups, Korg , Conquest Sound
If talent is just a matter of being "Grown", (I.E. practicing), everyone could develop the same ability to play an instrument, play a sport, etc. I know people that have been playing guitar for 40 years, have taken lessons and have never been god enough to play in a band. I know other people (including myself) who have never had a lesson, are self taught and have toured and done music for television and movies. The fact is that some people have a natural ability for certain skills. If it was just a matter of practice, everyone could play guitar like Jimi Hendrix, bass like John Entwistle, basketball like Michael Jordan, play hockey like Wayne Gretzky and so on.
I didn't design the graphic, though I like it, but if I had, I would have dropped the word "talent" altogether and used "ability."
To some extent, of course, there are certain advantages that a person might have genetically that gives them a bit of an advantage in certain fields. It helps basketball players to be tall, and some people seem to have a bone structure that gives their voice a quality the rest of us can't attain. I didn't post to deny that.
Nevertheless, I think our culture has a mystique of "talent" that really pushes the left-hand side of the chart, especially to young people. If someone gives an impressive performance, we're much quicker to say, "You're so talented," rather than, "All that hard work really paid off!" Media encourages kids to "discover their talent" rather than cultivate a skill. If they step up to a microphone for the first time and Aretha Franklin doesn't come out, they think "I'm not talented," rather than "I need to work on improving." That's the thing that bothers me.
To some extent, of course, there are certain advantages that a person might have genetically that gives them a bit of an advantage in certain fields. It helps basketball players to be tall, and some people seem to have a bone structure that gives their voice a quality the rest of us can't attain. I didn't post to deny that.
Nevertheless, I think our culture has a mystique of "talent" that really pushes the left-hand side of the chart, especially to young people. If someone gives an impressive performance, we're much quicker to say, "You're so talented," rather than, "All that hard work really paid off!" Media encourages kids to "discover their talent" rather than cultivate a skill. If they step up to a microphone for the first time and Aretha Franklin doesn't come out, they think "I'm not talented," rather than "I need to work on improving." That's the thing that bothers me.
I agree with this 100%. In my day job, I work in a profession that mixes businesspeople with so called "creatives". I hear the "you're so talented, I could never do that" comment on average probably once a week. Seriously.
It's infuriating.
This one (barring something abnormal leading to deafness) is pretty much all about age and accumulated damage. Children can hear a very wide range (I used to hear the bats on summer evenings.) Exposure to loud noise (or loud music) causes temporary and permanent damage - the permanent damage accumulates, and losses are mostly from the high frequency end of the range.
I had a buddy that was a realllllly good guitarist and a virtuoso on piano. Top notch and could play anything by anyone....except a blues song. He struggled with the phrasing and could never get, in his words, “that emotion” right when it came to soloing.
With talent I think you have to be realistic and appreciate where you are, where you can be and where you will never be.
With talent I think you have to be realistic and appreciate where you are, where you can be and where you will never be.
The chart bears a striking resemblance to the "fixed mindset / growth mindset" dichotomy that's drilled into every elementary school student. Every child has been told that the right-hand column is better. It's part of the conventional wisdom that children should be praised for their work and not their intelligence, based on some "study" somewhere that was probably bunk but entered the general consciousness anyway.
There is a third axis, however, which is opportunity. Some people simply have more opportunities than others.
There is a third axis, however, which is opportunity. Some people simply have more opportunities than others.
The chart doesn't fix this because it uses the same word, talent, to describe the payoff of hard work. Talent, or natural ability, is "set". It doesn't grow but can be cultivated. Skill and performance improve "over time with exposure and effort". One can be talented, skilled or both. Maximum possible skill level will be limited by talent.
