From my observation while working in creative fields for 20 years; few thoughts to consider:
Make sure you can observe all your desires regarding music making (“want to be famous”, “what others will say”, “I want to be perfect”…) … and laugh at them - they can be your biggest obstacles.
Personally never got what the word “talent” is about;
As I see it it is all about motivation, if it is strong enough you will make it work no matter what the obstacles are and how long it will take. Deciding what is important to you will steer the vessel. Is that called vision?
I see the word “taste” as something that comes automatically after lots of experience, lots of failing and winning, practice and theory…and it is subjective to a specific scene or culture
Regarding practice, sure, you have to practice, but wisely;
As one philosopher said: It is like a man who plays the piano, if he practises all day long he might practise the wrong notes.
So I think definitions are not important at all- so if you want to know how to be better in music (if that was a main question), go off this topic, close the browser, turn on speakers and warm up your machines:)
What you prescribe to as having a little easier learning is what I would suggest is talent… I think the essence of talent is the ability to understand certain elements (of whatever) easier.
Creativity is the ability of abstracting thoughts and ideas into something more mailable imo. I don’t think that is a talent on its own… creativity is not just connected to music therefor creativity and music is not one. Creating unique musical experiences is a creative process but it is not the same as being musical… imo
I also believe talent does not exist . It’s about practice … the more the better . Take Michael Jackson for example , everybody called him talented and gifted etc… for real… the guy was drilled by his father since the age of 4 into singing , dancing…repeat repeat repeat… and if he dared making a mistake he got a serious beating or was humiliated… talent ?? Don’t think so… a spartan work ethic ? Yes !!
yeah but my point is… that ‘easier’ learning is due to environmental factors - not ‘born’ talent
if you get a great teacher when your are 6 years old… pehaps they inspire you, or if you have a piano at home as your parents play (or even didnt)
but this is why nature vs nuture can never be answered, and partly its irrelevant.
in practice our paths diverge the moment we are born, even siblings are affected by the fact they have siblings.
(obviously in some areas e.g. sport, physical factors can come into play)
its not that I dont believe in talent, I do - rather is not mystical… its earned.
(and yes, environmental factors, will shape what you do… no surprise there)
I don’t think that “talent” doesn’t exist at all. I do think it’s kind of an outdated term. There’s definitely some forms of reasoning and listening skills that are required for making music, that aren’t used in other art forms. Some people have more capabilities in those areas than others.
But I think that “talent” as most people understand it, really refers to the mechcanical ability to play music AT ALL. Sort of the basic skill. Taste, technique, creativity etc are all finer points beyond that.
I get where you’re coming from. That’s why I think definition helps frame the debate. From my perspective, creativity is a fundamental part of musical ‘talent’. As opposed to (say) a concert violinist, who’s spend a lifetime practicing other people’s music. I would describe them as highly skilled. Compare that to (say) John Lennon writing three chord songs loved by millions as a teenager.
That, I’d describe as a powerful innate creativity, in combination with dedication. Forgotten where I’m going with this and my pancakes are getting cold. Interesting topic!
Natural advantage/ability is a thing too, our evolution depends on it, for example if you have short broad fingers you probably are not going to be as good at fine motor control as someone with long nimble fingers, but you can probably lift heavier weights etc.
From an evolutionary perspective both are useful.
The person with the short broad fingers could learn to play for example violin, but from the outset is at a disadvantage to the nimble handed person, so probably will never be as good, no amount of practice will change this.
Yes, a pretty drastic over simplification, and there will doubtless be exceptions, but I think the point stands.
perhaps an interesting ‘off-shoot’ of this how to ‘practice’ successfully…
there seems to be still a certain amount of rote learning needed, but alot of focus these days on what is ‘meaningful learning’ , or associative learning.
are there really any shortcuts to the mythical 10,000 hours?
I also wonder if recorded media is distorting our view of talent.
we often see the ‘end result’ but its being filmed and edited as if its happening ‘real time’,
so the effort/the practice is all ‘cut out’, so we are left with ‘talent’
(I guess on the flip side, concert pianist practices a piece before they go on stage,
but we do see that as a performance…)
It is an interesting subject, and a complicated one, I think a combination of factors determine the outcomes.
I know of people who have been doing stuff for years, and they still are not very good, I also know of young people who have not been doing stuff for very long yet are fantastic at it.
Ultimately it does not really matter if you enjoy doing it.
Absolutely , Django Reinhardt, had an accident which wounded/paralized half his hand which forced him to practice much more and play differently…but also gave him his unique guitare playing style … so i gues it can go both ways too .
Mastery of a skill or craft comes through a combination of learning the fundamental rules and techniques, practicing and experimenting. I think where talent comes into play is that it affects how quickly an individual can pick something up, and also perhaps how high their ceiling is.
talent is important for inventing/imagining things.
but when it comes to implementing these things, talent does not give any real shortcuts. moreover, it can increase required amount of work, if one’s great idea is too deep / complex / unusual.
taste trumps talent - but taste takes a broad understanding or disregard for the past
there is nothing more tedious than musical shredding with nothing at all to say - there can be more power in restraint if done well - take Brian Eno - a self described non-musician - take Jordan Rudess or Rick Wakeman - there’s no doubt who’s the most talented music maker, but the other two have arbitrary/craft chops, so what !
When chops and taste and authenticity combine there is more potential for varied expression and I have no issues listening to a punky reductionist guitar player after enjoying the tasteful chops of John Mclaughlin / Mahavishnu Orchestra
Instrument talent and musical talent are not tied nor exclusive, but musical talent wins every day, especially with authenticity
a tiny bit nature and a load of nurture is all you need no harm in knowledge, chops and understanding if you’re not bound by it or confused that art is a pissing contest
To echo other posts in the thread, I think that talent is more or less a nonexistent thing. I think the more important measurement is passion. If you’re passionate, truly passionate about something, and love it just for the sake of itself, without any other external motivator (fame, acclaim, etc), you’ll typically I think pour your heart into it and be “successful”/“proficient” at it by some measurement.
I could be wrong by this is what I’ve found in my life and in the people that I admire. You can brute force this as well, if you’re passionate enough about the “external motivator”, but (again in my own anecdotal experience), this is much harder and usually more taxing.
