TubeNet

Greetings, compatriots,

I was just prompted to think about something. It's about the meaning behind the statement "you're either born with it or you're not".

Does this apply to music?

Can someone have natal "talent" that allows them to perform music at a level significantly higher than "the next guy", given the same amount of time invested?

I don't buy that for one femtosecond. It is all about the work and the sweat put into the activity. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Gig-winner was born with superhuman tuba-playing abilities and that I will literally never be as good because I was not born with "it". And I think it's a sorry excuse for someone to throw out there when they get blown away by some guy who put the hard work in.

Most people who possess any real talent or natural ability quit before they are out of high school. No matter how far ahead you start on the road to success, if you are standing still, everyone who is still moving will pass you.

I don't believe in "talent" in the slightest. It all comes down to how much you want to make the music, the person who gives the most of him/ herself into whatever it is he/she is doing will get the most out of it.


BTW I am currently studying with Carol Jantch's former teacher and he speaks often about how much friggin work she put into playing the tuba, this idea that everything came easy to here is not true. It takes hard work to become such a great musician.

There is a Baadsvik quote worth repeating here (as best I remember it). Some guy said he was lucky to have such talent. He replied that it was amazing that the more he practiced, the luckier he got.

Not only is there such a thing as "talent", but there are several of them. Improvisation, for example, surely comes from a different place than ability to recognize and reproduce rhythms, for another example. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a dozen or so discrete faculties that we call on to make music. Some of them purely cerebral, others requiring physical coordination and sensitivity.

Talent is a dirty word in my vocabulary. I get sick of hearing people say that people that start taking music seriously in their 20's have no chance to become a "professional" musician because they've let their talent go to waste. Yeah, maybe the probability is less but there is still a chance. Work is the key to success. The progress that I have made in my craft over the last two years isn't because of talent. I've busted my hump and in my mind still sound like crap but I can see progress. With that said, a gift is different. Maybe someone is gifted with a good ear and they can pick out pitches easier than others with the same amount of training. Maybe things click faster for some people. Sure but it's not talent.

You have to have both natural ability and drive. Part of playing is pure physical. There is no getting around that. If the natural physical part isn't there, all the hard work in the world won't get you the results you are looking for. In short, chickens can't play the tuba because they have no lips.

In school, I watched a guy practice his but off on trombone. Every day, working on parts. I could roll out of bed and out play him. His physical body, try as it may, couldn't give him the same results that I got with little to no effort. You either got it or you don't.....but it still takes some work to make it great.

Some people are more talented than others - I'm in the 2nd category.

No-one is talented enough to play at a very high level without working at it - but a very talented player who also works can improve at a faster rate than the rest of us. Most players are somewhere in the middle of the curve; at one end are those rare people who are really keen and work hard but struggle without much noticeable improvement, and at the other end are people for whom many things seem to come very easily.

Natural ability is a very real thing, which I can personally attest to as a teacher. Some kids just "get it" a whole lot easier than most. All too often, those kids end up getting lazy and not achieving nearly as much as their less naturally gifted peers, who had to work at it.

There is NO ONE who can truly be successful at ANYTHING without working very, very hard at it. But to deny that there are people out there for whom music comes more naturally to?? That seems silly to me.

I love it when one of my students starts to dominate everything. When this happens, the comments start about how "special" and "talented" they are. I am of the opinion that people manufacter their own talent and mold themselves into something special that they can be proud of. Talent exists, but it is all too often the crutch that keeps people from moving, more so than the ferrari that everyone thinks it is. I think the largest "talents" anyone in music can have are time management and goals.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. For some people, it just naturally comes easier than those around them. For others, they work really, REALLY hard to get where they are. There is no clear-cut formula for success. To me, musicians are kind of like athletes. There are those out there who work X amount of hours per day/week/month for Y amount of years. Just because they do does not mean that will equate to "making it."

The Jackson wrote:Can someone have natal "talent" that allows them to perform music at a level significantly higher than "the next guy", given the same amount of time invested?

Yes. I say that because I've seen it firsthand. Some people just don't get "it." I've seen people who can pick up the tuba and sound just as good as the ones around them who practice on a daily basis.

Talent is not destiny, but without a doubt certain personal and physical characteristics do help some tasks and opportunities go surprisingly well for certain people. Hard work will make the most of talent and to some degree it will make up for a lack of it. But some things clearly come easier for some people than for others.

Talent is real. It's not everything, but it's also not nothing.

To be talented at something, one must train at it: no one is naturally talented at anything. To me, talent is synonymous with skill.

Noel -- who wasn't born with stronger chops, nimbler fingers, and better lung capacity than the next guy

Sheesh. No amount of work could make me a world-class opera singer. Is being a world-class tuba player any easier?

No amount of work could make me a visionary painter. Is being a world-class tuba player any easier?

No amount of work could make my wife able to understand calculus (let alone balance her checkbook accurately). Is being a world-class tuba player any easier?

But a finite amount of work made Pavarotti a world-class opera singer. A finite amount of work made Picasso a visionary painter. A finite amount of work made it possible for me to understand higher math, and even turn it into world-class expertise (my world, that is).

What is the difference between the finite amount of work required by those who achieve the goal versus the infinite amount of work that would still not be enough for those who can't? Talent. Those who deny the existence of talent are being silly.

BUT (and you knew there would be a "but"), the problem is that we do not emerge from the womb with a Certificate of Talent that describes what talents we may or may not have. And we can find that out only by doing that finite amount of work. Sometimes, the answer is obvious (NO) and we retask our energies to more productive pursuits. Sometimes, we are lazy and don't give it enough of a chance to know. Sometimes, our innate belief in the existence of talent allows us to make the mistake of assuming we don't have it, before we have conducted the test (which means doing the work), and we use an assumption of not having talent as an excuse not to try.

So, while the existence of talent seems to me indisputable, we should act as if there is no such thing.

Skill is a reflection of talent and hard work. Skill, talent, and hard work are not interchangeable.

Rick "thinking talent often includes the drive necessary to do the work" Denney

DonShirer wrote:There is a Baadsvik quote worth repeating here (as best I remember it). Some guy said he was lucky to have such talent. He replied that it was amazing that the more he practiced, the luckier he got.

The quote originally came from Gary Player, the golfer, following a "lucky" shot from a bunker, but it still holds true for all that

Rick Denney wrote: But a finite amount of work made Pavarotti a world-class opera singer.

Seeing Pavarotti's name reminds me of how modest he was about his talents, claiming his ability to sing in such high ranges comfortably was the product of years of practice. I remember Oystein Baadsvik, when having lunch with a group of tuba/euph majors on his Octuba tour (great experience by the way), discussed a point in his life: he would practice the tuba all day as if it were his day job and lived on potato soup.

It is my opinion that the perception of talent is commonly obscured due to it's association with greatness. In fact, I'd say talent is greatness -- which brings me back to my first post. Talent is earned; it is not some divine gift granted to us at conception.

The only physical advantage I've ever encountered is the ability to sing extremely low. I knew one person who could sing a C2. He wasn't a very good singer.

_________________________________________________________


This is a very interesting topic. I hope to see a lot of posts and insight on it. definitely better than all those ___ vs ___ and is this horn good? topics

To deny "talent" is the old communist idea that everyone is equal. Could most of us write music like Mozart, or Beethoven however hard we tried - no, because we do not have that inherent talent. Yes even those talented have to work hard to perform at their best, but for some people certain things come more naturally. Our brains are rather like computers and some are programmed better to perform a specific skill than others. It is a fact of life!

I have seen in bands were one player conscientiously practices ever day, while the other does not pick up their instrument from one week to the next and still the latter plays better - because they have more talent. If the non-practising player worked hard they could probably become a great player, while the other would never be more than average however hard they practiced.

We can work hard to make the best of our personal attributes, but we all have a limit to our ability which varies from person to person.

Interesting thread...

Talent exists, in many areas. There are people who have natural attributes that make them better at one thing or another. Some of this is physical, some of it is psychological, some of it is beyond either of those two. There are people born with great strength, speed, coordination and often (but not always) physical size. These folks are often drawn to athletics. I went to college with a guy who was about 6'7". Everyone assumed he was a basketball player. His response was "Nope. Tuba." He probably could have worked really hard and been a decent athlete. I know some folks on here know Dr. James O'Dell...great tuba player. Another fellow, same time, same college, was 5'10". Loved basketball. Was a decent player, had fun doing what he loved to do.

Different brains to different things well. Like the Resident Genius's wife, I will never understand any sort of math related endeavor (although Quicken helps me balance my check book now). I played college sports, but had to work my a$$ off to be average. I played in the college wind ensemble, but had to practice my a$$ off to be average. I have a smattering of talent, but not the gifts that make me a great athlete or great musician. I have been a cop for 25 years; there are things that I do well in that field (negotiator, field training officer, peer support) and things that I don't do as well (interview/interrogate obstinant people, report writing) but the package deal is of (drumroll, please) an average cop.

So...in my opinion (and that and three bucks will get you a latte): Aptitude, talent and interest make for somebody good at what they do.