I've heard a lot of discussions about this lately. Some musicians like Jen Cluff actually say that there isn't really any such thing as "talent"...The level of your playing depends on how much you work and how much your practice method helps you improve...which leads to pedagogy. It is up to the teacher to suit the personality of the student and help he/she to grow based on the pupil's characteristics...But is this really a stretch? Is there such thing as "talent"? What comes first? Talent or hard work?
Well...for my opinion. I think that talent does exist. Some people are just born with the ears to hear or has the personality to feel music and advance much more emotionally. However, hard work prevails over talent, imo. The kids who just sits in class and does nothing will never be the valedictorian, no matter how well he/she does well on standardized tests. And at times, some people are just more privileged than others...ex. better teachers...and...MONEY. I find that many kids who live in rich neighborhoods/towns...or any kid with wealthy parents have the better access to better music education.
Talent vs. Hard Work
Moderators: Classitar, pied_piper, Phineas
-
stewyflute13
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:56 pm
- Location: New Mexico
As sad as it is, I agree- I think talent does exist. And is an important part of playing well. However, the one common string we all have is that everyone has strengths AND weaknesses. I am talented in my ability to express myself musically, I have a very strong sense of rhythm (a strength), but a very poor sense of pitch. However, I believe we often do the things we are good at more, because it makes us feel good to play what we're naturally good at. However, if we practice the things we're not good at MORE than the things we are naturally gifted in, we will improve so much more and be able to take a stab at balancing the playing field between us and other players.
Just as a side note, I think the 2 most important things to getting a job in music are Rhythm and Pitch. However, most people are stronger in one or the other. A beautiful sound is the first thing audience members hear when subconciously observing/ judging a performer but in regards to orchestral musician's, as strict as music director's are, they care most that you are IN TUNE and IN TIME. That is what matters to being a professional musician. Sound is what we hear first, but a judge will be more lenient with this factor as it is relatively more of a personal style/ expression of taste compared to rhythm and pitch, which are absolutes and necessary to playing any music.
Hard work is essential also, but there's no sense in saying that talent doesn't exist. In regards to hard work, I think we have it sort of backwards. We should be thinking in terms of quality rather than quantity. Just as we can get so much more done by practicing our weaknesses more than our strengths, I think that we shouldn't be thinking "Oh I'll play these exercises every day for 8 hours a day and then I'll be a great flutist" but rather "How can I creatively problem solve to improve the flaws in my playing in the shortest amount of time?" We can get so much more done in an aware creative practicing for 20 minutes than 8 hours of mindless exercises. We also need to take care of ourselves and have frequent breaks in our practicing because rest contributes to growth in any field. That is how I would describe hard work, not the overly-driven common practice of following the standard "doing my exercises for a certain amount of hours every day" which too often only leads to tension and body misalignment which will actually make our playing worse.
Just as a side note, I think the 2 most important things to getting a job in music are Rhythm and Pitch. However, most people are stronger in one or the other. A beautiful sound is the first thing audience members hear when subconciously observing/ judging a performer but in regards to orchestral musician's, as strict as music director's are, they care most that you are IN TUNE and IN TIME. That is what matters to being a professional musician. Sound is what we hear first, but a judge will be more lenient with this factor as it is relatively more of a personal style/ expression of taste compared to rhythm and pitch, which are absolutes and necessary to playing any music.
Hard work is essential also, but there's no sense in saying that talent doesn't exist. In regards to hard work, I think we have it sort of backwards. We should be thinking in terms of quality rather than quantity. Just as we can get so much more done by practicing our weaknesses more than our strengths, I think that we shouldn't be thinking "Oh I'll play these exercises every day for 8 hours a day and then I'll be a great flutist" but rather "How can I creatively problem solve to improve the flaws in my playing in the shortest amount of time?" We can get so much more done in an aware creative practicing for 20 minutes than 8 hours of mindless exercises. We also need to take care of ourselves and have frequent breaks in our practicing because rest contributes to growth in any field. That is how I would describe hard work, not the overly-driven common practice of following the standard "doing my exercises for a certain amount of hours every day" which too often only leads to tension and body misalignment which will actually make our playing worse.
Of course there is talent, but also there is hard work. I believe that you have to start out working hard before you can get that talent. It takes time, but you can get there. I have had small children ask me how they can sound like me. (the first thing anyone ever comments on is my tone; sounds sweet, but sometimes dark and mysterious.) I tell them that it takes hard work and dedication. They laugh and say nothing more about it. Children these days like to play video games more than doing something productive.
You see, most people don't want to have to put the time and practice into music. They think of it as only a thing some people can do. True, some people might be better at it than others, but you can at least put in the effort. Our school has a small band program; about forty people in it. We are a better concert band than marching band. The school won't pay for any of the things the band needs because our numbers are so low. They just don't realize all the hard work we have put into our craft.
Talent is there, but for most people, hard work is the way to sucess.
You see, most people don't want to have to put the time and practice into music. They think of it as only a thing some people can do. True, some people might be better at it than others, but you can at least put in the effort. Our school has a small band program; about forty people in it. We are a better concert band than marching band. The school won't pay for any of the things the band needs because our numbers are so low. They just don't realize all the hard work we have put into our craft.
Talent is there, but for most people, hard work is the way to sucess.
...MUSIC HAS REPLACED HER HEARTBEAT...
Re: Talent vs. Hard Work
Genius is often mistaken for hard work. However, I do not always agree with Jen Cluff, but I think I understand where she is coming from. Here is my take....remnantpark wrote:I've heard a lot of discussions about this lately. Some musicians like Jen Cluff actually say that there isn't really any such thing as "talent"...The level of your playing depends on how much you work and how much your practice method helps you improve...which leads to pedagogy. It is up to the teacher to suit the personality of the student and help he/she to grow based on the pupil's characteristics...But is this really a stretch? Is there such thing as "talent"? What comes first? Talent or hard work?
Well...for my opinion. I think that talent does exist. Some people are just born with the ears to hear or has the personality to feel music and advance much more emotionally. However, hard work prevails over talent, imo. The kids who just sits in class and does nothing will never be the valedictorian, no matter how well he/she does well on standardized tests. And at times, some people are just more privileged than others...ex. better teachers...and...MONEY. I find that many kids who live in rich neighborhoods/towns...or any kid with wealthy parents have the better access to better music education.
1. Raw Talent
I think raw talent exists. However, in order to fit in to a particular realm, you have to conform to it. I know a lot of musicians that cant read, or do not know anything about theory, but they are great players. Do they still have to practice to get where they are at? Yes! No one can just pick up an instrument and sound good on it from day one. There had to be some kind of practice, even if it is memorizing the song that you want to play.
2. The Downside
If you are going to play in an orchestra, large band, studio band, etc.., you have to learn and practice techniques that conform to playing in a group like reading music, dynamics, intonation, etc... You cannot learn this over night either. Things like these require practice, and in most cases guidance(lessons). Now, I am sure some one will bring up someone like Ian Anderson, Eric Dolphy or Rassaan Roland Kirk. These guys did not play in an orchestra section, these players are soloists!
3. The money thing!
This has always been an issue. What and how a person plays is very dependent of exposure, and peers. IMHO, who you grow up and hang around with is a key factor in what kind of music you are going to play, and how long you were going to pursue it. Child activities like organized sports, dancing/ballet, boy scouts, ROTC, Etc... all cost parents quite a bit. Let alone musical instruments. We have not even gotten to the cost of private lessons, recitals, costumes, protective gear, etc... I have seen very few great musicians come from poor families. The ones that do had parents who sacrificed a lot, lived in an area with a lot of musicians, or played the instruments supplied but their church.
I really have a lot of respect for Jen Cluff. However, you must consider her audience. Classical students! She generally does not cover too many subjects out of that realm. If you follow her advice as a Classical flutist, you will not go wrong. However, I find her advice a little too focused at times. Still, she is a great educator, and a great person. She has nothing but good intentions when it comes to flute education.
Phineas
There is that quote by Edison that goes:
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.
It is a beautiful quote... Still, there is also that 1% - talent!
I mean, two persons who practice for exactly the same amount of time would probably achieve different results, so there is also something like talent, although creating EXACTLY the same conditions for practicing is basically impossible I think.
Oh, and then there is that other quote I posted in another thread about the 10,000 hours necessary to become a virtuoso....
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.
It is a beautiful quote... Still, there is also that 1% - talent!
I mean, two persons who practice for exactly the same amount of time would probably achieve different results, so there is also something like talent, although creating EXACTLY the same conditions for practicing is basically impossible I think.
Oh, and then there is that other quote I posted in another thread about the 10,000 hours necessary to become a virtuoso....
I think the word talent has a pretty complex meaning. Anyone who plays an instrument has different areas of difficulty... a student and I being the top students at our teacher's studio has different things to work on. I have the musical phrasing and emotion, and she possesses the greater technique and sight-reading. I have to work extra hard on technique when it just comes naturally to her... and I feel stupid when we sight-read duets because I just lose focus and she's way ahead of me XP
I think some people are afraid of the word 'talent', not to say that rudely! But I think the idea freaks some people out, and then they proceed to say that it doesn't exist. I find myself to be fearful when I hear a nine-year-old playing the Chaminade with so much better musicality than me, haha. But then I realize it is just one of her greater strengths.
IMO I guess talent would really mean 'greater strength in a particular area'
I think some people are afraid of the word 'talent', not to say that rudely! But I think the idea freaks some people out, and then they proceed to say that it doesn't exist. I find myself to be fearful when I hear a nine-year-old playing the Chaminade with so much better musicality than me, haha. But then I realize it is just one of her greater strengths.
IMO I guess talent would really mean 'greater strength in a particular area'
A lack of professionalism makes room for creativity. That's my excuse >.>
-
fluteguy18
- Posts: 2311
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:11 pm
I've been waiting to chime in on this one. Most of what I would have said has already been said. It does remind me of my thoughts on a certain passage in a book that I (and several members of this board) read. The book was: "Nothing but the Best: The Struggle for Perfection at The Juilliard School."
It was a fascinating book. About 40 or so pages into it, the book discusses their recipe for success. Talent+Money+Charm=success. Talent you either do or do not have, but concerts can still be played without talent (99% perspiration!). Money you either do or do not have, but if you don't have it, you can get it with Charm. You must develop your sense of charm, and by charming the right people you can get the wealthy to sponsor you. You can go a little ways on one of these things. With two, you'll go far. With three, the sky is the limit.
This I think is true unfortunately. I saw it first hand at a flute seminar I went to at the beginning of June. There was a girl there who had everyone eating out of the palm of her hand. She had it all: charm, talent, and money. Out of the three, her amount of talent was the least of them. She was technically gifted, but her charm and money had bought powerful connections that ultimately make up for her lack of musicality. She has been an endorsed 'Young Artist' by a flute maker since the age of 13. Consequently she already has a career.
Examples:
Money can buy you a career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins
audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0
Money+Charm= Career: Most celebrities. Taylor Swift for example. Listen to any of her live performances. (Not criticizing her ability as a songwriter though.).
Money+Charm+Talent= Immortal Stardom:
I do want to note that if you have an amazing amount of talent, hard work and charm that you can definitely make it without money. James Galway is a perfect example of this. Jim Walker is as well. Both are legendary performers who came from humble beginnings. Galway came from a poor family in Belfast, and Walker came from a small humble town in Kentucky. (I've been to his hometown and it's REALLY small, and quite... modest financially.). And now they are both very well off financially, with careers worthy of envy.
Oh, if you want to know more about Galway's beginnings, I DEFINITELY recommend reading his new autobiography. It's excellent.
It was a fascinating book. About 40 or so pages into it, the book discusses their recipe for success. Talent+Money+Charm=success. Talent you either do or do not have, but concerts can still be played without talent (99% perspiration!). Money you either do or do not have, but if you don't have it, you can get it with Charm. You must develop your sense of charm, and by charming the right people you can get the wealthy to sponsor you. You can go a little ways on one of these things. With two, you'll go far. With three, the sky is the limit.
This I think is true unfortunately. I saw it first hand at a flute seminar I went to at the beginning of June. There was a girl there who had everyone eating out of the palm of her hand. She had it all: charm, talent, and money. Out of the three, her amount of talent was the least of them. She was technically gifted, but her charm and money had bought powerful connections that ultimately make up for her lack of musicality. She has been an endorsed 'Young Artist' by a flute maker since the age of 13. Consequently she already has a career.
Examples:
Money can buy you a career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins
audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0
Money+Charm= Career: Most celebrities. Taylor Swift for example. Listen to any of her live performances. (Not criticizing her ability as a songwriter though.).
Money+Charm+Talent= Immortal Stardom:
I do want to note that if you have an amazing amount of talent, hard work and charm that you can definitely make it without money. James Galway is a perfect example of this. Jim Walker is as well. Both are legendary performers who came from humble beginnings. Galway came from a poor family in Belfast, and Walker came from a small humble town in Kentucky. (I've been to his hometown and it's REALLY small, and quite... modest financially.). And now they are both very well off financially, with careers worthy of envy.
Oh, if you want to know more about Galway's beginnings, I DEFINITELY recommend reading his new autobiography. It's excellent.
You just had to go there didnt you! Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like that. I reserve the right not to reveal my opinion about certain artists.fluteguy18 wrote:
Money can buy you a career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins
audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0
Phineas
@Fluteguy18 Yeah, that book was a good book! I read threw it at least 3 times....lol I find something new and interesting every time I read it! They should make it a movie!
