To play or not to play: talent may be the question

Whistle
1

This is sort of on topic, but more theoretical. A lot of folks on this board have mentioned teaching whistles to kids as an easy introduction to music, particularly Irish music.

Here’s my question (which arose last night in another discussion): Do good musicians, in this case whistle players, come from innate talent, or have they merely applied themselves longer and harder? Can ANYONE achieve a level of prowess of say Mary Bergin or Joannie Madden simply by working hard, or do we need some special gift imbued at birth?

Just wondering what you all thought, especially those of you who teach music.

2

Working hard is a great part of it, the biggest part, but you must have talent to become really good.

3

My opinion is that super-virtuosos like Mary Bergin, Yascha Heifitz, Horowitz are born with a genetic advantage, a large dose of innate talent, but they also have worked very hard to hone their technique and learn the sensitivity to make their music. Those of us without the genetic gift also need to work hard but will not get to the Mary Bergin level no matter how hard we work. I think we often overlook the merely very, very good players in favor of the super-virtuosos. In addition, simply above-average players can be very enjoyable.
Mike

4

I’m pretty sure that musical capacity is inherited. My dad and both his parents are very very talented muscians despite almost no training. My mother and all her family are totally tonedeaf and unmusical.

My brother and I started playing the whistle at almost the same time; I picked it up very quickly while he has had a much harder time getting anywhere. This could be an accident but the same thing happed in succession with singing and with piano . . .

But I don’t think people are born whistlers and nothing else. Probably most people who can be great whistlers could be great fiddlers or great pianists or whatever. Inherited musicality maybe has to line up with a certain natural sprightliness of the fingers and certainly people do find one instrument harder than another, but when really talented people become great on one I suspect the main factor is inclination and interest.

Plenty of unfortunate people, like my wife, can’t play anything even after lots of work. Perhaps with great determination she could play a few tunes but she’ll never be great. At least some of it must be natural.

5

I forgot to add: how do you define “talent”? When we talk about inborn talent, what are we talking about?

And I certainly don’t mean to slight very very good players. As I said, this is more theoretical, and a follow-up to a discussion I had last night. I just thought I’d open it out to you forum folks for additional comment. No biggie.

6

I would define talent as a facility or ability to do certain tasks. For example, my wife comes from a family of talented painters going back at least four generations that we know of. Whatever little talent I have is in music. My #1 son inherited the art talent. He is presently at the Cleveland Institute of Art, working very hard, but drawings he made when he was 14 showed great potential. He says it’s all in the eyes - he just draws what he sees. I obviously don’t see what he sees, or what my wife sees because she has the gift too. That is innate talent.
Mike

7

On 2002-10-18 10:04, C4 wrote:
What a depressing subject…My family has absolutely no musical talent, now or in the past..I guess this means I will never be much good? (heavy sigh)…Thats actually fine because I do this for my own entertainment anyway..

\

“To old to begin the traning”..Master Yoda

[ This Message was edited by: C4 on 2002-10-18 10:04 ]

You CAN be good. You just have to work a bit harder, like I did.
Mike

8

This is a depressing subject…As my family has absolutely no musical talent now or in the past…Does this mean I am doomed to be a substandard player? To answer my own question I would give a resounding Yes…I do this for my own entertainment so who really cares…But it would be nice to know that I might at least achieve a reasonable degree of proficiency with harmless looking instrument…

“To old to begin the training”…Master Yoda

9

On 2002-10-18 09:40, fiddling_tenor wrote:
I forgot to add: how do you define “talent”? When we talk about inborn talent, what are we talking about?

I don’t think anybody knows. It’s like “intelligence”. An IQ is just a score on a test. Ideally, such a test predicts other important aspects of the person’s life, such as the ability to profit from schooling, etc. A music talent test would do the same thing. It would predict that a person would profit from music training, etc. It’s well known that such tests can be discouraging. I talked to some incoming university students once who had taken a whole battery of aptitude tests and had recieved their scores. These predicted the student’s grade point average in various fields. It might predict that they would make a D average in Engineering and an A in Home Ec or something like that. Although the tests were supposed to guide them, sometimes they would be quite disheartened by the results. “Well, if I’m going to make an F, why try?” Physiologists and psychologists keep looking for something inside to measure. E.g “Is a high intelligence or musical ability related to brain size?” I don’t know the answer but even if it were, the larger brain is not intelligence or talent itself but just something else that would predict it.

Steve

10

This is only my $.02 worth, but I would say that talent, while wonderful, is not only not essential, sometimes it can get in the way, making you want to “race ahead” and so missing crucial steps in the process of learning.

I think there are just a few things you need to become a musician worthy of the name:

–stubborness

–a love of the music

–focus

–patience

If you have those, it may take you longer, but at the end of the day, you’ll be the better musician.

Of course, if you have all those things and add some talent to the mix too, that will only help you along. But don’t let a percieved “lack of talent” discourage you–because when you are first learning an instrument, you don’t know how much “talent” you really have, and neither does anyone else.

Best wishes,

–James
http://www.flutesite.com

11

On 2002-10-18 10:32, peeplj wrote:
But don’t let a percieved “lack of talent” discourage you–because when you are first learning an instrument, you don’t know how much “talent” you really have, and neither does anyone else.

Good point. If your are interested enough to listen to music and have a desire to play, just assume you can do it. However, if focus, persistance, etc are what you need to become a good musician, then those things are part of what talent is and any theory of talent would have to take them into account. There is a persistant tendency to think that talent is some real, almost tangible thing that a person has or doesn’t have. I don’t think that’s a profitable way of looking at it.

Steve

12

I tend to agree, James.

I’m the first ‘musician’ in my family as far as anyone knows. I’ve gotten to where I am by dedication, hard work, patience, and a willingness to listen and research.

I’m no Mary Bergin, but I haven’t been playing for decades either. Every year, I sound a little better, so who knows how good I’ll be in 20 or 30 years?

I reject the notion that one has to have a certain blood type, a certain DNA, or a certain lineage in order to make good music. I don’t deny that ‘talent’ exists, which I’d define as an uncanny, unexplained knack for music–there are talents for any skill, really..baseball, martial arts, computer programming, etc. But talent just makes the job easier. Hard work and constantly seeking understanding and improvement are the real keys as far as I’m concerned.

13

Nobody gave me music lessons when I was growing up. I was 14 and had been listening to whistle players, and decided to buy one. I just played everyday and the rest is history…

14

Very interesting topic. I think that you are born with a natural ability to do certain things. You may have the ability naturally to see (without thought) musical progressions. This just means that the natural material (talent) that you have to work with is very good.

How you mold that talent depends on the amount of work you put in. A very naturally talented musician may only be as good as someone else who has little natural talent but works very hard.

If you gave someone like BrewerPaul a twisted piece of pine, he could probably make a decent sounding whistle out of it. But give him a great piece of tulipwood or the like, and he can make a “professional” instrument out of it.

The key is to try to maximize whatever talent you have, and realize why you are playing the whistle at all. I am not very gifted in music, so I play mainly for myself and my family. I love it, and so do they, and that’s all that matters. Would I love to be able to play in front of our church some day? Sure. Will I ever get to that level? Possibly with TONS of practice. But if not, I’m okay with that too.

John Mac

p.s. One aside for those who consider themselves to have little talent and are discouraged: I have found that the best teachers and coaches are those who are not blessed with great ability but have worked hard to maximize what they have. Those who are gifted have a hard time relating to those who are not, because they never had to struggle with things. I have a friend who is a gifted basketball player, and he can’t coach at all because he just tells his players to go out there and do it, which is just what he did. I think those who work hard at something develop a better overall understanding of the thing they have worked hard at.

15

I don’t wholly agree on the term “Talent”. yes, it works for most - to explain that ‘gift’, that special skill, that talent (…).

It’s quite open to many, many interpretations and it’s subjective. It’s different from and in everyone. It occurs everywhere. Yes, not only in developed countries. Even from places you never knew existed. Fancy the cold Siberia? There’s ‘talent’.

It all matters with: Exposure. Getting exposed to many, many things may expose the ‘talent’ from within. For example, let’s say scientists genetically create two kids, fully identical with superb skills in whistle playing. One is sent to any ‘popular’ player for adoption, the other to Antartica (ok, a bit extreme but for the sake of making my point). Guess who’s gonna emerge as the next ‘popular’ person?

It also depends on hard work too. Can be seen in playing music, or making music instruments. One may have been born with nimble fingers, but if that person plays the whistle once, gets ‘popular’ and then rests at home for the rest of life, what good is that?

Same goes for instrument making, go figure.

Scientific explanation would require a lot of time, but to cut things short: better connectivity in the brain.

Picture this: the path to play very good is like a highway with it’s own share of twists and turns. A more ‘talented’ person may have clear roads, or shortcuts for that matter. a less ‘talented’ person, may find it difficult as there may be road blocks, uneven roads, etc.

Slow learners on that road is just like slower vehicles; they need push (Guidance) to move on.

But usually people who face certain hardships move along better, maybe due to the extreme need of a ‘shortcut’ which translates to a workaround.

(Edited to add on that scientific part)

“He who has fipple, ripples the world…”

[ This Message was edited by: Caoimhin on 2002-10-18 11:37 ]

16

I read somewhere recently that

PRODIGY = Adaptability + Positive Obsession

where adaptability means that sponge-like learning gift that most children have.

I see the signs of positive obession on this board every day!!

I won’t deny the magic of genetics, though. Music runs in my family. My great-grandfather, Thurlow Lieurance, was a composer & bandleader (biggest hit: “By the Waters of Minnetonka”) My father is a part-time composer (no hits!) & full-time bandleader & instrument repairman and my sister and I are pro- and semi-pro musicians, respectively. The capacity to sing and understand the language of music came easily for us as children. But it really, really takes work if you want to be great, even if you have a lot of “feeling” for music. That’s where the positive obsession comes in.

Can this kind of love and work ever be a bad thing, even if you know you will never play like a prodigy? I think we all have something to offer. Music casts a spell we all have the ability to wield. The best of it is honest and sincere, whether you express it in arpeggios or a single note.

typo patrol came through and made sure



[ This Message was edited by: thurlowe on 2003-01-31 14:48 ]

17

To play or not to play: Talent may be the question.

No, it’s not the question. Talent may have a bearing on where you play or what you play, but it should have nothing to do with wether you play at all.

To play or not? My answer - Everyone Should Play. Music is not about competition or who does it best. Music is an essential form of self expression. Nobody in their right mind would stop talking because someone else speaks better, or more elequently, or quicker, or with more florish. Should we only teach those with talent, who may be ‘good writers’ how to write?

Music is about expressing things when words are not enough. Music is about entertaining ourselves and our friends, its not about entertaining the world.

Its only in the last few decades, when technology has allowed us to hear so many ‘very talented’ musicians that this notion that only the talented should play has grown.

I’m sure there’s parts of the recording industry that surely hopes we’ll buy more records, tapes, CDs, Video rather than make our own music; but, this is a basicly new concept. For thousands of years, music has been more than a leisure time activity. It paced our work, it celebrated our accomplishments, it motivated us to fight harder, it told us the latest gossip. It connected us to our neighbors, to our family, to our coworkers, our spouses, our mothers, anyone we cared about, and it even connected us to our enemies. Music connects us, it expresses the ideals, experiences, the feelings, the dreams, the nightmares, the thoughts, it reflects every facit of life. Could you imagine exploring the ‘facts of life’ without music?

In modern times spectator music has risen to big business on the wings of technology. It has attempted to dominate the music world, but it is only a small part of the field. Participatory music has a lot longer history, and still has a vital function in our society. Our infatuation with performance and technology, may have distracted us; but, sooner or later, we will return to find that participation meets vital needs that can’t be reached any other way.

What about Talent?
Where does talent come in? It bears on what we play, where we play, and who we play with.
Talent isn’t a single skill or ability but a blend of skills and abilities.

My stepdaughter has the ability to hear a melody once and remember it; she has aural memory. Some folks have visual memory talents, some have emotional memory talents, some have mechanical memory talents. Me, I have an intuitive talent for pattern recognition. I see and remember how things are related to other things. Some folks have a sense of time that is uncanny, their rythym is always spot on. Others have a feel for what should support or be in the background, they always see the forest more than the trees, they also are quick to see the opening leads to a glen, or meadow, or path over a cliff. These and the rest of our talents weave together in finding the music and the musician in each of us.

Most folks like doing things that maximizes the affect of their talents. No, I didn’t misspell effect, I meant affect. Affect is about feelings, it is the emotional component of an effect. So with practice and learning, people will get better at the things that hold the most satisfaction for them, the things that use their talents well, and the things that give them a good affective return for the time they invest.

So play, play to your hearts contentment, play to express the talents that lie dormant, play to discover the talent that may only be seen after you earn some hard won skills.
Play to see, if you can say the things, that are so hard to find words for. Play because there more ways to gain satisfaction than just being the best at something. Play because music let us experience what it means to be a member of the family of man. Play the shared expression of our humanity. Play the music.

The music doesn’t care how smart you are, how rich you are, how old you are, how talented you are, what color you are, how you worship, it only cares if you have a human heart, and if your missing that, well it may be one of the few things that will help you develop one.

To Play or not to play? Play! Learn to play better and teach others to play; but always …

Enjoy Your Music,

Lee Marsh

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-10-18 12:23 ]

18

On 2002-10-18 11:59, thurlowe wrote:

I won’t deny the magic of genetics, though. Music runs in my family.

I wouldn’t want to deny genes either but their role can be hard to detect. Often an argument for genetics can just as easily be an argument for environment. If your grandfather and parents were musicians, then you probably had a lot of exposure and maybe a lot of encouragement. I talked to the brother (himself a fine fiddler) of one the top fiddlers in my area and he told me that the whole family played music a lot. In fact he said “That’s all we ever did”. That’s why there are a lot of studies on separated identical twins. And indeed, they sometimes come up with some amazing results.

Steve

[ This Message was edited by: SteveK on 2002-10-18 12:35 ]

19

Good point, SteveK,

J.S. Bach came from a long line of court musicians. Must be genes, right? On the other hand, his (more popular) contemporary, G.P. Telemann, probably the most prolific composer ever in western music, had to sneak around to keep composing as an adolescent in a non-musical family. Examples and counter-examples abound.
I guess I couldn’t say if my personal talent for music is genetic or environmental, except to say that it’s always attracted and moved me.

20

Thurlowe,
I think you’ve hit on something important. I think talent comes from a variety of sources.

When I was studing early childhood developement, I was introduced to the concept of the teachable moment. It is the point in our physiological development, when a particular skill or ability can be learned. For example, gently roling an infant head over heals, during the time when his inner ear is developing will give the child a sense of balance that can only be learned at that time in their development. If later the kid does a somersault, the kid with the talent will always know which end is up throughout every instant of the spin. The kid who didn’t gain the ability, may accomplish the same somersault, but will have to work it out through timing, and muscle force, and visual queues. I’m am sure we also have teachable moments that relate to talents and abilities that bear on music.

Maybe my daughter with her perfect aural memory, heard enough music, or interacted with the music at just the right time to develop that ability, or maybe it was something in the genetics she picked up from her father. Either way identifing the talent, the ability, lets her us it wisely, it means if she needs to memorize verbal things she turns them into songs and bingo. They’re there for her later.

Once an ability is defined, wether it’s aural memory, a perfect since of time, or any other ability, the ability may be taught more easily. While some talents can be developed or taught; I think some talents/abilities can’t be taught later. Those that can’t be taught, however, we can be approached by building a set a skills that tap our own talents/abilities and apply them to the same tasks. So some folks find it easier to memorize a tune by ear, other by visualizing the tune in the form of notation, other by runing it through their fingers. The all have the skill or ability to learn a tune, using their various aural memory, visual memory, or mechanical memory talents.

In your example, did Bach enherit his ability, or was he around his parents music at the teachable moments for those talents to develop, or did he over adapt his own set of talents to mimic his parents abilities and desire to make music? I think it was probably a combination of these.

Regardless where the talent and ability comes from, the more time someone spends with music and the more time someone spends making music, the more connected they are to music. The more they get out of it.

Playing makes it easier to learn how to …

\

Enjoy Your Music,

Lee Marsh

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-10-18 13:12 ]