The Fallacy of "Talent"

[m3838]

I'm quite certain that a singing teacher knows more about talent than a psychologist. And recognises its presence or absence long before the talented have left the less talented behind.

 

What is a fallacy is that you can only recognise talent after the fact - when somebody has had more success than others who worked equally hard.

 

Since people communicate via art, all of us do recognize talent. It is a talent to recognize talent as well. Talent is like musculature system, it's overlapping and permeating everything. To single it out is possible only for the sake of dissection, and like everything in Universe, it is recognize after the fact. But how else it can be recognized? It is always used before the fact is about to happen, while it's happening, and recognized by recipients after it happened. Amount of work has nothing to do with it, area of application too. Those 5 Art Forms are simply so called "Fine Art Forms", and have always been used as professional trends of entertainment for upper classes: Music, Dance, Painting, Architecture, Sculpture.

[David Levine]

Funny, isn't it? Those people who seem to be the most talented -- i.e., the most accomplished -- are the ones who seldom claim they have talent. Instead they talk about how long they have played to get where they are.

The ones who do believe in talent see it in others, but not in themselves. So their belief in talent, which they think they don't have, is an obstacle to their progress. They are limited by thinking they don't have what it takes.

I'd prefer to think there isn't any such thing as talent. Maybe there is such a thing. But I don't see how believing in it will help a person one bit. I do see how believing in it can be self-limiting.

Delight in what I'm doing is enough to make me want to play music. And if I play enough I will get better. Just like everybody else, with or without talent.

Edited November 21, 2008 by David Levine

[Anglo-Irishman]

Funny, isn't it? Those people who seem to be the most talented -- i.e., the most accomplished -- are the ones who seldom claim they have talent. Instead they talk about how long they have played to get where they are.

Not really funny, David! Talent is simply taken for granted in an accomplished musician, so nobody talks about it. What isn't taken for granted is the work that goes into becoming one of the "most accomplished" - and that's what is talked about most. A top concert pianist doesn't want people to think that he just happened to be able to play like that. He has his pride

The ones who do believe in talent see it in others, but not in themselves. So their belief in talent, which they think they don't have, is an obstacle to their progress. They are limited by thinking they don't have what it takes.

I'd prefer to think there isn't any such thing as talent. Maybe there is such a thing. But I don't see how believing in it will help a person one bit. I do see how believing in it can be self-limiting.

Here we have the crux of your denial of the existence of talent - you'd prefer it not to exist. You find belief in it limiting, and can't see how belief in it could help.

 

Well, that's your view, and you're entitled to it!

 

But please don't think that everyone feels the same as you do. In many cases, a belief in the existence of talent can make one a better person. The example of the self-made man who regards all poor and unemployed people as simply lazy has been mentioned. If everyone worked as hard as he does, nobody would be poor, or so he thinks. This person does not recognise that he has a talent for making money, which others lack, so his accusation is unfair, like comparing apples and pears.

 

Also, based on experience, I would disagree that we only recognise talent in others. If you're any way awake, and observe your peers, you'll see that you have a quicker grasp of some things than some of your peers do (school is the ideal place to do this). How you deal with this is perhaps a matter of Weltanschauung, or ideology.

 

Our use of the word "talent" as a "gift or aptitude" comes from a parable by Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 15, 25 ff). A rich man going on a long journey leaves each of his servants some money, the currency unit being the Talent. One receives 5 , another 2, and another 1 Talent. The first servant works with the money, and gains 5 more. The second likewise earns 2 more. The third, afraid of losing his money, buries it in a safe place. On the master's return, the servants who have worked with their Talents are praised and promoted; the one who buried his Talent is fired, and has the money taken from him.

 

This parable reminds many people of the aptitude that is given to some people in differing degrees, and that has to be worked on to bring benefit for oneself or the "master". So we use "talent" as a metaphor for such an aptitude.

 

So, to a Christian, it is practically a moral obligation to recognise your own talents, and put them to use. The Christian is also aware that talent is present in different degrees in different people, but that this makes no difference to the master's approval. And that no degree of talent is so slight that it should not be put to use. In the parable, the 1-Talent servant is reprimanded for not at least lending the money for interest. (Here I think of the moderately talented musician who can perhaps use what talent he has to brighten up family parties or department barbecues, though he might never venture onto the concert podium.)

 

For me personally - apart from the above - I do believe that I have some talent for music. So I have the feeling that, if I work as hard as day job and family permit, I might just possibly get good enough to be termed an amateur musician. I don't consider that a limitation.

I also believe that I have no talent for financial dealings. So I know it's no use me poring over share prices and market trends - that time (with me) is better spent doing finger exercises on the Crane duet, which is what I will do as soon as I send this posting off

 

Cheers,

John

[Alan Day]

Hi

Iris Bishop is playing accompaniment to Martyn Windham-Read

chris

I have managed to talk Iris and Martyn into doing a track for Duet International together.Looking forward to that one.

Al

[m3838]

So, to a Christian, it is practically a moral obligation to recognise your own talents, and put them to use. The Christian is also aware that talent is present in different degrees in different people, but that this makes no difference to the master's approval.

 

Excellent point.

Another aspect of recognition of one's talent (or it's absence) is possibility not to make a fool out of oneself, and that's not a small feat.

It's the one I'm constantly failing with.

[michael sam wild]

Now then John, that I've found a theologian /philosopher

 

What exactly does it mean when they talk of 'hiding your light under a bushel'?

 

Mike

[LDT]

talk of 'hiding your light under a bushel'?

Health and safety...fire hazard

[Anglo-Irishman]

Now then John, that I've found a theologian /philosopher

 

What exactly does it mean when they talk of 'hiding your light under a bushel'?

 

Mike

 

Mike,

Well, I'm only a philosopher, but I inherited my father's old Bible concordance, so ask away

 

First of all, the bushel in question is not the abstract unit of dry measure that the older of us remember from school days, but rather a pottery vessel of the appropriate size.

 

This is another allusion to a mini-parable by Jesus. He was urging His followers not to keep their spiritual enlightenment to themselves, but to live it out in public, as an example to others. He pointed out that you don't go to the trouble of lighting a candle, only to hide it under an upturned pot - you put it on a candlestick, so that it will light up the whole house. (In Matthew's gospel, this analogy comes just after the "ye are the salt of the earth" analogy.)

 

So "hiding your light under a bushel" is something reprehensible, even slightly perverse.

 

In an artistic context, this means that, if we have received "enlightenment" - e.g. the capability to play the concertina - whether by talent and/or good teaching and/or hard work, we should not use this capability purely for our own edification in the privacy of our homes. Those of us who can make music should make it for those who can't make it themselves.

 

Interesting is the point that Jesus didn't say this to one person - he said it to a group of His disciples. I have the feeling that He wouldn't have thought much of musicians who only play in those sessions that take place in a room void of listeners.

 

Cheers,

John

[petec]

Ther are some things about talent that simply cannot be denied. A well muscled athletic person will be able to run faster than a thin gangly less coordinated one, this is not an insult to the latter but a simple fact. I think a person with brain connections that favour musical developement will do better than one that does not have those connections - hence my daughters passed me musically when they were about 11 years old.

 

I agree that anyone without natural ability could become immeasurably better with practice, but they will always start from behind the talented. This does not mean that they might not add something original to their field of chosen activity. It is said that John Coltrane achieved his greatness purely by constant application and showed no early signs of talent.

[catty]

Resurrecting the old thread to post this, which most of you are likely familiar, but ran across today:

 

"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work. "

- Emile Zola (1840-1902)

[Marien]

Resurrecting the old thread to post this, which most of you are likely familiar, but ran across today:

 

"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work. "

- Emile Zola (1840-1902)

 

An alternative line by Eola Zmile goes like this:

 

"The talented artist doesn´t work and doesn't need gifts..."

 

edited for typo correction...

Edited December 26, 2008 by marien

[doggyvonne]

I have heard some singers and musicians play a piece very correctly but with absolutely no flare.. It seems to me that the talent is in that flare and the creative rendition of the tune or song. Innovation, initiative and creatiivity are usually part of the package called talent. The same applies to art. I see artists every day who have training but no talent..their painting looks the same as the other guy or gal down the road who did the same evening class

[David Levine]

So, to a Christian, it is practically a moral obligation to recognise your own talents, and put them to use. The Christian is also aware that talent is present in different degrees in different people, but that this makes no difference to the master's approval.

 

Being a Christian has nothing to do with this discussion. When people bring something like this into a discussion I remember that Nazis carried "God with us" on their belt buckles. There is just as much historically to convince me that Christians are as naive or evil as anybody else. They do not have a pipeline to The Truth. Anymore than any other true believer.

 

I take this: So "hiding your light under a bushel" is something reprehensible, even slightly perverse to mean that a Christian has an obligation to pester people to believe what he believes and not anything else. "Only believe what I believe" is too obviously dangerous to bear further comment.

 

I hate to bring this into a forum about music but neither do I want to let it pass. I don't like religiosity or preaching in any form. I thought we agreed to leave religion and politics out of these discussions.

[Hereward]

So, to a Christian, it is practically a moral obligation to recognise your own talents, and put them to use. The Christian is also aware that talent is present in different degrees in different people, but that this makes no difference to the master's approval.

 

Being a Christian has nothing to do with this discussion. When people bring something like this into a discussion I remember that Nazis carried "God with us" on their belt buckles. There is just as much historically to convince me that Christians are as naive or evil as anybody else. They do not have a pipeline to The Truth. Anymore than any other true believer.

 

I take this: So "hiding your light under a bushel" is something reprehensible, even slightly perverse to mean that a Christian has an obligation to pester people to believe what he believes and not anything else. "Only believe what I believe" is too obviously dangerous to bear further comment.

 

I hate to bring this into a forum about music but neither do I want to let it pass. I don't like religiosity or preaching in any form. I thought we agreed to leave religion and politics out of these discussions.

 

Thanks for raising this difficult subject David and I agree with your general point here.

 

Ian

[catty]

Anglo-Irishman claims to be a philospher...so I presume he could speak on this subject from other secular perspectives as well.

 

In fairness, and perhaps there is history here of which I am unaware, it seems A-Iman was responding to a direct question posed by another member pertaining to biblical text. But I agree, evangelical proseletyzing is obnoxious, at best.

Edited December 30, 2008 by catty

[doggyvonne]

The only connection I see in my past between talent and christianity (even though I do believe in God and sometimes go to church) is that the Church took my dad, a very working class boy from the slums of London, and gave him a scholarship to have the opportunity to develop and use his talents, however any well heeled benefactor/reformer might have done the same.

I am not anti christian but I agree that these forums need to avoid inflammatory subjects. Interesting subject is 'talent'..I dont know if I have any talent in playing the concertina to be honest I dont think I have enough speed in reading music or handling the instrument to be viewed as talented. However if my musical memory (by ear) enables me to play a hundred or so tunes moderately well I will be pleased. The subject in which generally I am seen as talented is art and I would describe the feeling of talent as losing yourself and becoming one with the tools of your trade. I am very aware that it is the same for many talented players of musical instruments.

[Guest Peter Laban]

Interesting is the point that Jesus didn't say this to one person - he said it to a group of His disciples. I have the feeling that He wouldn't have thought much of musicians who only play in those sessions that take place in a room void of listeners.

 

I had overlooked that remark.

 

I resent it as much as other things christianity tries to force on people like myself who don't subscribe to it. I play when and where I feel like. I do not feel I have any obligation to anyone to play out or in public. If I get asked to play a concert locally, I will usually do so but I do not seek to play in public and left to my own devices few will see or hear me.

[Hooves]

I have heard some singers and musicians play a piece very correctly but with absolutely no flare.. It seems to me that the talent is in that flare and the creative rendition of the tune or song. Innovation, initiative and creatiivity are usually part of the package called talent. The same applies to art. I see artists every day who have training but no talent..their painting looks the same as the other guy or gal down the road who did the same evening class

 

 

I agree: although a person may play well, be able to read the notes off the sheet flawlessly, it does not neccessarily imply creativity, the ability to make new music and/or play existing pieces with expression.

 

10,000 hours seems reasonable to achieve -

 

10,000 hours: at 8 hours a day would take you 3.42 years to become a "master".

 

Most of us working outside of a music career might find that a bit rough, so lets say you could manage 2 hours everyday, then your 10,000 hour quota would take 13.7 years. That also seems reasonable, except as pointed out earlier, itsa matter of what you are practising and pure hours does not gauge expansion into new material.

 

I practice about 6 hours a week right now, down from 8 hours ( two 4 hour sessions a week), but I did play for many years about 2 hours a day. I have 2 dedicated practice days aweek and want to add a third since I find it difficult to practice everyday.

 

Of course that 10,000 hours is for one instrument, what if you play (try to play) 3 instruments?