Talent vs. Ability

[ombudsman]

On the second point, pertaining to what f-path mentioned previously - several years ago I made mention of a particular researcher/ethnographer who theorized that all children have innate musical/song/singing capacity. I can't recall now the work nor the author, but it's here somewhere in the MC annals.

On the second point, in my experience the "child-like" mind at play is salient in the process of musical skill acquisition. It can manifest in various ways - in my case, consistent with my clinical traits on the autism spectrum, it's an insatiable thirst for novelty, exoticism, sensory stimulation, an irrepressible curiosity and unrelenting quest for aesthetic experience. I see many of these same traits in my son, also on the spectrum. Basically, we can't help ourselves much in this pursuit - it's a neurological drive.

So, I look at the environment - our total experience and relationship to stimuli - a matter of disposition. It's a view of the world. Some, such as ours, is simply all about aesthetic experience; it's both blessing and curse.

Yes I absolutely believe in the great value of the childlike ("beginners") mind.

An alternative explanation for the decline of that amazing learning ability is that the same period is where self consciousness and constant mental narratives take over.

I suspect both of those explanations are partly right. I can remember both rapid flights of fancy and not being able to focus as a kid (I grew up in a seriously high sugar environment in the 70s), but also sometimes having an ability to focus on one thing without any hint of self doubt and perform a little magic. Like one time when we were going to make these little pillows with a simple yard embroidery (Montessori) and needed a drawing to start with. In about 10 seconds I did a drawing of a penguin with just a few lines that was perfect. I've never been able to draw that well before or since. I think the absence of that inner voice that has an opinion about what you can and cannot do has to be a part of that.

[catmandu2]

Yes, the point of that author was that we are acculturated out of our innate natural musical and creative states, essentially by "maturation" in society, pursuit of its "rational" values, etc. For better and often worse, I've never been able to shake the self-indulgent disposition of gratifying self-expression (through music and the arts). It's led me into all kinds of impracticalities and inconvenience, but it's also provided me the platform to assuage curiosity and cultivate artistic sensibilities. There is struggle, but through understanding I've gained perspective to embrace and exhult the value of the irrational. More than anything, I've enjoyed finding alternatives to mainstream existence.

[JeffD]

Yes I absolutely believe in the great value of the childlike ("beginners") mind.

An alternative explanation for the decline of that amazing learning ability is that the same period is where self consciousness and constant mental narratives take over.

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Oh joyfully, playfully watching me
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, oh responsible, practical
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical

[Jess L.]

I know so many people who get credited with being talented, but who always talk about the hours of hard work they put in. ...

Then on the other hand there are people who are embarrassed to admit just exactly *how* much time they spend trying to improve their music.

That can be either because (1) they don't want people to think they're eccentric or "too focused on one specific thing", and/or (2) because of some sense of not wanting to flaunt that they *have* that much free time to devote to arts & hobbies instead of having to work 3 jobs or whatever like perhaps some of their acquaintances do.

So it's often more socially graceful, when dealing with non-musicians anyway, to *not* go into a bunch of detail of exactly how much work is required to make halfway decent music, but just let them think music just sort of happens.

Instead of confusing them with stuff they wouldn't understand anyway, such as:

"I played that tune for 3 hours straight every day for a solid month, and that was *after* I spent 2 weeks analyzing and transcribing half-speed recordings and then making it into an endless loop and listening to it with mini headphones at low volume while I slept and also every chance I got while driving..."

Er, wait, how is it that I know about such things, am I admitting too much here? Ha! Those were my younger days. Much younger. Before I quit music and got all rusty. Still trying to get back to where I was before. Seemed like it was easier then. Huh.

That said, I still don't consider such efforts to be "practice". It's *playing*. Just in a very determined and methodical manner.

Anyway, nowadays, I'm lucky if I can play for very long without dozing off or having to interrupt my playing to visit the restroom more often than I'd like, etc. (geezerette here).

---

Stuff I've tried to learn the last year or two:

meeses, banjer, heresy, English-esque, unauthorized variation, Brazos, holiday 1, holiday 2, etc.

Practice backing tracks (MIDI-only) & scrolling sheetmusic with mandolin tab:

Chadwick's Bog, Calypso Carol, Month of May, Newcastle, Alt Greek, Mignonne (Antonelli) variation, Northern Lass, Up On The Housetop.

[Charlieshafer]

I'm betting non-musicians would understand the bouts of practice. Just about everyone has a hobby or vocation that requires lots of repetition and practice, be it something like golf, or chess, or cooking.

This thread sort of reminds me of the conversation with Viktoria Mullova, a superb violinist and renown Baroque interpreter. At a young age in the Russian conservatory system, she had "perfect pitch", which she said was actually sort of a handicap. Perfect for what tuning? A-440? 443? It's all arbitrary. As she delved more into the truest interpretations of Bach, et al, with those tiny little tones between the notes, she says she totally lost the perfect pitch ability. But then, critically, her later recordings post-perfect pitch, are much more admired than her earlier ones. So, where's the ability there?

Folded's explanation of the bell curve makes tons of sense. Everyone has an innate ability, and most if us are on the fat part of the curve, for sure. You work on developing that ability a little bit, people think you have talent. You don;t work on it, they don;t think you do. It's a fun question with no answer!

[Ivan Kelsall]

One meaning of the word talent is 'ability' (or a natural skill). In many cases the 2 words are interchangeable. If you mean by 'talent' being able to raise your 'ability' to a high level,that depends on how much work you put into developing your 'ability'.

Many folk feel that having a 'talent' is if you're only really good at something - it isn't. I have the 'talent' to play banjo, mandolin,& guitar. Now whether i'm good enough to use my 'talent' to become an excellent musician, is down to how much work i put in to 'developing my talent'. Having a talent is one thing - becoming an excellent musician is another.

Take Chris Thile as a fine example. There's no doubt at all that CT had a 'natural ability / talent' to play mandolin ( & banjo & guitar for that matter),but he spent a LOT of time practicing,learning & developing his ability to achieve the heights of musicianship that he has done,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Oh joyfully, playfully watching me
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, oh responsible, practical
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical

Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!

[Randi Gormley]

I'm often intrigued by people who will recognize a talent or genius in one instance and then say it doesn't matter for a different thing -- that it's all about extending ability through practice, concentration, etc. That, say, someone will admit that there are genius mathematicians but that musical genius is about opportunity, background and practice. Certainly during portions of humanity's history, to paraphrase someone whose name i've forgotten, any genius born female was essentially born dead ... but isn't the argument against natural talent based on an assumption that we're all born equal? that our brains are identical? that we've just missed a turning when we were infants and if we had had the proper encouragement or the proper teaching or the proper background that we, too, could be a genius? I'm not so sure that premise is correct. Some people, to my mind, actually do have an advantage or a talent. Some people's brains are non-standard -- on that bell curve that's been mentioned. The same way that I'll never be able (without a chair or stool) to reach a tall cupboard my-husband-the-guitar-player can reach with ease, since he's literally a foot taller than I am, I've found that my hard work will only take me so far in my musical journey. Certainly if I started mandolin (and ITM) when I was much younger, I'd be better today, but after listening to some of the youngsters coming up, I'd have had to start before I was born!

[catmandu2]

Yes the normal distribution (bell curve) is the standard model in social sciences. It has great efficacy in representing frequencies of occurences in populations. What's particularly interesting is looking at the distal outliers - where we're challenged to examine and theorize all kinds of human deviance (from the norm). Sociopolitical environmental fluctuations ramify constant activity in these zones of deviation - this is where the temperature is highest in the beaker of human experience; where molecules of human activity buzz floridly, as opposed to the more placid waters moving proximal toward the mean. With experience from observors and theorizers, the mechanisms producing these conditions become more lucid to us. Yet we are a long way from so much understanding. Artists and deviants of every stripe provide the artifacts and impetuses which compel us to think, feel, reflect, reject, revel, rejoice, revile, understand - ourselves. It's a wild world. There's no dearth of phenomena to intrigue the eye and ear, exploring these realms is like candy to a child, or flames to a moth.

[farmerjones]

I read back on those other threads.
I distinctly remember meeting and otherwise reading stories of kids so advanced they were bored with very advanced music. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Lime Rock in three keys, etc.
I've also read about many people coming back to music after years of absence.
I think things/skills are more precious when you earn them.
Just another reason I don't think much about talent or genius.
It exists, no doubt. Trees fall in the woods everyday, and nobody hears them.

[RJMFry]

One meaning of the word talent is 'ability' (or a natural skill). In many cases the 2 words are interchangeable. If you mean by 'talent' being able to raise your 'ability' to a high level,that depends on how much work you put into developing your 'ability'.

Many folk feel that having a 'talent' is if you're only really good at something - it isn't. I have the 'talent' to play banjo, mandolin,& guitar. Now whether i'm good enough to use my 'talent' to become an excellent musician, is down to how much work i put in to 'developing my talent'. Having a talent is one thing - becoming an excellent musician is another.

Take Chris Thile as a fine example. There's no doubt at all that CT had a 'natural ability / talent' to play mandolin ( & banjo & guitar for that matter),but he spent a LOT of time practicing,learning & developing his ability to achieve the heights of musicianship that he has done,
Ivan

Agreed.

Thile also has the incentive to spread himself so wide because he's staking his livelihood, and that of his family, on it. It's amazing what the prospect of dire financial straits can do for one's creative output.

I think too many people put an obscene amount of attention on the connotation of "talent", even though "talent" and "ability" are interchangeable. It's not as if there's a quantitative measurement for talent--you summed it up quite well.

The "natural" ability of some to be overly proficient at an instrument is not the byproduct of some observable phenomena. Rather, it's a reflection of the amount of passion one person has for that particular facet of the arts. If you were theoretically able to take two performers and eliminate as many controlled variables as possible, i.e. instrument, amount of previous education, time to practice, etc...and ask them to a perform a piece by--oh, I don't know, Vivaldi or Bach--it's not too far of a stretch to predict that the performer who is more passionate about performing that type of music will provide a better performance over the other. Practice does make you better, but the the idiom should be "Passion makes perfect". Or maybe "Practice makes perfect, but Passion makes perfect-er".

The same could be true for multi instrumentalist. Accumulation of instruments is no more an indication of superior ability than a collection of books is an indicator of heightened intelligence, and just because Thile can play a broad swatch of the Lute family does not mean he is the greatest at any of them. His work ethic, on the other hand, is more indicative of that. The fact that he can play so many instruments at such a level is more an indicator of his heightened passion for what he does--not inherent skill or any other synonym for such.

There's got to be a mathematical way to express this, heh.

[catmandu2]

One way I've described it ("talent") is - sensitivity. Observing an organism interact in its environment, it will react to what it senses, with the strongest reactions being elicited by the more potent sensory stimuli. Those with more acute perception will reach arousal thresholds sooner, and tend to react with commensurate response. The greater our sensitivities, the greater the liklihood of increased sensibilities. So you could say, "talent (sensitivity) produces ability (sensibility)"

[sbhikes]

Crediting my abilities as simply some innate talent disregards all the hours I've put into it. This didn't come naturally. We all have a capacity for music, some are better at it than others, some are better at certain instruments than others, but very few of us gets to a place where someone says "wow, you're really talented" without starting from the beginning and working many hours at it. (Even if all those hours were fun, it was still hours of work.)

[JeffD]

Most everyone a lot better than me has been and is working at it a lot more than me. Just an observation.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From JeffD - "Most everyone a lot better than me has been and is working at it a lot more than me." It's quite amazing,the more effort you put into something the more 'talented' you get !,
Ivan