who’s taste defines talent?
some might describe modern art as talentless, and renaissance art as demonstration of talent…
of course, ask someone more ‘knowledgable’ and they might totally disgree
besides… I suspect your taste is hugely defined by your experiences…
Nah, talent is real - how important it is though is debatable, how much it means to the end result certainly is too. What makes talent is also somewhat ambiguous - it certainly is not just (or even necessarily at all) technical ability.
definitely, I think the ability to choose what to keep/what to throw (aka taste?) is very much part of what many would call musical talent.
I agree technical proficiency is different, how important it is rather depends on what your doing…
on the nature side , we also have things like perfect pitch and synaesthesia…
As i´m getting older I also came to the conclusion that it´s a matter of character/persona that matters.
creating circumstances that let you get out your full potentials
often do not have to do anything with music at all
Indeed and also being “in the zone” where stuff happens without much/any conscious thought, flow states etc.
Imo “Talent” is just your ability to quickly get to grips with some basics. EG learning a song on guitar in a day or 2 having never played before.
Talent is like a good cover letter - it can get your foot in the door, but after that it’s almost entirely just putting in the work.
In certain cases “talent” would hinder you. If you can learn a song in a day but struggle with basic chords then you might just get frustrated and give up. An untalented person might not even think about trying to learn a song for 6 months and instead focus on the basics. The untalented person then may end up better than the talented person purely through dedication to getting better.
What is talent?
From my perspective it’s just an enjoyment of doing something you’re initially not good at
Naturally most will choose the path of least resistance, so if a particular hurdle comes up, then often a diversion or change of strategy/technique or whatever can shape the outcome - I wonder how many classic songs relied on this and how many did not and overcame the initial hurdle.
You’ll get far with no talent, if all your other bases are covered. Which mostly is up to you.
But talent makes all those bases amount to something no one could ever reach.
Not necessarily an attractive prospect, tho. Talent and misery are often attracted to each other.
As far as playing an instrument I have no talent or natural ability, it can be a cause of frustration or a strength depending on what I’m doing.
What is talent?
I think its something we can only really see in others,
it’s something we admire/aspire to…
we can see it in areas we are not interested in it,
but I think then we more ‘respect’ it , as hard work, than see any mystic in it.
but something that we love and enjoy, when we see it in others, it takes on a more mystical, more appreciative role.
this is why we can have such different ideas about who is talented and why.
I think a big part of talent is something i realised later in life. The people I grew up with, who just seemed those steps ahead of the rest of us, some of them definitely practiced a lot more. But I think the main differential is if you practice well, and with intent.
Some people have music teachers from a young age who teach them, but I think the most talented people I knew, were those who inately knew how to break down a technical problem, figure out what they were doing wrong and focus on fixing those issues. I used to be relatively good at playing guitar, but it was only through some sort of brute force method, and very flawed. Understanding HOW to practice, at a young age, is a big part of talent imo.
maybe in the Guardian 
I mean, by my perception and understanding of the musical landscape - the nutritional value of tasteful low rent expression is better than the supposed marvel of prodigious technical talent with no authentic voice or artistic merit
I’m not against instrument talent, far from it, but talent/chops without direction (by my definition) is meaningless compared to direction with scarce talent - both together expands horizons - sorry, I wasn’t replying to your comment, was just stupidly pulling your leg about twice dropping the r from nurture - shoulda posted the follow up thing in its own post or applied some better taste in drawing that out … nature/nuture has some pleasing balance to it though 
taste is probably a lazy loose term - but the point was distinguishing artistic talent from chops which would be an easy thing to confuse by many metrics
Technical ability and dextrous skills are a starting advantage. But are they talent? Can an 80 year old man have more talent than a young kid. Or just skills they’ve acquired that look like talent? Are footballers talented or did they just skip school lessons to practice football every day and in the evening? I havent a clue what talent is.
Sometimes “gifted” is used as a synonym for talented. You have to be gifted with a certain set of vocal chords if you want to be a baritone opera singer.
OTOH, practically anyone can learn to program a sequencer. The question is what you choose to program with your sequencers and whether others find it tasteful.
But this is performance v composition. Tchaikovsky was reportedly not an exceptional musician, yet a highly original composer.
Its quite funny, people like Jordan Rudess, Rick Wakeman etc are undoubtedly talented but honestly bore the actual will to live out of me.
But then again I think the same about Richard Devine, who again is very talented but from a technical rather than technique stand point, though I find most of his stuff uninteresting and trying too hard.
Maybe that is the thing, trying too hard seems desperate and corny, too micro managed and no room for etherealism.
On this our tastes converge. We must be talented 
For me music is all about feeling and the hope that the feeling can be translated across to the other. I think a ‘talented’ musician is someone who is able to express and get their feeling across better than the other… I don’t think theres any talent in being able to feel. So I don’t think musical talent is important.
To me what is important is having a vision, working hard but not too hard you start not enjoying it. Do what you can to learn what you want and always have fun. Also knowing when is a good time for you to step away and just ignore that things are not happening.
I’ve experienced both worlds: being talented and not being talented, and I can tell you there is a huge difference.
I’m a natural computer programmer, and I find maths easy to understand. I learnt to program as a kid by myself, and I studied a maths degree. Yes, I worked hard, but I progressed fast.
In music, I have 0 talent: no rhythm, no good ear. I’ve practiced my piano skills for a lot of hours these last years, and I have improved a lot, but at what cost… And there are people there that play much better than I while spending far less time practicing. Also, if what you are practicing is difficult for you, it’s more likely that you get bored and quit.
I’m trying to track down this video of Robert Fripp where he claims that he has absolutely no innate musical gift and it’s only through diligent practice that he was able to overcome the curse of not being naturally talented.
Personally I would say talent comes second to drive, it’s not whether you’re playing to right notes but how you’re playing them.